Balance. Why do we need it?

[Royce]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

[JeenLeen]

I would just like to understand the goal that is all.

I think the biggest part is two issues:
1) weaker classes can be less fun, because they are outshined (or at least can be outshined) easily by higher-tier classes. When the druid's animal companion is a better fighter than the fighter, the fighter's player may feel like they aren't appreciated or contributing. While that doesn't impact fun for everything, it can for some (many?) players.
2) 3.5 seems to posit in the PHB that the classes are equal and meant to be balanced. For example, a level 5 fighter should be comparable in power to a level 5 wizard.

So balance isn't necessary in game design, but it seems to be a premise of D&D 3.5 that the game fails at. And the lack of balance, especially if it comes as a surprise, can lead to lack of fun for some players.

From what little I've seen, 5th edition does a good job of better-balanced classes without making them all identical. My thief can contribute and feel special, without being a wizard under another name.

[Royce]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

[Knaight]

It's a system specific phenomenon based on a few design choices. Notably:
1) The system is built around overcoming challenges. That's the focus, and thus how good characters are at doing stuff is the focus. Characters are defined by attributes, skills, and various forms of powers and defenses first and foremost.
2) The system is built around having fights. Just look at the experience system, what gets lots of rules, etc. Heck, look at the example play sections.
3) The combat system is glacial. Every fight thus takes a while, and as mentioned above there's going to be a lot of them.

This particular combination makes it valuable to have characters who are all roughly comparable at doing stuff, with the value of stuff weighted by how often it comes up and thus heavily tipped in favor of killing stuff in combat. This creates a value for that particular kind of balance, because that particular kind of balance is what translates into all the players getting to have comparable influence over the game and comparable time spent interacting with it, which are more fundamental goals (someone who just sits on the sideline never getting to actually play is probably not going to have a good time). Note that this doesn't mean that they all have to be good at doing the same stuff, just that it's valuable to have stuff that you're particularly good at.

Different assumptions can lead to different balances, where "balance" as used in a D&D sense doesn't apply. My favorite examples here are Smallville and Now Playing, which are about character conflict where the focus is on interesting characters having complicated relationships. You can and are expected to have characters like both Lois Lane and Superman in Smallville, and it works, where bland loners are going to be left with nothing to do. Now Playing is broader, but can handle major power discrepancies just fine while also punishing characters unlikely to be involved in character conflict. Meanwhile that conflict-drama balance can be ignored in D&D, where a character who really has everything together and not a lot of ways of getting sucked into character drama by the people they know can work just fine, provided that they're good at doing stuff.

[JeenLeen]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Yeah, I think it can come down to play style. Balance only matters if it matters to the players.

That said, while the adventuring group is a group working together to tackle bad guys (or whatever the goal is), the players may want to be folk playing a game where their characters (and thus they themselves) get the spotlight and contribute. Which I think is a lot of what Knaight's post is pointing towards.
IC, my fighter may not care that the wizard outshines him in a lot of stuff. He wants to be part of the heroic struggle and do what he can.
OOC, I'm feeling like my character might as well not be there and am bored, waiting for the next scene while I swing my sword.

[Rynjin]

Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance?

Because having party members that can equally contribute makes the game more fun for everybody.


For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another.

Good for you. That means you shouldn't care if the game is more balanced. It's a win-win.


Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon?

That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

The balance issues come in with three things:

1.) Overly specialized classes like Fighter (that is all about combat, and has no class features or real options to contribute to anything else).

2.) Overly generalized classes that excel at everything, like most full casters.

3.) Classes that exist within the same niche as another but do everything less good. See Monk vs Fighter; Both are combat specialized to the exclusion of most else. One is objectively better than the other at that specialty.


Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame.

Balance =/= homogeneity.


I would just like to understand the goal that is all.

Expecting more thoughtful and mindful game design from the people taking my money. If I'm paying for a product and then need to fix most of its problems myself, I'm a sucker. I'm doing their job for them.

An unbalanced game is a poorly designed one. There will always be some degree of imbalance, some option will always be the best, some option will always be the worst, but a good game designer looks to close the gap between the weakest and strongest option (and by extension everything in between) as much as possible.

Making the game more balanced is good for everyone and bad for nobody except people that revel in being able to lord their superiority over other players. I.e. *******s, and nobody cares about them.

[Psyren]

Balance is a spectrum, not a single point. It depends on how much of it you want.

Me, I like having SOME balance (i.e. no Ice Assassin Aleaxes running around) but at the same time I think spellcasters should have a higher power ceiling than martial classes. But there's a lot of daylight between 3e and 4e in this regard, and for me, PF hits that sweet spot reasonably well with a modicum of gentleman's agreement in place. (I'm not experienced enough with it to know for sure, but I think Starfinder also balances the casters and noncasters well.)

[CharonsHelper]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Are you sure that you played older editions? Fighters were totally competitive in D&D pre-3.x up until rather high levels. Even in 3.x martials are fine until 9ish (hence the popularity of E6 & E8).

[Lazymancer]

Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all.
Balance is not about fun, it's about money. Selling "adventures" (game modules) is a business. Consequently, anything that hinders the use of game modules is considered undesirable:

1) Some classes (Tier 1-2) can derail campaign even without trying - which is a bad thing for railroading GMs (or anyone who uses scripted adventures), since it paralyzes their game.

2) Other classes (Tier 5-6 often; Tier 4 rarely) can't do what they are expected to do (scripted adventures often require passing specific trials to proceed further), stopping the game due to their incompetence.

Consequently, both situations are referred to as "disbalanced" by game developers and GMs.

However, if party chooses their own adventures (i.e. challenges do not scale automatically, as people level up), you can't experience this disbalance: there are no expectations of specific level of competence PCs have to exhibit.

[CharonsHelper]

Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame.



That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

I'll +1 Rynjin's sentiment.

You seem to be confusing balance with symmetry. Symmetry is the easiest way to balance and the one that 4e chose (which led to issues), but it certainly isn't the only method.

[Rynjin]

Balance is a spectrum, not a single point. It depends on how much of it you want.

Me, I like having SOME balance (i.e. no Ice Assassin Aleaxes running around) but at the same time I think spellcasters should have a higher power ceiling than martial classes. But there's a lot of daylight between 3e and 4e in this regard, and for me, PF hits that sweet spot reasonably well with a modicum of gentleman's agreement in place. (I'm not experienced enough with it to know for sure, but I think Starfinder also balances the casters and noncasters well.)

Starfinder takes the bold approach of cutting out full casters entirely; all the casters in SF are 6ers.

This isn't a bad move, since Pathfinder's most balanced and fun classes are in that sweet spot of getting four to six levels of casting, a boat load of cool class features, and multiple build options. PF only runs into issues at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum: Full casters, which have enough options that a given player can be either completely useless or god-like based on spell choice (though casters are more forgiving since all but two can swap out spells known and get better over the course of the game), and complete mundanes (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger) that need extreme system knowledge and optimization to play even close to the same tier as the middle caste of character.

Everything between Barbarian and Magus functions perfectly fine in a party together. It's when you try to have the "classic flavor" of Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue that the game begins to fall to pieces at about level 9.

[Royce]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

[Lazymancer]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.
Yes. If you play freeform instead of D&D you do not suffer from any flaws of D&D.

Question: does this prove that there are no flaws?

[Zanos]

That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

I don't completely agree. I think it's fine for a character class or build to have no applicable competence in social settings or combat or whatever, as long as the game is set such that the areas where they are meaningfully competent come up often. The stinky barbarian savage doesn't necessarily need to be able to contribute to the party infiltrating the grand ball, although he might be the only one who can kill the two guards at the back door quick enough to stop them from raising the alarm.

From a more general point I agree that characters should be able to contribute equivalently, but that doesn't have to spread out into contributing in every scenario.


What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Yes, I imagine the mechanics don't matter much if you literally do not use them.

[FreddyNoNose]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.

[Knaight]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Stats and mechanics and clever ideas are in no way opposed in problem solving, particularly as stats and mechanics are generally tools, where clever ideas have to do mostly with lateral thinking that produces unorthodox tool use to solve problems. Having more tools in no way interferes with this.

Also the stats and mechanics are what make D&D D&D, as opposed to some other game. Clever ideas and roleplaying exist everywhere*, so if we're looking at why D&D specifically has a certain behavior then mechanics are what we should be looking at, along with setting specifics.

*Mostly. I suspect that the FATAL and RaHoWa "communities" are largely incapable of cleverness, and that the "roleplaying" therein is just them exhibiting their disgusting power fantasies.


Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.

The days of 3d6 keep them attributes also had much smaller and much less consistently applied attribute modifiers and classes that were vastly better balanced than those in 3.x - a Wizard or MU in comparison to a Fighter or Fighting Man had less of an edge on a level to level basis, and that's without accounting for smaller changes between levels and the matter of class specific experience tables likely to result in a higher leveled Fighter/Fighting Man. The balance was in a lot of ways tighter.

[Rynjin]

I don't completely agree. I think it's fine for a character class or build to have no applicable competence in social settings or combat or whatever, as long as the game is set such that the areas where they are meaningfully competent come up often. The stinky barbarian savage doesn't necessarily need to be able to contribute to the party infiltrating the grand ball, although he might be the only one who can kill the two guards at the back door quick enough to stop them from raising the alarm.

From a more general point I agree that characters should be able to contribute equivalently, but that doesn't have to spread out into contributing in every scenario.

As a quick example of what I mean, stealing form you, it's not so much that every character needs to contribute in every conceivable scenario that falls under the purview of, say, "social combat", so yes your "smelly barbarian savage" does not need to be able to help you infiltrate the ball (though the game should shove as much of that kind of thing as possible into skills so the Barbarian CAN take them if he wants) but that same savage should be quite capable of causing a handy distraction with his poor manners, or intimidating a lord by his mere presence to give you a better bargaining position, that sort of thing.

Significant (if not equal) contribution by different means in different subsets of the scenario.

[Lazymancer]

Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.
Nonsense. This is has nothing to do with entitlement.

Back in the day, players could play on Low Difficulty. Today it is expected for challenges to scale automatically. Consequently, for those game a certain level of competence is mandatory.

Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.

[Lazymancer]

... classes that were vastly better balanced than those in 3.x - a Wizard or MU in comparison to a Fighter or Fighting Man had less of an edge on a level to level basis, and that's without accounting for smaller changes between levels and the matter of class specific experience tables likely to result in a higher leveled Fighter/Fighting Man. The balance was in a lot of ways tighter.
What balance are you talking about?

Do you remember how much of a gamechanger Charm Person was?

[heavyfuel]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas.

It's not always about stats or mechanics, but no amount of RP and clever ideas will ever be better than the 3 words "I cast X".

Also, clever ideas that come from using your spells creatively tend to be many times better than clever ideas that don't

[Psyren]

Balance is not about fun, it's about money. Selling "adventures" (game modules) is a business. Consequently, anything that hinders the use of game modules is considered undesirable:

1) Some classes (Tier 1-2) can derail campaign even without trying - which is a bad thing for railroading GMs (or anyone who uses scripted adventures), since it paralyzes their game.

2) Other classes (Tier 5-6 often; Tier 4 rarely) can't do what they are expected to do (scripted adventures often require passing specific trials to proceed further), stopping the game due to their incompetence.

Consequently, both situations are referred to as "disbalanced" by game developers and GMs.

However, if party chooses their own adventures (i.e. challenges do not scale automatically, as people level up), you can't experience this disbalance: there are no expectations of specific level of competence PCs have to exhibit.

I agree somewhat, but for your first point - the amount of T1 and T2 that derail modules in practice is pretty low. Those consarned wizards and clerics did not hurt Paizo's sales by existing, and the majority of people picking up those classes did not end up chain-gating Solars or whatever.


Starfinder takes the bold approach of cutting out full casters entirely; all the casters in SF are 6ers.

This isn't a bad move, since Pathfinder's most balanced and fun classes are in that sweet spot of getting four to six levels of casting, a boat load of cool class features, and multiple build options. PF only runs into issues at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum: Full casters, which have enough options that a given player can be either completely useless or god-like based on spell choice (though casters are more forgiving since all but two can swap out spells known and get better over the course of the game), and complete mundanes (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger) that need extreme system knowledge and optimization to play even close to the same tier as the middle caste of character.

Everything between Barbarian and Magus functions perfectly fine in a party together. It's when you try to have the "classic flavor" of Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue that the game begins to fall to pieces at about level 9.

Honestly I'm fine revising the definition of "full caster" to be "1-6." There's very little in the 7-9 range that wouldn't just fit better as a ritual anyway imo.

[Knaight]

What balance are you talking about?

Do you remember how much of a gamechanger Charm Person was?

Charm Person was a very effective spell for a very limited spell slot, but it also has major limitations (starting with it being utterly useless against large selections of creatures). Early D&D through early 2e didn't have anything remotely comparable to 3.x casters.


Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.
There's a few conditions under which rolling stats works, and an old-school sandbox is only one of them. What they tend to have in common is that they're for characters that you don't play exclusively for a long period of time. If you're swapping between a roster of characters between adventures, rolling for stats can work. If you're in a large scale political game bouncing between a dozen PC groups working at cross purposes for different factions, rolling for stats can work. If you're in a generational game where a given PC is dead of old age or retired after five sessions and you've moved on by then rolling for stats can work.

So on and so forth.

[Cosi]

People are underestimating the value of balance to DMs.

If characters have equal and predictable abilities, you can pick up challenges and run them without worrying. This makes the game much easier. If they do not, you have to check every challenge against your PCs. Having game balance makes being a DM much easier, and it makes it easier in the places that are most often cited as obstacles to good DMing.

[FreddyNoNose]

Nonsense. This is has nothing to do with entitlement.

Back in the day, players could play on Low Difficulty. Today it is expected for challenges to scale automatically. Consequently, for those game a certain level of competence is mandatory.

Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.

Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.

[Gullintanni]

The balance struck by AD&D was never such that the classes were meant to be balanced against each other.

Instead, classes were meant to have roles, each of which made them essential to the party.

Thieves disabled traps, a vital function in a game with low HP totals and lethal no save traps.

Fighters dealt consistent, reliable HP damage in a game where, once again, HP totals were low.

Clerics healed and handled the (frequent and deadly) undead threat.

Mages were Swiss army knives that could solve most problems with the proper investment of time and energy, but in combat, their tactics were very easy to disrupt. Which meant monsters with lower defenses (compared to 3.5) had to risk either getting cut to ribbons by the fighter, or let the mage finish casting spells.

Systemic changes as editions progressed permitted primary spellcasters to easily subsume other party roles within their own umbrella with virtually no cost. More spell slots meant casters were more versatile. Standard action casting time coupled with the introduction of casting time meant spellcasting no longer realistically risked disruption. Higher HP totals and weaker saving throws made eliminating opponents via health damage less efficient. In AD&D, high level creatures and characters (especially fighter classed characters) usually only failed saves on ones.

While primary casters typically had more raw power, they were far more limited, and they worked best working in concert with other classes. Role based balance was eviscerated by 3.5, and internal balance between classes was not introduced alongside.

To answer the OP: We need balance for the sake of fun. But IMHO, role based balance is what we should aim for. Different but equal.

[Peat]

To me, balance means pretty much everything in the game should have some use and that use shouldn't come with the caveat "But why would you do X when Y does it so much better?" Not everything being the same, but everything having a purpose.

Because that means if I see something cool, I can pick it up and use it at pretty much any table without worrying about whether I'm going to have no fun because it's nowhere near as cool at the table, or whether I'm going to rob other people's fun because they're no longer cool, or rob everyone's fun because I broke the adventure without really meaning to.

Sure, you can talk and cobble your way around these things if you're reasonable human beings. But some people temporarily forget to be that, sometimes you smash the campaign before you can cobble your way around... and stuff. Less work too. And less having to come up with new stuff at every table top.

[martixy]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

Many are used to other forms of multiplayer gaming, mostly PvP in which there is an understandable desire for balance between player avatars. This notion is so deeply ingrained in the general consciousness, very few question the premise on which it is built - PvP, a premise which is untrue in D&D at large.

[Lazymancer]

There's a few conditions under which rolling stats works, and an old-school sandbox is only one of them.
Okay. Add one-shots to the list. However, everything else boils down to not playing D&D.

Also, you did not persuade me that early D&D casters are incomparable to 3e casters. As for Charm Person, I'd like to point out that it is first level spell that is clearly superior to 3e Sleep (even if it targets only one enemy).



Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.
Even by local standards this is an outstanding post. I'm impressed.

[Deadline]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Even back in the earlier editions, it was a well known joke that the fighter's job changed from fighting monsters to getting the wizard a tasty beverage while he altered reality to suit his whims. The only thing that changed in 3.5 is the point at which that happens.

If you are able to have a game where you roleplay your way through every challenge and never have to roll dice or cast spells, then yeah, you aren't going to see the discrepancy. For games where the dice rolls matter, or at least factor into the outcome significantly, you'll start to see this problem crop up (in 3.5) around the middle levels (7-13), and be super problematic beyond that.

To your point about it being a group, not an individual, you are absolutely correct. However, at the levels I mention above, it starts to very rapidly become obvious to most involved when a class starts to fall behind. And that gap can be a noticeable blight on the fun of individuals and the group. Sure, with a great problem solving mind behind it that gap is harder to see, but the answer to "at mid-high levels, what is better, a fighter or a wizard" hasn't really changed since 1st edition. It has only gotten more pronounced with 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

I think balance is good to the point that the characters can contribute to the same challenges meaningfully. If you look at like Rifts and one Guy is a human scout with 30 hp, human skills, and stats in the 12-18s, and the guy next to him is a dragon with 8,000 Hp, basically T1 casting and stats in the 30s, it’s hard to make a fight where they can both contribute and the scout not just die. Not impossible, but hard. By that standard, at many levels, 3.5 isn’t awfully balanced.

More problematic, imo, is that 3.5 has problems meeting design expectations. There’s a class called fighter which is one of the worst classes at fighting. The martial artist class is even worse. I’m less concerned about the fact that Druid can do things that fighter can never hope to do, than I am about the fact that a low system mastery fighter can be intended to be Gamorra, the deadliest fighter alive, when in fact they can fail to beat what should be reasonable enemies and may well wind up worse than the Druid’s bear. That, for me, undermines game immersion and it isn’t fun when you can’t mechanically carry out your character design.

[Luccan]

I think to most people, Balance would mean being able to contribute very well in your class's specialized area or well enough in several areas (like a bard), as well as having potential to be helpful outisde that. The problem is 3.5 is (unintentionally) not built that way. As many have pointed out: if you want to be a good fighter, pick a differeny class. And that's in their area of supposed expertise. Outside that, most fighters aren't worth their weight in guano

Edit: to be clear, this applies to most martials. 9th level casters tend to have the inverse problem: they can potentially do anything or make doing that thing irrelevant.

[ryu]

I think to most people, Balance would mean being able to contribute very well in your class's specialized area or well enough in several areas (like a bard), as well as having potential to be helpful outisde that. The problem is 3.5 is (unintentionally) not built that way. As many have pointed out: if you want to be a good fighter, pick a differeny class. And that's in their area of supposed expertise. Outside that, most fighters aren't worth their weight in guano

Edit: to be clear, this applies to most martials. 9th level casters tend to have the inverse problem: they can potentially do anything or make doing that thing irrelevant.

Even among t1s you have specializations in the sense some classes expend less effort or more effort to perform any given task. It's less about physical capability of doing any given necessary thing and more about who has the simplest time of doing it.

[Nifft]

Why do "we" need balance? Well, I'm probably never going to play at your table, so there is no such "we".

Since there is no "we", I don't actually need you to agree with anything -- but if you're honestly interested in why people feel that class balance is deficient in 3.5e, I'd be happy to help.


So, why do I want a game where options that are presented as equally valid actually kick butt in roughly equal volume?

Because it saves me from having to explain a game designer's bad decision, and it saves my players some heartbreak.

Note that I don't say much about balance except in so far as the game leads a player to believe that balance exists.


Let's look at a game which I like which has significant character imbalance. In the FATE game Dresden Files RPG, you can play a Wizard or a cop. Wizards tell physics to shut up and sit down. Cops have guns. (Wizards also have guns.)

Why would anyone play a cop? Because if you play a mundane character, you spend no character points on supernatural stuff, so you get a lot of Fate Points. (Wizards also get a Fate Point... probably just one.) You can spend a Fate Point as a player to tell the plot to shut up and sit down.

DFRPG Wizards have extra in-character agency (ICA), and cops have more direct player agency (DPA). One character may have objectively more plot impact or less plot impact, but the two players have roughly equal plot impact overall -- one through in-character game mechanics, the other through out-of-character game mechanics.


Now let's look at D&D again.

Two characters (Fighter and Wizard), one of whom has massive in-character agency, the other of whom has... less. And nothing to make up for that. Probably because the game's designers didn't think there was a deficit of agency.


The D&D PHB told my players that a Fighter was as good a choice as a Druid.

The D&D PHB lied.

I have to clean up the consequences of that lie.

That's why I need balance: it's less work for me.

[Yogibear41]

I personally think some classes SHOULD be more powerful than others.

For instances in my opinion the Paladin should more or less be just a better fighter.

The paladin if he chooses to specialize in one form of combat should be just as good as a fighter specialized in that form of combat IMO.
Say a fighter specializes in fighting with a greatsword, power attacking, cleaving etc. A paladin who specializes in that type of fighting should have all the same abilities as that fighter.
(I'm talking stuff like weapon specialization, melee weapon mastery, weapon supremacy, etc. that are generally fighters only)

In terms of combat ability they should be equal.
Then on top of that the paladin gets his divine casting/abilities added on. So that the Paladin is essentially a Fighter Plus.

To compensate for the added power the Paladin has to follow a specific code of conduct, related to his alignment and deity's ethos. While the fighter can do essentially whatever he wants.

IMO the role playing aspect/restraints of the Paladin justifies him gaining extra powers.


Granted for the most part in 3.5 I believe Paladins and Fighters are both considered tier 5, maybe tier 4 and are thus on more or less "equal footing"
(Its also my opinion that that 3.5 Paladin is only a shadow of what it should have been power wise, but I won't get into that)

On another note, I think people give wizards way to much credit in the power department, sure they can do unbelievable things and have X number of contingencies and defenses in place, but at the end of the day those d4 hit dice will always leave them squishy and potentially vulnerable.

I'll always remember the story of the level 14 chosen of mystra wizard who decided he wanted to tango with a red dragon, decided he would sneak attack the dragon while it was sleeping in its dormant volcano home. Said wizard zoomed in with all his magical might and spells prepared and was just about ready to unleash hell, when the dragon awoke, the wizard realized the volcano was a dead magic zone, and the dragon proceeded to have a 14d4 snack.

[Luccan]

So your wizard didn't do his research and got canned?

Edit: to be clear, a wizard is undoubtedly the weakest t1, particularly without spells. This is because it must learn its spells by hand and has low HD. If you were a Cleric or Druid, you might have survived the attack. On top of that Clerics and Druids get their whole spell list inately

[Grod_The_Giant]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.
Because stats and mechanics, ideally, provide more and newer tools to use in solving problems. Here, allow me to metaphor:


A Commoner has a hammer, a screwdriver, and a saw. And that's great! You can do plenty of things with those three tools, if you put your mind to it.
A Fighter has those same tools, but he's also got a level and a power drill. He's maybe a bit better at general-purpose stuff, but he's also got a totally new tool that's really good at a one task. Sure, you COULD use your basic tools to jury rig a way to put holes in things, but having that power drill makes it easy enough that it's no longer a big deal. Drilling holes becomes a new standard practice, and you can build things you couldn't before.
A Bard, perhaps, has the same three tools as the Commoner.. but they've also got a power screwdriver, an awl, some wrenches, a jigsaw, a bunch of sandpaper, and... you get the idea. You can still build the same stuff as the Commoner, but you also have the tools to make so much more stuff--and to make it faster, stronger, and easier. "Build a scaffold" becomes a part of a larger, more exciting project, rather than a big project all by itself.


You can see the problem with having the guy with three tools in the same group as the guy with ten, yes? You're not bringing much to the table--even the Fighter has a power drill the Bard doesn't. Everything you do with roleplaying, the Bard can do... but they can do so much more besides. THAT'S why abilities matter.

(To continue the metaphor, the Wizard is the guy with an entire Home Depot's worth of power tools back home, and the cash to bring in outside contractors when he wants them. He can only bring one toolbox at a time, but goddamn if he doesn't have it packed with fancy stuff. And, like, you can just fill your toolbox with a power drill with a bunch of bits, or you can take a couple of really good multi-purpose tools, or you wheel out a penetrating sonar system and an MRI machine one day and come back the next with a bunch of expensive tools you never knew existed but which, I dunno, are exactly designed to build a fence in 30 seconds)

[Svata]

Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.

Yes. Entitled. To a character that can actually meaningfully contribute. Wow, what an unreasonable expectation, to want your character being there vs not existing at all to matter to the group at all. If they can do it all by themselves as easily as they can with your help... why are you even there?

[ryu]

Because stats and mechanics, ideally, provide more and newer tools to use in solving problems. Here, allow me to metaphor:


A Commoner has a hammer, a screwdriver, and a saw. And that's great! You can do plenty of things with those three tools, if you put your mind to it.
A Fighter has those same tools, but he's also got a level and a power drill. He's maybe a bit better at general-purpose stuff, but he's also got a totally new tool that's really good at a one task. Sure, you COULD use your basic tools to jury rig a way to put holes in things, but having that power drill makes it easy enough that it's no longer a big deal. Drilling holes becomes a new standard practice, and you can build things you couldn't before.
A Bard, perhaps, has the same three tools as the Commoner.. but they've also got a power screwdriver, an awl, some wrenches, a jigsaw, a bunch of sandpaper, and... you get the idea. You can still build the same stuff as the Commoner, but you also have the tools to make so much more stuff--and to make it faster, stronger, and easier. "Build a scaffold" becomes a part of a larger, more exciting project, rather than a big project all by itself.


You can see the problem with having the guy with three tools in the same group as the guy with ten, yes? You're not bringing much to the table--even the Fighter has a power drill the Bard doesn't. Everything you do with roleplaying, the Bard can do... but they can do so much more besides. THAT'S why abilities matter.

(To continue the metaphor, the Wizard is the guy with an entire Home Depot's worth of power tools back home, and the cash to bring in outside contractors when he wants them. He can only bring one toolbox at a time, but goddamn if he doesn't have it packed with fancy stuff)

I'd actually say in this metaphor wizard is probably Rick teaching people about True Level. No, those capitals aren't accidental.

[Gnaeus]

Yes. Entitled. To a character that can actually meaningfully contribute. Wow, what an unreasonable expectation, to want your character being there vs not existing at all to matter to the group at all. If they can do it all by themselves as easily as they can with your help... why are you even there?

There are lots of good IC reasons to be there. I played a kinfolk in a werewolf game for years and he was one of my favorite characters. At no point was he ever the equal in any real capacity to the werewolf PCs. But he was fun to play and he was fun in the story.

The difference between that and D&D was that everyone knew, IC and OOC, that that was how those characters were supposed to work. The imbalance didn’t subtract from realism or character or story, it added to it. I mechanically made the character I wanted to play. But when I want to be a character from crouching tiger hidden dragon, and I play a monk, and I wind up useless, the imbalance is preventing me from mechanically executing my concept (super ninja). There is a class for “mechanically incompetent martial”. That’s warrior and it plays as it should. Fighter doesn’t play as it should.

[death390]

dear god i love that metaphor. and see this is what so many people don't get about dnd 3.5

my dnd group i am part of currently has 6 players (including myself) and 1 DM (i help when i can). EVERYSIGNLE one of them is mundane (technically several rangers but lets be honest they mostly dont count as spellcasters). being the only person to run a spellcaster i have to cover us 6 ways from sunday. that said i need to fairly often replace my character from play to prevent them from getting pissy at the character due to overshadowing them.

in our latest campaign one of the 2 rangers swapped track for trapfinding ACF and is our trapfinder. this is the first time that i have not had to be our trapfinder on top of everything else.

this is party comp.
Survivalist dwarven fighter. (i hit things, good RP-er)[1mo in group. lifetime RPG experience]

Bodyguard dwarven fighter. (i hit things, good RP-er) [1mo in group. lifetime RPG experience]

Mounted pole-arm halfling ranger. ("i'm new and don't quite understand the system yet") [1mo in group.]

guy A left (wanted to socialize not play, extreemly disruptive), guy B and C had real world problems to deal with and also left. this is why we have 3 new guys.

currently Vow of Poverty Monk. (meatshield, good number of skills, party face at 14 charisma,) [makes new character every 3-4 weeks due to PC death [actually not kidding] 2 years in group, always melee mundane]

Archery dwarven ranger. (trapfinder, "i shoot things") [guy is almost always an archer, always mundane, father is DM]



My gambit of misc spellcasters/ skillmonkeys i have had to swap in-out to prevent being PK-ed[founding member of group of 3 years]

Elven rouge (OG char, got ahold of a 3/day eternal wand of shades from a lvl 5 module and caused a party by DM fiat.)

elven rouge greater manyshot/ splitting-bow
(ok this was too cool an idea to try, but 1 rounding the boss 4 CR above us, solo, might have been a bit much i admit)

elven buff-centric wizard/beguiler/ultimate magus
(only actual PC death, was left with 1 other PC to face digester both lvl 6, got nuked by acid spit with 6 hp left on it)

Elven Beguiler/ Shadowcraft mage (steals the spotlight!!)

Whisper Gnome warlock/beguiler/ the eldritch combo class.
(eldritch blast is OP!!!! 1 of 2 to survive party wipe via possession)

Elven unseelie fey Arcane Swordsage
(limited to trickery spells, due to poor ACF wording [self-imposed]) is current character.

if your looking for a balanced party and need a spellcaster, make sure there is more than 1 or he has to be OP and split focused as all hell. not to mention i had to do trapfinding, knowledge checks, stealth play, magic detection/ identification, battlefield-control, damage [god i love reserve feats now], and generally help move the plot along.

[Yogibear41]

So your wizard didn't do his research and got canned?

Edit: to be clear, a wizard is undoubtedly the weakest t1, particularly without spells. This is because it must learn its spells by hand and has low HD. If you were a Cleric or Druid, you might have survived the attack. On top of that Clerics and Druids get their whole spell list inately


Wasn't my character, and I wasn't there, But I enjoyed the DM telling me the story of how a guy who thought he was more or less the best person to every play the game met his end.

I tend to shy away from Caster focus'd characters and play defensively optimized melee characters. You'll never see me pounce one shot something, but my AC might be high enough that you have to roll a nat 20 to hit, then my damage reduction and healing will probably cancel out your attack if you managed to hit, soon enough anyway.

I find that if you optimize for defense, it still lets you be optimized/powerful, but it also lets the other players do stuff and not feel like you are hogging the spot light.

[Psyren]

The D&D PHB told my players that a Fighter was as good a choice as a Druid.

The D&D PHB lied.

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

[Knaight]

Okay. Add one-shots to the list. However, everything else boils down to not playing D&D.

They're unconventional playstyles, but D&D can be used for them.

With that said the point intended and the point I read were a bit distinct, the difference between "This mechanic is a bad match for D&D" and "This is a bad mechanic that D&D is better for providing an alternative to". My case was mostly against that second point; I broadly agree on the first.

[Nifft]

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers? The designers honestly did. Last I heard they were people.

That kinda precludes your idea about the designers writing something informative like that, since it would tend to contradict what the designers actually thought.


Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

Nope, not equals.

Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).


https://i.imgur.com/P0RJ3OX.png

[Luccan]

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

Not terribly long ago for me. I preferred magic-users, but never thought I could use it to outclass the fighter at fighting or the rogue at roguing. And then I found this forum and other online d&d whats-its. I suppose I should say: I never thought of being a magic user as inherently more helpful than being the guy that hits things or the guy that steals things. Part of this probably came from the fact that I never felt I needed to optimize. I was, as the playtesters of yore, looking at cool things I could do and just picking those, rather than considering what would be most useful/flexible most of the time.

Edit: Perhaps on some level, I did instinctively understand it: when I was younger, we had Core + Complete Warrior. I had 0 interest in Samurai or Swashbuckler because I thought they sucked. When I didn't play a full caster, I almost always played a Rogue, Bard, or Ranger. Because I did at least think that being able to do more things was better than being able to do less things.

[Psyren]

The designers honestly did.

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.





https://i.imgur.com/P0RJ3OX.png


"All-around" meaning even without magic. They're certainly better at that than a druid, whose fighting prowess depends on a supernatural ability or spells.

(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.)

[Fizban]

Psyren and Gullintanni have done most of my work here, but there's still definitions we can clear up:

Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).
And they are. The discrepancy is that your definitions of fighting and best are not the same as the designers. Barbarians are better-if they are only judged on fights where they rage and AC is ignored.

Druids and spellcasters are always the sticking point, but the druid is not better at fighting. They're better at turning into a bear, which has higher dps and lower AC than a fighter, when surviving is the first part of fighting. Turning into a bear has other drawbacks that do not apply to a fighter who can fight without turning into a bear. Turn a fighter into a bear with a Polymorph and the fighter is still better at being a bear than a druid, with more BAB and hp. Druids are better at casting spells, which is not fighting.

Fighting is always having the hp, AC, attack bonus (and so on) to fight, with melee or ranged weapon. Always, as in no durations and no buff rounds. And with the feat system giving variable options like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and maneuver feats, all of which make you better at fighting, getting more of those abilities faster also makes you a better fighter. Even if you "run out" of feats that are "worth" taking, that just means you have room to pile on more untyped always-on buffs which make you better at fighting.

-And ninja'd by Psyren.

[Nifft]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy. Best all-around fighting capabilities.

They did think Gimli should get better fighting capabilities than Gandalf.

They didn't actually succeed in giving the Fighter better fighting capabilities, sadly, but it's what we see spelled out in their statement of class characteristics.

The intent was clear: Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).



"All-around" meaning even without magic. They're certainly better at that than a druid, whose fighting prowess depends on a supernatural ability or spells. Hah, nice try, but nope.



Definition of all-around

1 : considered in or encompassing all aspects : comprehensive -- the best all-around performance so far
2 : competent in many fields -- an all-around performer
3 : having general utility or merit -- an all-around tool


Now I hope you understand the words better. Best all-around fighting capabilities means best when considering all aspects, not in just one purely theoretical scenario ("without magic") which never actually happens.

Also, regarding the Druid, how is her Animal Companion a spell in your game?

Wild Shape is a supernatural ability, but so what?

Best all-around fighting capabilities cannot honestly describe a Fighter. It's a very clear assertion of design intent, and there's simply no way to twist the words whereby that assertion becomes reasonable.



(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.) Actually I said like, not want.

If you're going to successfully nitpick, you have to actually find a nit before you try to pick.


EDIT:

And they are. The discrepancy is that your definitions of fighting and best are not the same as the designers. Barbarians are better-if they are only judged on fights where they rage and AC is ignored.

Druids and spellcasters are always the sticking point, but the druid is not better at fighting. They're better at turning into a bear, which has higher dps and lower AC than a fighter, when surviving is the first part of fighting. Turning into a bear has other drawbacks that do not apply to a fighter who can fight without turning into a bear. Turn a fighter into a bear with a Polymorph and the fighter is still better at being a bear than a druid, with more BAB and hp. Druids are better at casting spells, which is not fighting. Casting a spell which wins a fight really ought to be classified as fighting.

Quite effective fighting, I'll add. Almost certainly more effective than whatever a guy with a pointy stick could have done.


Fighting is always having the hp, AC, and attack bonus to fight, with melee or ranged weapon. Always, as in no durations and no buff rounds. And with the feat system giving variable options like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and maneuver feats, all of which make you better at fighting, getting more of those abilities faster also makes you a better fighter. Even if you "run out" of feats that are "worth" taking, that just means you have room to pile on more untyped always-on buffs which make you better at fighting.

Nah, fighting means winning fights.

What is a fight? It's all the stuff that happens between "roll initiative" and "you win" (or "you escaped", or "would you like your possessions identified?").

- Talking diplomatically while dodging could win a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Casting a spell might win a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Running away and hiding might favorably resolve a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Disabling the control-device on the alien rocket-sled, then tumbling out of melee, and finally jumping off the rocket-sled before it rams into the glacier of black ice and explodes might win a fight. (Fighters can't do any of those things.)

Fighters were supposed to be good at fighting, but they're just not good in practice.

[Psyren]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.



Actually I said like, not want.

That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.

[Nifft]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.
Best all-around fighting capabilities.

Niche cases are technically included, but with the provision that they are niche, and don't generally apply.

If you had a point -- but your point was only valid in 0.001% of games -- then you'd technically have a point, but it would not be a very good point.

So far, you don't even have that.



That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.
Here's what matters: try reading the book instead of waving around the fact that you own it.

Literally 15 seconds of reading found a passage that clearly showed that the designers intent was something which you didn't previously believe possible.

Hopefully I've fixed that belief for you. (Best all-around fighting capabilities.)

[ryu]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.



That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.

Your definition of many is off too. You seem to mean one, wherein a specific limitation is imposed, as opposed to the necessarily plural nature of the word many. While there isn't a hard number for exactly how many you need for many, something tells me that in a system with hundreds if not thousands of methods of killing people being considered best at many requires a significantly larger number than one.

[Peat]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool.

[Psyren]

Your definition of many is off too. You seem to mean one, wherein a specific limitation is imposed, as opposed to the necessarily plural nature of the word many. While there isn't a hard number for exactly how many you need for many, something tells me that in a system with hundreds if not thousands of methods of killing people being considered best at many requires a significantly larger number than one.

If one is competent when magic is an option and competent when it isn't, while the other is supreme when it is an option but not nearly as good when it isn't, I'd say the former is more "rounded."



Literally 15 seconds of reading found a passage that clearly showed that the designers intent was something which you didn't previously believe possible.

What you've highlighted is one (amusingly literal) reading of many possible for a single passage. That's hardly "clear designer intent."


I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

Nifft appears to be saying that, or at the very least that his PHB lied by making him think so.


But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool.

Not sure what you mean by "match any given background" - clearly not every background fits with every class, like a cleric who has no faith or piety in anything at all but still expects spells.

As for being happy with a cool idea - I've done that plenty of times with Fighters. Far more often in PF than in 3.5, but it has happened.

[Fizban]

Saying a primary spellcaster is better at fighting than a fighter, is like saying some guy with a box of grenades and drugs is a better at fighting than a soldier (pick your favorite branch).

[ryu]

Saying a primary spellcaster is better at fighting than a fighter, is like saying some guy with a box of grenades and drugs is a better at fighting than a soldier (pick your favorite branch).

Depending on what the soldier is armed with this is by most reasonable interpretations accurate and correct. After all you never specified any rules for the physical conflict participation AKA FIGHTING besides that one side would get superior result.

[Endarire]

Balance is a handy thing to have so you don't fall over.

I'm glad Balance was folded into Acrobatics in Pathfinder.

[Vyanie]

As people have stated above balance is not about everyone doing the same exact thing the same way. Balance is about everyone being able to contribute meaningfully to a group. To put this into perspective I play a 3.5 game that both the DM and other players suffer from BNS (big numbers syndrome) and believe OMG 7th lvl rogue SOOO OPZZZZZ... because every once in a blue moon, I as the caster, take pity on him and let him do something.

For 7 levels I have literally dominated every single fight, every single social encounter and... well basically the entire game, but since i didn't put out a fist full of dice only one other player has really noticed. I wasn't initially doing this on purpose until 6th level when the dm kept saying "see look at all the damage the martials put out casters suck and martials are way to op." Now I am making it fully known that the party is not a group of martials with some lame caster following them around going pew pew, it is a GOD with some flunkies walking around to carry his stuff. Now some of the other players have looked back and are going... ohh, that was basically all you the entire time huh?

Without trying I had literally done everyone else job just by being a T1 caster. I had to show that in effect i was playing as a blind deaf mute to be on the same power level as them.... This was not fun for me and when I finally cut loose and said screw it the game was not fun for anyone else. THAT is what is wrong with the balance of the game.

The game at the moment is only semi balanced for those that suffer from BNS (and trust me way to many people including some of the people that write for 3.5 and pathfinder), once you get to be both a better DM and a better player you will see just how horribly broken the game is. This is compounded by the fact that.... everyone say it with me..... martials cant have nice things. If for some stupid reason a martial gets something that would be fun it is nerfed into oblivion or they have to spend 5 feats just to wipe their butt leaving them with not enough because of retarded feat taxes. A great example of this if you look at pathfinder the feat two weapon grace.

[ryu]

As people have stated above balance is not about everyone doing the same exact thing the same way. Balance is about everyone being able to contribute meaningfully to a group. To put this into perspective I play a 3.5 game that both the DM and other players suffer from BNS (big numbers syndrome) and believe OMG 7th lvl rogue SOOO OPZZZZZ... because every once in a blue moon, I as the caster, take pity on him and let him do something.

For 7 levels I have literally dominated every single fight, every single social encounter and... well basically the entire game, but since i didn't put out a fist full of dice only one other player has really noticed. I wasn't initially doing this on purpose until 6th level when the dm kept saying "see look at all the damage the martials put out casters suck and martials are way to op." Now I am making it fully known that the party is not a group of martials with some lame caster following them around going pew pew, it is a GOD with some flunkies walking around to carry his stuff. Now some of the other players have looked back and are going... ohh, that was basically all you the entire time huh?

Without trying I had literally done everyone else job just by being a T1 caster. I had to show that in effect i was playing as a blind deaf mute to be on the same power level as them.... This was not fun for me and when I finally cut loose and said screw it the game was not fun for anyone else. THAT is what is wrong with the balance of the game.

The game at the moment is only semi balanced for those that suffer from BNS, once you get to be both a better DM and a better player you will see just how horribly broken the game is.

And even if your measure of power is throwing as many dice of as large a size as possible at as much as you can, a good caster is going to throw more, miss less, in a wider area, with less counters, and because spell slots tend to last longer than HP without casters doing all the work more staying power. There is no reasonable standard for effectiveness where casters don't win. Even spells designed to screw over magic itself are still best countered or otherwise worked around by casters because they screw magic item dependent martials too and the casters have actual tools.

[Vyanie]

And even if your measure of power is throwing as many dice of as large a size as possible at as much as you can, a good caster is going to throw more, miss less, in a wider area, with less counters, and because spell slots tend to last longer than HP without casters doing all the work more staying power. There is no reasonable standard for effectiveness where casters don't win. Even spells designed to screw over magic itself are still best countered or otherwise worked around by casters because they screw magic item dependent martials too and the casters have actual tools.

Basically yes this, and if you use point buy guess what... martials are screwed for needing so many stats and the caster needs .... one. Every time I hear about people wanting a grittier game so they are only allowing 15 or 10 point buys in pathfinder I immediately say, ohh so you only want casters? ohh lower wealth? only want casters? gotcha.

[Fizban]

Depending on what the soldier is armed with this is by most reasonable interpretations accurate and correct. After all you never specified any rules for the physical conflict participation AKA FIGHTING besides that one side would get superior result.
Well specifying "non-magical" apparently isn't valid, so I came up with an analogy. I'm not sure if your second sentence is supposed to be disagreement or not, though I would assume so. If the soldier fighter is better at fighting outside of specific scenarios, then they are better at fighting.

Unless the expectation is that every scenario must be specific, in which case we argue back and forth about specific scenarios until we address the rules under which those scenarios are crafted, each saying theirs is more supported by the rules, leading to what the intent is supposed to be behind those rules, and on up until the point where it's clear that the fighter not being good enough at fighting is an opinion derived from a metagame- popular, but not actually supported by the suggested method of play. At which point I pull up one of my posts from the last x times it's come up, as recently as last week. Or I could make meta-commentary on the argument I'm tired of having and then further explain what was supposed to be a simple analogy.

The soldier is armed with appropriate weapons. If I'd said blackbelt it'd be wah that's a monk. If I say a sword and bow, then wah grenades are better. If I say a gun, then wah fighters don't get guns. It doesn't matter. The point is that I would rather have someone who knows how to fight (actually able to use those weapons) watching my back in hostile territory than someone with a bag of drugs and grenades, or whathaveyou, even if that bag magically refills itself every day. The exception is if I myself am the person who knows how to fight (rather than civilian or support), in which case I'd want the tech backing me up.* Almost as if both roles are needed for a balanced team.

And so we return to the definitions of "fight" and "better." Re-defining the word "fight" to mean things other than fighting is obviously going to make a Fighter bad at "fighting" because all they know how to do is fight. And when every scenario where the Fighter's fighting would actually be superior is ignored, you've essentially created a tautology. "Fighting is bad because I say fighting is bad."


*Actually I quite like running with this analogy. One might say that if real-life tech was actually a magical re-filling re-configurable bag of stuff, we would send nothing but tech experts on missions. Except we wouldn't, because the moment they were caught off guard and/or ran out of daily supplies, they'd be dead. So we would train them in both tech bag use and fighting. Which we already do, as special forces have various specialists but still have to have combat training. The only question is weather these are multiclass builds or Bard-likes, but it drags the "balance" fix right into the open: if you want class balance, everyone needs to be playing the same class or build (which may or may not have game balance). Which to be fair, is what happens if everyone follows char-op's "all casters and gishes all the time" policy. If you want a group of varied and true specialists, there is of course no such thing as class balance, only game balance resulting from the expected team configuration.

-Edit: oh, and incidentally OP, that's another distinction of definition. The DMG does use the word "balance," but it does not mean what "most people" think it means. The DM is supposed to maintain game balance, as a vague sort of "fair and fun for everyone" quality. Not some precise mechanical class balance where every class is somehow guaranteed to be interchangeable while also being vastly different. That quality does not and never has existed, nor does anything I'm aware of indicate it was intended to or should. It is purely a desire of certain gamers, who wish the game as written supported their metagame more effectively.

[Knaight]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

[CharonsHelper]

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

Conan does a pretty good job too, and that's without crazy demi-god style powers.

[Yahzi]

Conan does a pretty good job too, and that's without crazy demi-god style powers.
But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.

I think the best way to balance martials is to give them martials. That is, your 5th level fighter ought to have a half-dozen 1st level fighters hanging around all the time. The casters can summon monsters; the fighters ought to summon fighters.

If the 9th level Cleric got Raise Dead and the 9th Level Wizard got Teleport and the 9th level Fighter got a castle, a warship, hundreds of 1st level warriors, and a dozen guys between 2-5th level... then people might think things were a bit more fair.

[Fizban]

Which from what I hear is how it worked in older editions, with Fighters of 10th level and higher gaining keeps and command of troops. 3.5 went and made it into the Leadership feat, which can be taken by anyone and give you more casters. Whoops. Or at least, whoops until the DM uses their dominion over Leadership to declare it appropriate only for Fighters.

[RoboEmperor]

These types of arguments are always funny.

First we have a barbarian, who spent his entire life hunting. He can't read or write but he is a mountain of muscle.

Then we have a nerd, who spent his entire life in society, working with other humans, collaborating, and contributing. Eventually the nerd gets access to guns, computers, heat seaking missiles, and with enough money he builds aircraft carriers.

So now we have the barbarian getting angry that the nerd is overpowered, that his tanks make his spear look weak, that his thermonuclear bombs are flat out broken and shouldn't exist, and the world is wrong because the barbarian can't ever hope to kill the nerd in his space ship run by his army of robots armed to the teeth with computer guided weaponry. In fact he says nerds shouldn't even be allowed to have guns because guns alone can kill barbarians and it's not fair that a person who spent his entire life killing animals with his bare hands can die so easily and effortlessly to someone who spent his entire life indoors and without breaking any sweat.

The problem here isn't that the nerd is a part of an organization that spent thousands of years studying the world in attempt to understand how the world works, used that knowledge to their great advantage, and shares that knowledge to anyone who wishes to follow their methods. No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.

The solution is cooperation. A barbarian with a gun is always more dangerous than a nerd with a gun, so there is tremendous benefit when the two cooperate. The nerd builds the equipment, and the barbarian just needs to learn how to use the equipment without understanding how it works. Of course once the nerd starts building robots the barbarian becomes obsolete, but that's not the nerd's fault, it's the barbarian's fault for choosing to hone his muscles instead of his mind.

There's no reason a barbarian can't be a nerd, and why a nerd can't be a barbarian, which is why this is a solution too, but then there are some people who say pure barbarians should be able to do everything a pure nerd can do. So when someone tells me Barbarians should be able to destroy cities just as quickly as a thermonuclear bomb would, cut through metal tanks, survive point blank artillery fire unscathed, and solve theoretical physics problems just by training their muscles, I say go play a different tabletop rpg.

If you chose to play a character dedicated to muscles instead of intellect, that's fine but don't start whining when the smarter characters do everything you do better with technology (magic) because it was your choice to embrace ignorance and simplicity, not theirs. Players who play significantly more complex characters that require reading several books deserve to have more power than your core-only character.

Anyways to answer the OP's question, we don't need balance. This is a PvE game (player versus environment). It doesn't matter how strong or weak you are, everyone can contribute to the campaign and have fun. If you're a mundane and spellcasters have rendered your character obsolete, go read books and make your character stronger. Mundanes are far from dead weight even in TO tables so it is your fault your character is weak as ****, it is your fault your character is a one trick pony that is useless out of combat, and it is your fault you're not enjoying the game, not the spellcasters'. As to why people think we need balance, barbarians want to do everything nerds do without putting in the effort.

In my tables fighters are always welcome because they dish out ungodly amounts of damage with power attacks and buffs from the spellcasters. They put all my blasting shenanigans to shame so when i see people claiming fighters are too weak I question their system mastery. When I see people claiming spellcasters can do everything and fighters can't, I say play a smart character instead of a dumb one. Gishes are just as powerful as pure casters in the TO level so it's your fault for not wanting to gish and go pure mundane, who are just as powerful as pure casters in HO.

[CharonsHelper]

But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.

I never said that it was comparable to D&D - just that it was an example of a setting where a martial beats up on spell-casters.

Tolkein isn't a good example either since the 'wizards' in Middle Earth are really archangels which have most of their powers locked away.

[Cosi]

Which from what I hear is how it worked in older editions, with Fighters of 10th level and higher gaining keeps and command of troops. 3.5 went and made it into the Leadership feat, which can be taken by anyone and give you more casters. Whoops. Or at least, whoops until the DM uses their dominion over Leadership to declare it appropriate only for Fighters.

"Has minions" was always kind of stupid as a protected niche for Fighters. Lots of casters have minions. For example. Sauron has an entire empire. If you want to talk about heroes, Vin has an army of Koloss.

[137beth]

Well, since this is The Giant's site, I may as well quote what he has to say on the matter:


There is a huge difference between EVERY main character having such powers, and ONLY ONE main character in a group of supposed equals having such powers. There is no power—no power in the world—that is story-breaking all by itself, especially if the author has the freedom to detail the costs and drawbacks of that power (a luxury I don't have with OOTS).

Superman by himself is not a problem. Superman as part of the Justice League is not a problem. Superman as a member of an ensemble FBI team IS a problem, because sometimes Agent Fred is supposed to be the one to catch the serial killer. You end up resorting to a LOT of kryptonite.

[Morty]

Every one of those threads somehow winds up looking exactly the same. Discussions about the imbalance of 3E D&D have achieved a state where it simultaneously doesn't exist and exists as the right and proper way to do things. Schroedinger's Balance.

[Cosi]

Every one of those threads somehow winds up looking exactly the same. Discussions about the imbalance of 3E D&D have achieved a state where it simultaneously doesn't exist and exists as the right and proper way to do things. Schroedinger's Balance.

One might forgive a thread on the 3e subforum for being about 3e.

[Nifft]

What you've highlighted is one (amusingly literal) reading of many possible for a single passage. That's hardly "clear designer intent." There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

There's a bunch of other supporting evidence, but it's quite telling that no evidence can be brought to bear for the contrary.


Nifft appears to be saying that, or at the very least that his PHB lied by making him think so. Are you trying to help me communicate with others by saying something which you honestly believe to be true? Sadly, it seems you're really terrible at interpreting words, so you're saying something inaccurate while using my name.

Please don't ever try to speak for me again. Whether it's due to an honest failure or something else, you're not able to help.



I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool. Yep, a Fighter should hae been able to contribute to the group's success.

The Fighter should have been able to do this when dice hit the table in desperation, when not supported by a friendly caster, when not given permission to shine by a superior character.



I never said that it was comparable to D&D - just that it was an example of a setting where a martial beats up on spell-casters.

Tolkein isn't a good example either since the 'wizards' in Middle Earth are really archangels which have most of their powers locked away. When the Balrog came, it wasn't some Human Fighter who prevented its passage, nor who smote its ruin upon the mount.

On the other hand, it was a pair of Fighter-types who slew the Witch-King, and it was a Human archer who took down Smaug.



"Has minions" was always kind of stupid as a protected niche for Fighters. Lots of casters have minions. For example. Sauron has an entire empire. If you want to talk about heroes, Vin has an army of Koloss. Interestingly, that wasn't a Fighter niche in 1e -- everybody got followers at a certain level.

The "fighter minions" thing from 1e and oD&D was more like:
- The party has a bunch of hirelings, who are fighter-types.
- These hirelings are largely disposable and nameless.
- Players with the fewest resources to manage could also manage proportionately more hirelings.

So, a player with fewer things to do in combat could also manage hirelings in combat. However now this seems like more of an indictment of early-edition Fighters than a facet of their utility.

[Fizban]

There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

There's a bunch of other supporting evidence, but it's quite telling that no evidence can be brought to bear for the contrary.
To be clear, you are defining "fighting" as "all the things that happen between 'you roll initiative' and 'you win,'" that's your own words yes? You take the line in the Fighter description that says they are the best all-around fighters as intending them to be the best at your definition of fighting, which is. . . what?

Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it.

The credible evidence that you are wrong is literally the very passage you say is wrong. The designers intent is that the fighter class should be the best all-around fighting class. If your definition of "fighting" says that cannot possibly be true, then your definition is wrong.

[CharonsHelper]

When the Balrog came, it wasn't some Human Fighter who prevented its passage, nor who smote its ruin upon the mount.


And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

[Nifft]

To be clear, you are defining "fighting" as "all the things that happen between 'you roll initiative' and 'you win,'" that's your own words yes? You take the line in the Fighter description that says they are the best all-around fighters as intending them to be the best at your definition of fighting, which is. . . what? Contributing to normal D&D combat.

That's what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do, by the normal definition of fighting.

Not just "combat on a dead-magic plane", but rather all normal D&D combat that happens in all normal D&D circumstances, against all manner of normal D&D antagonists.


Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it. Contributing to normal D&D combat.

This isn't really "my definition", it's just a normal reading.


The credible evidence that you are wrong is literally the very passage you say is wrong. The designers intent is that the fighter class should be the best all-around fighting class. If your definition of "fighting" says that cannot possibly be true, then your definition is wrong. Well, maybe now you understand better.

[Gnaeus]

And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

And other non wizards beat Balrogs in canon. Glorfindel kills one (dying in the process) in a siege in Silmarillion. Not sure if it’s the same Glorfindel as in the books, but not really relevant.

[Cosi]

Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it.

If you want to define "fighting" as "being good at the specific things the Fighter does", you are free to do that. I don't think it's terribly helpful, but whatever. What you should not do is insist that you somehow know that your definition is the correct one. If you have evidence the designers meant that, feel free to present it. If you do not, I don't see why we should prefer "the definition that makes Fizban right" over "the definition of the word that is in the dictionary.


And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

[Nifft]

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

There was an article about Gandalf being a Magic-User...

Here it is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3304-Was-Gandalf-Just-A-5th-Level-Magic-User

[Gnaeus]

But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.


Really? That’s what we are going with? That all the popular lore examples where the Barbarian or Fighter kills a wizard it just wasn’t a wizard, it was an adept or a sorcerer, or a wizard of way lower level? And a new player who expects that his Barbarian be like Conan should know that and know that if Thulsa Doon has been a real wizard or cleric he would have curbstomped him? He should know that D&D wizards are way more powerful than almost any fictional wizard because each individual D&D wizard can do almost anything that any wizard from any fantasy world can do, even if most of them only show a small subset of those powers? And rather than spend minutes chanting to turn into a snake or whatever the D&D wizard has all those powers in 6 seconds? That’s absurd. Why would anyone assume that from reading class descriptions?

[CharonsHelper]

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

It would be an outsider/celestial.

[Fizban]

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

That's what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do, by the normal definition of fighting.

Not just "combat on a dead-magic plane", but rather all normal D&D combat that happens in all normal D&D circumstances, against all manner of normal D&D antagonists.

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

This isn't really "my definition", it's just a normal reading.

Well, maybe now you understand better.
No, that's a different definition than the one you gave before, and relies on the meaningless term "contribute," (thus your expectation of its self-evidence is flawed) but it betrays your expectations anyway.

For you see, "normal DnD combat" does in fact include combat on dead magic planes, or against monsters with anti-magic abilities, combat during times when your buffs have run out, against foes who resist your spells, combat on days when you've fought far more foes than expected, when you've run out of spells and are trying to sleep, when you were expecting friendly downtime, and on and on and on. These can be found in all sorts of published modules. In short, your conception of normal dnd combat seems to be lacking in variety of antagonists and circumstances.

Fighters contribute in all combats, not just in those above- even just being the guy who gets hit instead of someone else is in fact a contribution, however little you may value it. As Psyren has already pointed out, contributing at all times makes them by definition more all-around even if you demand that magic count as fighting.

The metagame in which you play (and the definitions used therein) that make you say magic is best at everything and Fighters are bad at fighting are your own. Not the game's.


If you want to define "fighting" as "being good at the specific things the Fighter does", you are free to do that. I don't think it's terribly helpful, but whatever. What you should not do is insist that you somehow know that your definition is the correct one. If you have evidence the designers meant that, feel free to present it. If you do not, I don't see why we should prefer "the definition that makes Fizban right" over "the definition of the word that is in the dictionary.
We could prefer "the definition the designers obviously intended," but clearly it's not obvious to some people. I could go over it in explicit detail, but I've already done so before to you, and I have no interest in arguing with you at length while suffering personal attacks for the umpteenth time.

-Edit: well technically I suppose I haven't done the exact definition of what "fighting" means before, but still.

[Cosi]

It would be an outsider/celestial.

What does Gandalf do that can only be done by being an outsider?

[Psyren]

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

Both of these have at least some divinity in their make-up though, so they're not exactly representative. There is no "plausibility gap" when a half deity is easily beating up a spellcaster. In D&D terms, these guys would almost certainly have a template of some kind, if not being a special race entirely with a boatload of LA.


There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

As the "opposing party" in this debate, I can't exactly put much stock in *your* declarations of what is credible or not. Of course you don't think so, you fundamentally disagree, but that isn't persuasive.


Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

But clear statements can still be read overly literally. When the Ranger's class description clearly and obviously states they are more powerful than owlbears and displacer beasts, and your 1st-level ranger dies to them, was your PHB lying to you then too?



Please don't ever try to speak for me again. Whether it's due to an honest failure or something else, you're not able to help.

Oh no, not boldface! Scary!

All I did was interpret your statement - something we have to do when communicating. If I got your meaning wrong, you're welcome to deny it (which you have yet to do.)

[CharonsHelper]

What does Gandalf do that can only be done by being an outsider?

1. Live for thousands of years. (please don't bring up obscure high level ability - he obviously isn't casting any high level D&D spells)

2. Be resurrected spontaneously after death in a transformed state.

3. Having a few spell like abilities fits his character far better than having a huge spell list which he never uses.

4. THE BOOKS FREAKIN' SAY THAT HE'S AN ARCHANGEL! Why do I have to prove that to you? Angel = celestial/outsider.

[Nifft]

No, that's a different definition than the one you gave before, and relies on the meaningless term "contribute," (thus your expectation of its self-evidence is flawed) but it betrays your expectations anyway.

For you see, "normal DnD combat" does in fact include combat on dead magic planes, or against monsters with anti-magic abilities, combat during times when your buffs have run out, against foes who resist your spells, combat on days when you've fought far more foes than expected, when you've run out of spells and are trying to sleep, when you were expecting friendly downtime, and on and on and on. These can be found in all sorts of published modules. In short, your conception of normal dnd combat seems to be lacking in variety of antagonists and circumstances. We talked about that already:

Niche cases are technically included, but with the provision that they are niche, and don't generally apply.

If you had a point -- but your point was only valid in 0.001% of games -- then you'd technically have a point, but it would not be a very good point.

So far, you don't even have that.
Wizards vs. anti-magic, how unexpected. Golly, if only Conjuration (Creation) spells and Conjuration (Calling) spells existed, and spells like animate dead were available to Wizards.

If only a Druid had a big non-magical companion who came with perks like Pounce (which makes the Fighter envious).

If only Clerics could use the best armors in the game.

If only Craft: Alchemy existed.

Oh wait...

Spellcasters can make alchemical items and use them on dead-magic planes. Fighters can't even do that. Even a Ranger would have been better.



Fighters contribute in all combats, not just in those above Here are some more common scenarios where Fighters fall flat:

- Fighting swarms.
- Fighting things that destroy your armor and/or weapons (oozes, constructs, outsiders, aberrations, etc.).
- Fighting underwater.
- Fighting low-CR, high-size monsters.
- Fighting creatures that force Will saving throws (fear, dominate, paralysis, confusion, etc.).
- Fighting in conditions that force skill checks to move around (platforms over boiling water, rope bridges, under-rigging of a sky-ship, wet & tilting deck of a regular ship, on the clouds outside a giant's castle, narrow ledges, etc.).
- Fighting high-mobility antagonists (perhaps because they're fleeing, or because you're fleeing).
- Fighting things that fly.
- Fighting spellcasters.

[Cosi]

1. Live for thousands of years. (please don't bring up obscure high level ability - he obviously isn't casting any high level D&D spells)

All that requires is that he has the outsider type (or some other undying type). You can get that for +1 LA if you happen to care to.


2. Be resurrected spontaneously after death in a transformed state.

Are there outsiders with this ability?


3. Having a few spell like abilities fits his character far better than having a huge spell list which he never uses.

Hence my suggestion that he might be a Sorcerer.


4. THE BOOKS FREAKIN' SAY THAT HE'S AN ARCHANGEL! Why do I have to prove that to you? Angel = celestial/outsider.

Why can't "Archangel" be a title?

[CharonsHelper]

Why can't "Archangel" be a title?

Because it goes into detail about how he watched the creator make Middle Earth from nothingness?

[Zanos]

Gandalf did way more killin' with his sword than magic, as I recall.


What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.
Does it really seem like such an insane assumption that the vast majority of people see a level 15 fighter and a level 15 wizard coming into D&D from any other media and assume they're equally as potent?

[Cosi]

Because it goes into detail about how he watched the creator make Middle Earth from nothingness?

Yes, I agree that Gandalf has the power to see and remember events he witnesses. Why exactly is that incompatible with him being a Sorcerer?

[Psyren]

Gandalf did way more killin' with his sword than magic, as I recall.


Does it really seem like such an insane assumption that the vast majority of people see a level 15 fighter and a level 15 wizard coming into D&D from any other media and assume they're equally as potent?

I honestly don't think the "vast majority" think that at all. Quite the opposite, I think most people hear "wizard" and assume he is going to be more capable (in general) than the guy with a pointy stick.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, I agree that Gandalf has the power to see and remember events he witnesses. Why exactly is that incompatible with him being a Sorcerer?
In the LotR universe, they're explicitly (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Gandalf) divine (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Istar) beings (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Maiar). That's not really a question. In D&D, there are many ways you could represent that, ranging from "custom-built Outsider" to "he's a Wizard, duh." 3.5 wasn't written as a Middle Earth roleplaying game, so it isn't going to match 1:1 unless you really carefully construct a character with the right abilities and limits (and even then it probably won't be quite right).

Gandalf's abilities were vague, and it was never clear how much had to do with his natural powers and how much came from his Ring. He certainly did a lot of Pyrotechnics, and maybe some Fire Acorns. He could break enchantments, Hold Portals, summon light, inspire people, come and go easily...he seemed to have some amount of telekinesis in the movies, he looked bigger and scarier when he got angry, he could fight as well as trained warriors, he could come and go more easily... I might be tempted to make him a Bard, honestly, but that's just me.

[Cosi]

In the LotR universe, they're explicitly (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Gandalf) divine (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Istar) beings (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Maiar). That's not really a question. In D&D, there are many ways you could represent that, ranging from "custom-built Outsider" to "he's a Wizard, duh." 3.5 wasn't written as a Middle Earth roleplaying game, so it isn't going to match 1:1 unless you really carefully construct a character with the right abilities and limits (and even then it probably won't be quite right).

My point is that if Gandalf's status as a divine being doesn't give him any abilities that would be better represented by an Outsider than a Sorcerer, the distinction isn't important. Yes, you could stat him as an Outsider, but if that outsider is comparable to a Sorcerer, why do we care?

[Grod_The_Giant]

My point is that if Gandalf's status as a divine being doesn't give him any abilities that would be better represented by an Outsider than a Sorcerer, the distinction isn't important. Yes, you could stat him as an Outsider, but if that outsider is comparable to a Sorcerer, why do we care?
Partly because we're nerds and thus sticklers for details and continuity, and partly because Sorcerer carries more external baggage? (We have to learn more spells than he shows off in the books, familiars, metamagic, etc, etc)

[Cosi]

Partly because we're nerds and thus sticklers for details and continuity, and partly because Sorcerer carries more external baggage? (We have to learn more spells than he shows off in the books, familiars, metamagic, etc, etc)

The point of calling him an Outsider is an attempt to bring in baggage, because Fighters not being as good as Outsiders doesn't look as bad as them not being as good as Sorcerers, even if the Outsiders are not intrinsically more powerful.

[CharonsHelper]

The point of calling him an Outsider is an attempt to bring in baggage, because Fighters not being as good as Outsiders doesn't look as bad as them not being as good as Sorcerers, even if the Outsiders are not intrinsically more powerful.

Lol - Outsider HD are much better than Fighter levels in 3.5 (close in Pathfinder). Though arguable Pros #3 & #5 are racial rather than from their HD. (though outsiders with more HD generally have better ability scores)

Comparison

Pro:

1. All good saves
2. 8+ Skill Points
3. Don't need to eat/sleep
4. All sorts of crazy SLAs and/or abilities
5. Generally much better ability score than standard races

Cons:

1. 1 step lower HD
2. No bonus feats
3. Sometimes fewer armor proficiencies

[Cosi]

Lol - Outsider HD are much better than Fighter levels in 3.5 (close in Pathfinder). Though arguable Pros #3 & #5 are racial rather than from their HD. (though outsiders with more HD generally have better ability scores)

Comparison

Pro:

1. All good saves
2. 8+ Skill Points
3. Don't need to eat/sleep
4. All sorts of crazy SLAs and/or abilities
5. Generally much better ability score than standard races

Cons:

1. 1 step lower HD
2. No bonus feats
3. Sometimes fewer armor proficiencies

Intrinsically more powerful than the Sorcerers. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Fizban]

We talked about that already:
You haven't addressed anything I said? Other than anti-magic by pointing out options that are inferior to actually having a Fighter.

Here are some more common scenarios where Fighters fall flat:.
Swarms are fought with torches and the alchemical weapons you're going on about, things that destroy your gear are about as rare as those with various forms of antimagic and are also countered by buying the right gear, big dumb monsters are fought with bows, status effects are the cleric's job (part of that whole teamwork thing you're ignoring), fighting while moving through forced skill checks is way more rare and yet is still accomplished by using a bow instead of moving or caster teamwork, mobile targets can be shot with bows, and "spellcasters" (oh what a laughably vague foe that is) are handled in whatever way is most expedient- I assume you're whining about range, to which may I suggest shooting them with a bow while they're trying to cast, or possibly letting the spellcasting part of your team deal with the magic?

Seriously, I'm not going back and forth on this with you (not further anyway)- though the post where I pre-empted it was actually quoting ryu. I don't care about your list of anti-fighter scenarios any more than you would care about my list of anti-caster scenarios (there's only one anyway: any number of encounters or hazards you didn't expect). The only thing that matters is what guidance the books actually give for encounter creation and game balance, and those are solidly on my side. Not the least of which because the DMG is quite clear about the DM's job to make the game work, in spite of the rules and the players themselves when necessary.

Once again, just because your metagame is about bad fighters getting screwed while wizards are never pushed outside their comfort zone, doesn't mean it's supported by the rules. There are pages and pages, reams of evidence showing the designers intent for the Fighter and encounter design and party composition and teamwork, and zero for the idea that they should be directly compared in "contributing to combat" or be considered directly interchangeable, spellcasters and non-spellcasters being even moreso called out as unequal. The DMG has a number of examples of problems that are harder to deal with without certain classes. Complete Arcane says straight up that a game full of spellcasters is a massive challenge for the DM, while Complete Warrior says that a low-spellcaster campaign is hard mode. PHB2 spells out the standard party. This isn't some thing the designers somehow missed, it's fully intentional.

If your metagame makes some classes useless, it's because your group has a metagame that makes those classes useless. I suggest not playing those classes when in that metagame, while respecting the fact that you're playing the game outside of the standard expectations. Looking back, you say you need balance because it's less work for you: sorry mate, but balancing optimized and/or caster heavy parties in DnD 3.5 is not a low-effort deal.

[Lazymancer]

On another note, I think people give wizards way to much credit in the power department, sure they can do unbelievable things and have X number of contingencies and defenses in place, but at the end of the day those d4 hit dice will always leave them squishy and potentially vulnerable.
Even if Wizard has 1 hp, he is still Tier 1, because Tiers are not power. Tiers are potential. :smallmad:



if your looking for a balanced party and need a spellcaster, make sure there is more than 1 or he has to be OP and split focused as all hell. not to mention i had to do trapfinding, knowledge checks, stealth play, magic detection/ identification, battlefield-control, damage [god i love reserve feats now], and generally help move the plot along.
You also need a player who understands casters. Otherwise you'll get Wizard who'll be preparing maximized Fireballs instead of Anticipate Teleportation, Greater.



As people have stated above balance is not about everyone doing the same exact thing the same way. Balance is about everyone being able to contribute meaningfully to a group.
Wrong. You can "contribute" even as a level 1 Commoner.

"People above" are also wrong, since they think only that balance is all-encompassing quality that is applicable in all games under all circumstances. However, their "balance/disbalance" exists only within the specific paradigm. Without understanding this any discussion will be nothing but an endlessly repeating circle of "but I had fun in disbalanced party/but I didn't have fun in disbalanced party".

[CharonsHelper]

Intrinsically more powerful than the Sorcerers. I would have thought that was obvious.

I think that you're starting to argue against things which no one said.

In D&D specifically wizards > martials.

All anyone said is that there are a lot of settings/stories where that isn't true.

It seems like you're trying to argue against that by saying that you could theoretically replicate Gandalf with spellcaster classes (though that would mean he had a LOT of abilities he never used) making him equivalent fluff to a D&D wizard DESPITE the setting in question specifically saying that he's an archangel and not a mortal at all.

This does not a valid argument make.

[Cosi]

It seems like you're trying to argue against that by saying that you could theoretically replicate Gandalf with spellcaster classes (though that would mean he had a LOT of abilities he never used) making him equivalent fluff to a D&D wizard DESPITE the setting in question specifically saying that he's an archangel and not a mortal at all.

Fluff isn't transitive. You have to argue about capabilities to get good results when doing comparisons. Gandalf's capabilities are on par with a Sorcerer that is roughly 6th level (probably a Stalwart Battle Sorcerer or something else that gets relatively few spells and some combat power). You can call him an angel, but that doesn't mean anything, because we're comparing different settings, where "angel" means different things. Gandalf is very clearly not a D&D angel, because he does not have all of the angel traits (found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm)).

[Grod_The_Giant]

The point of calling him an Outsider is an attempt to bring in baggage, because Fighters not being as good as Outsiders doesn't look as bad as them not being as good as Sorcerers, even if the Outsiders are not intrinsically more powerful.
Err, no, I'm pretty sure the point of calling him an Outsider is the pedantic "well, actually" impulse, not some knee-jerk "Fighters must be balanced because REASONS" conspiracy thing.

[CharonsHelper]

Gandalf is very clearly not a D&D angel, because he does not have all of the angel traits (found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm)).

Thanks for the strawman.

I never said that he was an angel in D&D terms - just an outsider.

You are the one who is convinced that because he's a "wizard" that means a D&D spellcaster equivalent.

[EldritchWeaver]

For you see, "normal DnD combat" does in fact include combat on dead magic planes, or against monsters with anti-magic abilities, combat during times when your buffs have run out, against foes who resist your spells, combat on days when you've fought far more foes than expected, when you've run out of spells and are trying to sleep, when you were expecting friendly downtime, and on and on and on.

As Nifft already noted, all these examples are about magic not being available or failing to its job. If a fighter can do good in such situations, great. But that is only a subset of situations, which normally include magic.


Fighters contribute in all combats, not just in those above- even just being the guy who gets hit instead of someone else is in fact a contribution, however little you may value it. As Psyren has already pointed out, contributing at all times makes them by definition more all-around even if you demand that magic count as fighting.

What kind of contribution do fighters provide in those fights, where the class features of magic using classes are available and working? If they end up as useful as a non-banishable summoned monster (a moving obstacle/meatshield), they might still contribute, but I don't consider that as a meaningful participation. If the reality benders can literally shape the battle field or provide a number of additional meatshields, then a fighter is more a footnote than a pillar, on which the success hinges.

[JNAProductions]

Balance makes it easier to have a fun game.

If you have a well-balanced game and want a well-balanced game, it's done.

If you have a well-balanced game and DON'T want a well-balanced game, it's easy to change it to match. Give advantages to those who are supposed to be more powerful-for instance, let's say you're running a game where you want three Joe-Schmoes and one elite warrior. Make the Joes level 1 and the warrior level 5. Bam, done.

If you have a poorly balanced game and want a well-balanced game, you have to put in a lot of extra work to make it balanced.

If you have a poorly balanced game and DON'T want a well-balanced game, you still will sometimes have to put in extra work. To take the same example from last time, if you have three level 1 Joe Schmoes and one level 5 elite warrior, but the Joes decide to play Druids and the warrior decides to play Monk...

[Cosi]

Complete Arcane says straight up that a game full of spellcasters is a massive challenge for the DM, while Complete Warrior says that a low-spellcaster campaign is hard mode. PHB2 spells out the standard party. This isn't some thing the designers somehow missed, it's fully intentional.

And its bad design. The designers clearly intended to remove the 15k cap on wish for magic items. That doesn't make it a good idea. It just makes them dumb. Classes should be balanced, because that makes DMing easier. Making classes not balanced makes DMing harder, but adds nothing to the game.


I never said that he was an angel in D&D terms - just an outsider.

You've clearly stated that Gandalf is not a Wizard because he is, instead, an angel. Given that he is described zero times as "an outsider" and a non-zero number of times as "a Wizard", it seems to me that if we are not trying to directly map him to a D&D Angel, Wizard is clearly the next-best fit.

[BassoonHero]

No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.
This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.

Everyone likes to compare Gandalf to a low-level 3.5 wizard. That's fine; let's say that he's a Wizard 4. But let's further stipulate that Gimli is a Fighter 4. We know what a Wizard 10 looks like; what should a Fighter 10 look like? A Fighter 20?

Psyren speaks of a "plausibility gap" that should keep any mundane fighter from competing with a high-level spellcaster. But plausibility is subjective. I can imagine a setting like the Lord of the Rings where everyone is pretty low-powered. I can imagine a setting like the Wheel of Time where spellcasters have absolute supremacy. And I can imagine a setting where everyone gets nice things. I've heard it said that high-level 3.5 characters are practically superheroes; if so, then let them be superheroes. Let the fighter parry a stunning ray with his sword. Let the monk jump fifty feet straight up. Let the barbarian charge straight through solid fog or a stone wall without slowing down. Let the ranger spot enemies hiding a mile away. Let the rogue slip through a wall of force.

There are several different arguments happening in this thread. Should 3.5 classes be balanced? That's a matter of opinion. Are 3.5 classes balanced? Obviously not, but if someone still disagrees after fourteen years there's not much point to rehashing it. For my part, I want to play a high-powered system (or I'd play E6 or 5e), I want to play spellcasters and nonspellcasters in the same party, and I want class balance. If you want something else, then that's fine too.

[Morty]

One might forgive a thread on the 3e subforum for being about 3e.

I'm not talking about discussing 3E. I'm talking about the same arguments being retreaded over and over, and about the double standard I keep seeing crop up.

[CharonsHelper]

You've clearly stated that Gandalf is not a Wizard because he is, instead, an angel. Given that he is described zero times as "an outsider" and a non-zero number of times as "a Wizard", it seems to me that if we are not trying to directly map him to a D&D Angel, Wizard is clearly the next-best fit.

Since "outsider" isn't a term in Middle Earth lore, I fail to see how that's relevant.

[Gnaeus]

You've clearly stated that Gandalf is not a Wizard because he is, instead, an angel. Given that he is described zero times as "an outsider" and a non-zero number of times as "a Wizard", it seems to me that if we are not trying to directly map him to a D&D Angel, Wizard is clearly the next-best fit.

That’s because “outsider” wasn’t used as a Game term in Tolkien. He was a demigod created at the beginning of time, who lived millennia in what is middle earth heaven. He is clearly, obviously nonhuman, nor a member of any of the other races the gods made. Tolkien suggests that there are other casters in the world, other than the 5 “wizards” all of whom are outsiders. They are called sorcerers IIRC. That does not at all suggest that their abilities map to Wizard or Sorcerer in 3.5. There are really quite a few “caster types” in ME. From the elves, who clearly use magic but it is very rarely seen on screen, to Finrod Felagund who enters a magic chanting battle with Sauron, to the sorcerers Gandalf refers to, to the dwarves of yore who made “mighty spells”. None of them look like any kind of Tier 1 caster.

[digiman619]

The reason that balance is important is related to the Original Position Fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OriginalPositionFallacy). If you start a game of D&D blind; as a total newbie with no expectations other than "a cool adventure game", you are given the appearance of parity between the classes. Everyone expects that what they choose will be cool and powerful in different way, but that's not what was provided.

Imbalance can be fun if you know that going in; Rifts has characters that are literally as durable as tanks in the same party with "scholar of things the oppressive government doesn't want you to know". Similarly, in Mage: The Awakening, mages are explicitly more powerful and important than the Sleepers (the mundanes), but since you only play mages, there isn't that sense of grievous imbalance.

The difference is in both of those games, the imbalance was on purpose. Rifts is there to have a range of power levels, and Mage has the core concept of "magic is better than not-magic" and designed the game's lore around that. D&D's imbalance kinda just happened. While they wanted Wizards to be cool, they seriously failed consider how much power they were giving them, and greatly overestimated what fighter-types could do and kind of just said "Eh, they have feats, they'll be fine" without actually letting the feats do anythign interesting without also having a casting requirement.

[Nifft]

You haven't addressed anything I said? Other than anti-magic by pointing out options that are inferior to actually having a Fighter. Your central point was that dead-magic combat is so important to D&D that it's a good idea to bring along a fighter. This is wrong in two different ways, as discussed above.


Swarms are fought with torches and the alchemical weapons you're going on about, Casters make those items. Fighters are helpless. Next?


things that destroy your gear are about as rare as those with various forms of antimagic and are also countered by buying the right gear, Casters have better options (i.e. spells), and if they wanted anti-ooze gear, they'd make that gear. No caster, no gear. Next?


big dumb monsters are fought with bows, You eat an AoO on every bow attack since you're unable to climb or fly over it, and you're unable to sneak past it. Skill-types can usually do one or the other; casters can usually do all of the above (or kill it with a spell). Next?


status effects are the cleric's job (part of that whole teamwork thing you're ignoring), Actually I'm not. The whole thing about being able to contribute to combat assumes that the character is a part of a team.

It's just that the Fighter brings practically nothing to the team, when compared with a second Cleric. (Did I just blow your mind? Yeah, you could have two Clerics on a team instead of one Cleric and one Fighter. Guess which team is going to perform better?)

In fact, let's do this.

Your team is: Fighter + Healer + Monk + Ranger (ACFs: minus-spells, plus-trapfinding)

My team is: Wizard + Cleric + Druid + Beguiler

Now you can't move the goalposts in this particular direction again. You'd consider that your team is balanced, right? Your team can handle all the same totally normal D&D challenges that my team can handle?


fighting while moving through forced skill checks is way more rare and yet is still accomplished by using a bow instead of moving or caster teamwork, It's not rare at all. Look through White Plume Mountain for a decent variety of difficult terrain encounters. Also, of course, it's a condition that my spellcasters can and do impose on NPC monsters all the time. Next?


mobile targets can be shot with bows, You are the target in 50% of these scenarios, so your answer is you let yourself get caught and die? Okay then. Fighter-tier "winning" I guess. But even in the other 50% of cases, the targets can do sneaky things like go around corners or hide behind a tree and you're going to lose anyway. You have chosen poorly. Next?


and "spellcasters" (oh what a laughably vague foe that is) are handled in whatever way is most expedient- I assume you're whining about range, to which may I suggest shooting them with a bow while they're trying to cast, or possibly letting the spellcasting part of your team deal with the magic? Huh, you try to get personal when you're losing an argument. I'm going to recommend not doing that.

No, I'm talking about how spellcasters can impose all the preceding conditions on you, stuff like "create difficult terrain" or "summon a colossal scorpion" or "cast spells while flying away", plus they can dominate / blind / stun / petrify / confuse / etc. a weak-willed muggle.


Seriously, I'm not going back and forth on this with you (not further anyway)- though the post where I pre-empted it was actually quoting ryu. I don't care about your list of anti-fighter scenarios What was my anti-Fighter scenario?

Oh right:

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

That's what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do, by the normal definition of fighting.

Not just "combat on a dead-magic plane", but rather all normal D&D combat that happens in all normal D&D circumstances, against all manner of normal D&D antagonists.
You are saying that you don't care about normal D&D combat.

I should have seen that coming.


Once again, just because your metagame is about bad fighters getting screwed while wizards are never pushed outside their comfort zone, doesn't mean it's supported by the rules. Sadly, what you are trying to blame on "my metagame" is actually the exact and specific thing which is supported by the default rules. Even more sadly, it's the ONLY thing supported by the default rules.

It's a strange habit that some people seem to have: I'm telling you about a flaw, so you're trying to assign the flaw to something specific about me.

I wonder if this is the same basic cognitive error which leads to victim-blaming.


There are pages and pages, reams of evidence showing the designers intent for the Fighter and encounter design and party composition and teamwork, and zero for the idea that they should be directly compared in "contributing to combat" or be considered directly interchangeable, spellcasters and non-spellcasters being even moreso called out as unequal. I think virtually everyone would agree that Fighters are supposed to be balanced well against spellcasters.

The problem is that they are presented as balanced -- yet when dice hit the table in earnest, the Fighter is in fact not balanced well against spellcasters.


The DMG has a number of examples of problems that are harder to deal with without certain classes. Complete Arcane says straight up that a game full of spellcasters is a massive challenge for the DM, while Complete Warrior says that a low-spellcaster campaign is hard mode. PHB2 spells out the standard party. This isn't some thing the designers somehow missed, it's fully intentional. I wish you were saying something true here.

I think some authors did figure out that there was a balance problem, but the core rules had already been written and the (incorrect) judgment that all core classes were roughly equivalent in value & threat were enshrined.

If the designers knew that Fighters were garbage, they'd make Fighter NPCs lower CR than Wizard NPCs. They did not do this. I can't see any justification for your assertion that the Fighter's poor relative performance was "fully intentional".


If your metagame makes some classes useless, it's because your group has a metagame that makes those classes useless. I suggest not playing those classes when in that metagame, while respecting the fact that you're playing the game outside of the standard expectations. Looking back, you say you need balance because it's less work for you: sorry mate, but balancing optimized and/or caster heavy parties in DnD 3.5 is not a low-effort deal.
Crikey mate, stuff the bluster. I've done exactly that multiple times.

Running a caster-heavy 16th level 3.5e game was a lot more rewarding than constantly shoring up the self-esteem of a Fighter-type who felt useless (spoiler: Fighters were in fact useless).

I'm not talking from theory here -- it's way more fun to be surprised by the creativity of my players than it is to dig for ways that the useless Fighter might be able to contribute. Getting that guy to play a Tome of Battle class made the game significantly more fun for everyone, including him.

It's not really ~teamwork~ when you're sleeping on your mother's couch, eating her food, and wasting her internet. It's just your mommy taking care of you, long past the point where you should have been able to contribute back.

Fighters are like that: they can "contribute" when caster-mommy supports them, but if left alone they'd be dead in a week, either due to exposure or blubber-hunters.

Play a character who can give something back to the rest of the party, not just another warm body taking up space.

[CharonsHelper]

Casters make those items. Fighters are helpless. Next?


While I generally agree with you - that's an invalid argument.

By that logic wizards are at the mercy of lumberjacks and paper mills.

Historical knights were inferior in combat to coal miners and blacksmiths.

etc.

[Nifft]

While I generally agree with you - that's an invalid argument.

By that logic wizards are at the mercy of lumberjacks and paper mills.

Historical knights were inferior in combat to coal miners and blacksmiths.

etc.

I probably did overstate.

However, in my defense: Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm).

Wizards technically don't need lumberjacks or paper mills.

[Peat]

Not sure what you mean by "match any given background" - clearly not every background fits with every class, like a cleric who has no faith or piety in anything at all but still expects spells.

As for being happy with a cool idea - I've done that plenty of times with Fighters. Far more often in PF than in 3.5, but it has happened.

Any background given by the game itself. If the game says that fighters are the best in combat then they should be, or at least close enough. Etc.etc. Best at X barring a highly likely scenario doesn't really cut it. If the game wants to make clear that it is intended that martials should be behind spellcasters like kinfolk are behind Garou, fair enough. But it doesn't.

And the ability of a seasoned and knowledgeable D&D player to make cool ideas they enjoy from lower tier classes isn't proof of a balanced game. Its whether complete newbies can reliably do it. In any case, I present this more in the vein of "This is why we need balance" than "Is D&D balanced?". Balance is great for having enjoyable games with near complete strangers and its great for newbies who just want to take the obvious route to their cool idea and have it work. Not essential in these scenarios, but it makes life a lot easier.

And yes, Pathfinder is a lot better than D&D for making Fighters cool.


I honestly don't think the "vast majority" think that at all. Quite the opposite, I think most people hear "wizard" and assume he is going to be more capable (in general) than the guy with a pointy stick.

It would be cool if we could somehow test this one. There's a lot of popular fantasy settings where the guy with the pointy stick isn't far behind if any. Mythologically, Mr Pointy Stick wins a lot, not least because mythological wizards are a lot chalk behind D&D wizards.

Tbh, I heard so much about D&D before I ever played it that I kinda can't answer the question. But it certainly threw - and irritated - me for no short time that in such a high magic game, the martials couldn't pull off the sort of stunt I expected from high powered warriors in fantasy and myth and/or reflect a broad range of human excellence. And yes, I know there are sort of options for that now, but I didn't for some time, and I'm not wild about the execution of them. Again, PF seems to do it better.

Also, I can't help but point out the inconsistency between using Gandalf as an example of famous fictional caster supremacy while saying that Cuchulainn and Heracles don't count because of their semi-divine origin. One or the other :smalltongue: I think you'd struggle to find many pre-D&D fictional examples of mortal casters being notably superior to mortal warriors tbh, and that it is no longer the case is a considerable testament to the influence of the game.

[PhantasyPen]

Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it. I've heard it said that high-level 3.5 characters are practically superheroes; if so, then let them be superheroes. Let the fighter parry a stunning ray with his sword. Let the monk jump fifty feet straight up. Let the barbarian charge straight through solid fog or a stone wall without slowing down. Let the ranger spot enemies hiding a mile away. Let the rogue slip through a wall of force.


Permission to sig this please?

[BassoonHero]

Permission to sig this please?

I would be honored.

[CharonsHelper]

I probably did overstate.

However, in my defense: Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm).

Wizards technically don't need lumberjacks or paper mills.

True. But how did the wizard write down Fabricate in the first place? How did they level to that point without a spell-book?

I'm being facetious, but it's an invalid argument that a martial's magical gear isn't part of their own power level. Temporary buffs from their buddy? Yes. But not from their WBL gear.

That doesn't keep casters from still being more powerful at high levels, but it does close the gap at early to mid.

[Nifft]

True. But how did the wizard write down Fabricate in the first place? How did they level to that point without a spell-book? Big clay tablets, and a triangular stylus.

(Note that's not even blue. I've used legit cuniform tablets for "artifact spells" in a game.)


I'm being facetious, but it's an invalid argument that a martial's magical gear isn't part of their own power level. Temporary buffs from their buddy? Yes. But not from their WBL gear.

That doesn't keep casters from still being more powerful at high levels, but it does close the gap at early to mid.
Sure, but casters also get gear, and casters also get the exact same WBL as muggles. The difference is that castes don't need to allocate gear to compensate for not being a caster, since casters are casters.

The difference in performance isn't measured between (casters) vs. (muggles + gear).

It's (casters + gear) vs. (muggles + gear).

The gear ought to cancel out.



tl;dr - you're right, I should have used a better argument.

[Psyren]

Any background given by the game itself. If the game says that fighters are the best in combat then they should be, or at least close enough. Etc.etc. Best at X barring a highly likely scenario doesn't really cut it. If the game wants to make clear that it is intended that martials should be behind spellcasters like kinfolk are behind Garou, fair enough. But it doesn't.

See, this is what makes this topic so hard to discuss. What does "best in combat" even mean to you? What would you be okay with a mage doing in a fight that a fighter cannot do, and vice-versa? (I'm assuming here that you actually want to avoid homogeneity between the classes - I certainly do - but that may not be the case.)


And the ability of a seasoned and knowledgeable D&D player to make cool ideas they enjoy from lower tier classes isn't proof of a balanced game. Its whether complete newbies can reliably do it.

"Complete newbies" are the ones getting their characters built for them anyway, so I'm not really seeing the issue where they're concerned. Even if they're not though, they'll learn how to optimize eventually - just like we all did - and until then, the DM can hand them magic items that cover any glaring deficiencies in their character. Even new players can topple giants, smash skeletons, and yes, slay dragons, with a little help from the people they're playing the game next to.


It would be cool if we could somehow test this one. There's a lot of popular fantasy settings where the guy with the pointy stick isn't far behind if any. Mythologically, Mr Pointy Stick wins a lot, not least because mythological wizards are a lot chalk behind D&D wizards.

I covered this above - mythological "mundanes" are almost all the scions of various deities, or they got buffed by a magic sword or got dipped in the River Styx or some other external explanation for why they can keep up. And the writers of those stories added those details because somebody just flexing enough to keep up with monsters and magic strains even their own disbelief, never mind ours after centuries of such conditioning being reinforced.



Also, I can't help but point out the inconsistency between using Gandalf as an example of famous fictional caster supremacy while saying that Cuchulainn and Heracles don't count because of their semi-divine origin. One or the other :smalltongue: I think you'd struggle to find many pre-D&D fictional examples of mortal casters being notably superior to mortal warriors tbh, and that it is no longer the case is a considerable testament to the influence of the game.

Even limiting myself to your arbitrary "pre-D&D" stipulation there are indeed plenty of powerful magicians lacking the kind of divine origin that Hercules and Cu Chulainn etc have like Prospero, Abeno Seimei, Nicolas Flamel, the Witches of Oz etc. We also have D&D's contemporaries (i.e. mages that were unlikely to have taken direct inspiration from it) like Feist's Pug and Dahl's Matilda. Then of course we have D&D's own influences like Jack Vance.

What I will concede is that D&D drifted from its roots as far as magic having drawbacks and mechanical obstacles to mastering it. It does not present (through the mechanics anyway) a particularly compelling reason why everyone who is smart enough to do so doesn't simply become a wizard, given the obvious strategic superiority of such a choice. But I can rationalize justifications for that discrepancy fairly easily without jettisoning the discrepancy itself.

[Knaight]

When the Balrog came, it wasn't some Human Fighter who prevented its passage, nor who smote its ruin upon the mount.
Meanwhile Feanor cut down somewhere in the vicinity of a dozen Balrogs with a sword.


Both of these have at least some divinity in their make-up though, so they're not exactly representative. There is no "plausibility gap" when a half deity is easily beating up a spellcaster. In D&D terms, these guys would almost certainly have a template of some kind, if not being a special race entirely with a boatload of LA.
So did Gandalf, in the other direction. But fine, we can lower the bar from whomping on them effortlessly for days to just winning, which opens the field to a lot of characters. Hurin & Turin from The Silmarillion; Lancelot, Gawain, Owain, Percival, Bors, and Yvain (who to be fair is basically another iteration of Owain) from Arthurian myth; basically the entire main cast of Water Margin (although the mages in that are a cut above); basically the entire main cast from Romance of the Three Kingdoms; the list goes on.

The depiction of wizards as people who are specifically better in a fight than actual warriors isn't anywhere near universal in fantasy, particularly if they get ambushed.


Even limiting myself to your arbitrary "pre-D&D" stipulation there are indeed plenty of powerful magicians lacking the kind of divine origin that Hercules and Cu Chulainn etc have like Prospero, Abeno Seimei, Nicolas Flamel, the Witches of Oz etc. We also have D&D's contemporaries (i.e. mages that were unlikely to have taken direct inspiration from it) like Feist's Pug and Dahl's Matilda. Then of course we have D&D's own influences like Jack Vance.
There's also plenty of fictional warriors who have no divine origin but are still utterly terrifying, starting with most of the later additions to the Arthurian myths.

As for Jack Vance, a wizard in Dying Earth is exceptional if they can hold a whole three spells at once, and legendary if they can manage six. There's also a serious case to be made that in terms of getting things done the most effective character is Cugel, who is a trickster first and foremost.

[Elkad]

3rd gave casters a whole pile more defenses. I think that's the biggest visible issue.
1e/2e weren't balanced either, but it felt that way because the world-altering power was offset by frailty.

A Magic-User with no concentration checks and 56hp at 18th level (assuming he could manage a 16 con, which was his effective max) was seriously squishy. If something got to melee range he was reduced to spamming 1st level spells - because anything else would be interrupted - or running away. An equal level caster had a fair chance of one-shotting him with a basic damage spell (18d6 Fireball, etc) if he didn't have defenses up. Even with Shapechange running, you were vulnerable to something.

So having the Fighter stand between you and the badguys was massively important. A Cleric would do in a pinch, but there was no Divine Power, much less Persisted Divine Power, and he had the same +2/die cap on Con bonus the M-U did. So while he was a warm body, he didn't have the durability the Fighter did.

The move to smaller parties and shorter encounter days didn't do the Fighters any favors either. The games I grew up with, if you only had 4 players, they all played 2 characters, plus all the sidekicks/henchmen/companions/familiars/etc. You got through battles with formations and reach weapons and swapping the wounded guys out of the front line. And then you pounded through at least a half-dozen set encounters in a day, plus 3 wandering monster encounters (at least one while you were trying to sleep), and if you had the temerity to cast a Rope Trick in the dungeon and not leave guards outside it, the goblins would build a bonfire under it, or dig a pit, or flood the room, or leave their pet Rust Monsters in the room, or go bribe the Orc Shaman in the next cave to come Dispel the thing while they all stood under it with braced spears.

[Psyren]

Meanwhile Feanor cut down somewhere in the vicinity of a dozen Balrogs with a sword.

Didn't this guy make a bunch of artifacts? He'd hardly be mundane in a D&D sense.



So did Gandalf, in the other direction. But fine, we can lower the bar from whomping on them effortlessly for days to just winning, which opens the field to a lot of characters. Hurin & Turin from The Silmarillion; Lancelot, Gawain, Owain, Percival, Bors, and Yvain (who to be fair is basically another iteration of Owain) from Arthurian myth; basically the entire main cast of Water Margin (although the mages in that are a cut above); basically the entire main cast from Romance of the Three Kingdoms; the list goes on.

The depiction of wizards as people who are specifically better in a fight than actual warriors isn't anywhere near universal in fantasy, particularly if they get ambushed.

And no one ever said "spellcasters can't ever be defeated." I certainly didn't. Hell, that doesn't even happen in D&D, outside of TO theorywank forum posts or extremely high-OP games anyway, starring Schrodinger's Wizard.

Rather, what I'm saying is that, on average - if you tell somebody who doesn't know much else about the game that this class over here gets magic powers and this one doesn't, they're going to conclude that the former is probably going to have capabilities the other lacks. It would be exactly the same if you said "this one's a mutant" or "this one's a shapeshifter" or something.


There's also plenty of fictional warriors who have no divine origin but are still utterly terrifying, starting with most of the later additions to the Arthurian myths.

How many of them outclassed Morgan Le Fay or Merlin?

[Zanos]

I honestly don't think the "vast majority" think that at all. Quite the opposite, I think most people hear "wizard" and assume he is going to be more capable (in general) than the guy with a pointy stick.
You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power at the same level.

[death390]

This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.


was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with. its why i am trying to get my DM to allow Tome of Battle into our games so that my mundane group can have more things to do.


and while i'm talking about ToB, it is probably the best thing for mundanes since magical weapons. look at these abilities that mundanes are allowed to use, it is as close to wuxia as DnD has gotten. THIS is what a fighter should have been. i say that barbarians and other full martials should get to choose between the 3 base initators and get 1/2 of the stances and maneuvers. paladins/ rangers/ delayed caster martials should get a 1/4. this would enable those martials some extra to do while not overshadowing the as written initators AND dump the fighter period.

this would bring so much more balance to dnd mundanes.

Edit; a short list of just lvl 1 stances effects.
Dazzle createurs around you. (for martial dancers?)
fire resistance based on a skill.
enemies are -4 to hit against your allies.
heal 2hp per sucessful attack. (the power of my faith keeps me alive)
+2 AC vs one for -2 vs others.
ignore difficult terrain. (chargers ftw)
concealment while moving. (for the sneaky)
count as flanking from all angles even side by side as long at you and an allay are adjacent to the same creature. (rouges anyone?)
+2 to strength checks AND +2 AC vs taller foes. (i may be short but by gods i know how to take out those tallfolk)
+1 to ATK and DMG per crit (lets go critfishing!)
+2 bonus on will saves +4 vs fear for (you can not cow usWE ARE NOT AFRAID!)
+1 damage on charge/ initiator lvl (follow me men INTO BATTLE!!!)

[Psyren]

You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

(No u)

That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.


Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power.

You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

[CharonsHelper]

You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

Because they're both the same CR?

Because they take them same exp?

Because each player at level 20 gets one of them?

etc.



The difference in performance isn't measured between (casters) vs. (muggles + gear).

It's (casters + gear) vs. (muggles + gear).

The gear ought to cancel out.


Not inherently.

Theoretically they could be balanced at WBL (they aren't - but theoretically).

If items didn't boost spells but only the underlying character chassis then they would benefit martials more.

After all - I'd argue that it's not

"(casters + gear) vs. (muggles + gear)".

Instead it's

"([casters x gear]+ spellcasting) vs. (muggles x gear)"

Now - in D&D (especially 3.x) the "spellcasting" part of the equation is big enough at high levels that "muggle" being higher than "caster" doesn't matter much. But that's not an inherent part of any system which used a similar framework where gear matters more to martials than to casters.

[Psyren]

Because they're both the same CR?

Because they take them same exp?

Because each player at level 20 gets one of them?

etc.

All of that just means they can handle level 20 threats (with level 20 wealth.) Not that they should be equal in power/capability. I mean, the moment you have different roles for them that becomes impossible.

PHB for instance says:


Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is especially good at healing. Even an inexperienced cleric can bring people back from the brink of death, and an experienced cleric can bring back people who have crossed over that brink.

Unless Fighters can do the same, they're clearly not equals, and that's just one example.

[Zanos]

(No u)

That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.
It's not a PvP game, but enemies can and do have class levels. According to the CR system, a Fighter 20 with NPC wealth is the same challenge as a Wizard 20 with NPC wealth, and even with WotC optimization that isn't true.


Unless Fighters can do the same, they're clearly not equals, and that's just one example.
The expectation isn't that every character has the same capabilities, it's that they contribute the same amount.

[death390]

also has anyone seen much crossover fiction staring d20 wizards vs other settings.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8096183/1/Harry-Potter-and-the-Natural-20

this follows a d20 wizard who gets teleported to the wizarding world (thanks to some death eaters) and goes to hogwarts. now he is obviously not able to do alot of what the other wizards can. but at the same time he is way above their power scale overall (guy even lists out the wizards stat sheet) he actually LACKS versatility due to his limited nature and the discrepancy between their magics (think arcane vs divine but not divine). overall a great read and adequately shows how dnd doesn't mesh well with alot of other fiction.

[Psyren]

It's not a PvP game, but enemies can and do have class levels. According to the CR system, a Fighter 20 with NPC wealth is the same challenge as a Wizard 20 with NPC wealth, and even with WotC optimization that isn't true.

That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.


The expectation isn't that every character has the same capabilities, it's that they contribute the same amount.

1) Where is "equal contribution" explained in the rules? My PHB doesn't seem to mention it.
2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.

[Gnaeus]

See, this is what makes this topic so hard to discuss. What does "best in combat" even mean to you? What would you be okay with a mage doing in a fight that a fighter cannot do, and vice-versa? (I'm assuming here that you actually want to avoid homogeneity between the classes - I certainly do - but that may not be the case.)
.

For me, it would depend on what you mean by “mage”.

If you mean a 3.5 wizard who can do anything in the world, I would want him to be inferior to a fighter in combat. At least unless the combat was specifically geared to the wizards strengths (like a Enemy demon that could be banished, or ritual casting where the wizard could set up the battlefield or spend time or resources for the win.)

If you mean a narrowly typed wizard, I would think it’s ok for them to be better at fighting than the fighter if there are other drawbacks and that’s basically their thing. So, I’m cool with summoning a demon better than a fighter if it’s time consuming and either resource consuming or risky. Otherwise, Conan like, I would expect them to be summoning things an equal level fighter could beat. Or if you mean something like a shapeshifter, I’m fine with a wizard turning into a dragon that’s better than a fighter, if they can’t do it all the time and there are risks about it (like it takes time, or you could run out of mana, or if you stay polymorphed too long you might not be able to change back.) Or if you mean some kind of combat wizard who doesn’t do much but fight, like warmage, they should be approximately equal to fighter. Maybe better against magic vulnerable targets or worse against magic resistant ones.

Better, IMO, would be to make it clear that “wizard” beats “fighter”, then make a “hero” class with parity with “wizard”. And a limited T5 hedge mage class with parity with a fighter.

[Zanos]

That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.
Actually he isn't, because the CR system provides guidelines for reducing CR based on creatures being caught in unfavorable circumstances, including being wounded, unprepared, or in a disadvantageous environment.

It doesn't say anything about ad hoc adjustments for having levels in a bad class, though, unless it's unassociated class levels. I suppose you could consider Fighter so bad that it doesn't even complement itself.


1) Where is "equal contribution" explained in the rules? My PHB doesn't seem to mention it.
2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.
1) I assume you are a Real Human Being who speaks Human Languages and eats Human Food, so when I used my Human Keyboard to write down a concept like "equal contribution", your Human Brain knows what I'm talking about. Less facetiously, this isn't a RAW discussion.
2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

[Nifft]

2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

Absolutely right.

Additionally, though, those things are independent variables.

Basically it's (muggle + player skill + gear) vs. (caster x player skill x gear)

Being a caster gives you geometrically more opportunities to display your player skill, because you have better tools: the school of Illusion, for example. The school of Transmutation, as a second example (stone shape, etc.). And of course the school of Conjuration (fabricate, minor creation, monster summoning, etc.).

[Psyren]

Actually he isn't, because the CR system provides guidelines for reducing CR based on creatures being caught in unfavorable circumstances, including being wounded, unprepared, or in a disadvantageous environment.

It doesn't say anything about ad hoc adjustments for having levels in a bad class, though.

That's not a "circumstance" though. Choosing what spells to prepare is inherent to the class. By your own logic, their CR is 20 no matter what they've actually prepared, because PC class levels are all that matter.



1) I assume you are a Real Human Being who speaks Human Languages and eats Human Food, so when I used my Human Keyboard to write down a concept like "equal contribution", your Human Brain knows what I'm talking about. Less facetiously, this isn't a RAW discussion.

Oh, I know quite well what you're talking about - but your assertion, that classes were meant to "contribute equally," is not only unsupported, it's not even defined.

My personal view is that classes contribute more or less depending on the circumstance, not that they're expected to be "equals." Even if a given circumstance comes up less often, when it does you'll be happy to have class X there to deal with it.



2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

It is relevant, because it shows that guideline is useless as holy writ.

[Peat]

See, this is what makes this topic so hard to discuss. What does "best in combat" even mean to you? What would you be okay with a mage doing in a fight that a fighter cannot do, and vice-versa? (I'm assuming here that you actually want to avoid homogeneity between the classes - I certainly do - but that may not be the case.)

In these circs I'd take it to to mean hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal. There's an argument for all forms of conflict that ends in pain and death, but I don't think any class should really be the straight up best there.

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are.

Although, honestly, while D&D without classes would feel wrong, I simply far prefer non-class based systems.


"Complete newbies" are the ones getting their characters built for them anyway, so I'm not really seeing the issue where they're concerned. Even if they're not though, they'll learn how to optimize eventually - just like we all did - and until then, the DM can hand them magic items that cover any glaring deficiencies in their character. Even new players can topple giants, smash skeletons, and yes, slay dragons, with a little help from the people they're playing the game next to.

They don't get them built at the tables I've played with. And lord knows I've heard enough stories about DMs who can't be trusted to help, or to hand over the items needed to cover deficiencies. Its the reason I'm making myself absent from my group's current Scion game.

Which is why balance is important. Balance helps cover up the cracks at tables that aren't great all round but still offer a fun game if no one's straining the rules all that much. Which is most tables I've been at.

Also, they can't kill the dragon if the person next to them does it first. And I'm not talking all Magic vs Martial here. The guy who picked the double handed weapon will kill more dragons than the people who picked the bow if neither is optimizing that hard. Tbh, I think that might be more of an issue than the martial-caster disparity. At least that one is obvious. Double-handed weapon Barbarian vs twin weapon fighter is a lot less obvious but last I checked, we all know who's winning there.


I covered this above - mythological "mundanes" are almost all the scions of various deities, or they got buffed by a magic sword or got dipped in the River Styx or some other external explanation for why they can keep up. And the writers of those stories added those details because somebody just flexing enough to keep up with monsters and magic strains even their own disbelief, never mind ours after centuries of such conditioning being reinforced.

A) And? So? Doesn't matter how they get the power. The point is I'm playing a high fantasy game and the fighter classes don't let me do what a high end fighter in myths can do. To me, that's lame. Not saying other people should share that opinion, but it came up so I'm saying it.

B) They're not all semi-divine in the myths (and certainly not modern media). I'd add Corineus and Finn MacCool to some of the others have suggested.


Even limiting myself to your arbitrary "pre-D&D" stipulation there are indeed plenty of powerful magicians lacking the kind of divine origin that Hercules and Cu Chulainn etc have like Prospero, Abeno Seimei, Nicolas Flamel, the Witches of Oz etc. We also have D&D's contemporaries (i.e. mages that were unlikely to have taken direct inspiration from it) like Feist's Pug and Dahl's Matilda. Then of course we have D&D's own influences like Jack Vance.

What I will concede is that D&D drifted from its roots as far as magic having drawbacks and mechanical obstacles to mastering it. It does not present (through the mechanics anyway) a particularly compelling reason why everyone who is smart enough to do so doesn't simply become a wizard, given the obvious strategic superiority of such a choice. But I can rationalize justifications for that discrepancy fairly easily without jettisoning the discrepancy itself.

Its a dividing line drawn to show the influence of the game, independent of any other argument here. Prior to it fictional wizards simply are nowhere near as powerful and versatile. Post that line, there's some pretty nuts ones out there. Making the philosopher's stone and getting immortal life are cool, but its not teleportation, angel summoning, Save or Dies, flying without shapechanging, shapechanging etc.etc. Mythical wizards can match them in certain areas, but none of them have the same breadth. No Gygax, no Harry Potter. I find that kinda cool. And for the small amount of relevance - if people come to D&D expecting wizards to be more useful than fighters, I'm pretty sure that's down to D&D in the first place.

And Feist's Midkemia is heavily based on his own D&D campaign. Wizards like Pug and Moraine are what you get when authors have played D&D.

This has next to nothing with the actual topic mind...

[Cosi]

3rd gave casters a whole pile more defenses. I think that's the biggest visible issue.
1e/2e weren't balanced either, but it felt that way because the world-altering power was offset by frailty.

I don't entirely agree. I think it's less that 3e made casters better, and more that earlier versions of D&D were intentionally designed in a way that made assessing whether a class was overpowered difficult. There was a lot more randomness (which blurs the distinction between a class being good and a character being lucky), a much stronger encouragement of DM intervention (which simultaneously dampens whatever imbalances occur and allows you to explain away the rest), and less encounter guidelines (which make it much harder to decide if some particular character is overpowered or not).


That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.

This is just taking the stance that Wizards are overpowered. Which, fine, that is something you can do, but it doesn't make imbalance good.


You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

Because the opportunity costs are equal? I literally do not understand how any person smart enough to read a book could fail to understand that things with equal costs should be equally valuable. That's what cost is for.


That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.

Yes, as we all know, if you can find any case where something doesn't work, it's useless. For example, trying to inhale underwater is a bad idea, so no one ever inhales.


2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.

So? Lots of things contribute to whether or not you get lung cancer. That doesn't mean the effects of cigarettes on cancer rates are neutral.

Seriously, have you ever taken a stats class?

[Gnaeus]

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are...

Summon monster? Not really. Although if you optimize summoning and drop a couple creatures per combat they can. Animate dead can pretty easily, especially if you get good monsters to animate and/or can supercharge your undead via methods. Planar binding, though, lets you summon 20 demons each of which is 75% of your fighter. And you do all the heavy lifting before you walk near the dungeon so it costs you 0 spell power. It always comes up in balance discussion because it’s so off the chain. And then there’s gate.

[Psyren]

In these circs I'd take it to to mean hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal. There's an argument for all forms of conflict that ends in pain and death, but I don't think any class should really be the straight up best there.

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are.

Although, honestly, while D&D without classes would feel wrong, I simply far prefer non-class based systems.

A fighter is indeed better at "hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal" - before buffs are applied. To me that makes him better because he doesn't need the crutch of spells to be skilled, he can rely on natural talent or training. It is however your GM's job to make that distinction matter, by for example fielding monsters that can dispel magical buffs from a less trained/talented gish.



They don't get them built at the tables I've played with. And lord knows I've heard enough stories about DMs who can't be trusted to help, or to hand over the items needed to cover deficiencies. Its the reason I'm making myself absent from my group's current Scion game.

Which is why balance is important. Balance helps cover up the cracks at tables that aren't great all round but still offer a fun game if no one's straining the rules all that much. Which is most tables I've been at.

To clarify - do you mean most of your tables strain the rules, or that most of your tables don't have issues?


A) And? So? Doesn't matter how they get the power.

It does matter, because D&D has a mechanic that represents getting special advantages due to circumstances of your birth - they're called inherited templates, or even a new race entirely. The important thing being that they are completely separate from your class. Hercules would be the son of Zeus (and have many of the same advantages) whether he picked up a gladius, a bow, or a magic wand. Similarly, Clark Kent would have all the powers he has even if he had stayed a bumpkin farmer in Kansas. Those things come from their race, not their class.



B) They're not all semi-divine in the myths (and certainly not modern media). I'd add Corineus and Finn MacCool to some of the others have suggested.

Finn's a god so he's out. As for Corineus, that's a fine example - the stuff he did is definitely within reach of a 3.5 Fighter, never mind a PF one.



And Feist's Midkemia is heavily based on his own D&D campaign. Wizards like Pug and Moraine are what you get when authors have played D&D.

And Prospero/Seimei? Were they D&D characters too? All their power came from their class, not any supernatural birth.

[BassoonHero]

was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with.
Feel free, and thanks.

I'm a fan of the Tome of Battle; I think that it's the best sourcebook printed for 3.5. At the same time, I wish that it weren't necessary. A common criticism of the book is that it turns fighters into spellcasters. I don't quite agree, but I have to acknowledge the criticism.

Setting aside the Tome's particular flavor and mechanics, the reason it's so successful is that it gives fighters cool abilities. D&D 3.5 is positively squeamish about handing about unusual or extraordinary abilties to fighters even as it piles them on spellcasters. And when it does--as with the Tome of Battle--it insists on some kind of fig leaf. The book is packed with very specific flavor and even a backstory for the whole system, as though the authors felt it necessary to justify at great length why it was okay to let the fighters have nice things this one time. Veteran players and DMs, on the other hand, tend to embrace the new mechanics with open arms while often disregarding the flavor. In fact, the second-most-common complaint I hear about the book is that the flavor reminds people of anime, which they don't like.

In a way, the foundation for the Tome of Battle was laid in the Player's Handbook itself. A range of combat maneuvers are built in from level one, and and at high levels a fighter can execute several in a turn even while dishing out damage. Feats added cool new options like a punch that stuns your opponents or an attack that hit every adjacent opponent. But this promising foundation was compromised by annoying caveats and unnecessary limitations. Sure, you get four attacks per round, but two of them are going to suck. And if you move, you lose three of them anyway. Want to disarm your opponent? You'd better have the right feat, and the ****ty prerequisite feat. Spring Attack? That's three feats, and an ability score requirement. Two-Weapon Fighting? Don't even ask. Defensive mechanics range from bad (shields) to very bad (fighting defensively) to insultingly bad (Two-Weapon Defense). Any deviation from the "default" style of swinging a big sword is punished swiftly and severely.

When you look at the most popular combat abilities, it's amazing how many of them simply work around these limitations. The barbarian's lion spiritual totem lets you move and still use your normal attacks. Tome of Battle strikes let you deal level-appropriate damage withot being locked into a full attack, and its counters let you use your martial prowess to defend yourself. A spiked chain build can milk the trip mechanic hard enough that you'll forget it cost you three feats just to get started.

This tells me that the system has a lot of low-hanging fruit to make life easier for fighter-types. The first ones I choose to pluck are:


Making a full attack a standard action.
Limiting the iterative attack penalty to -5.
Removing attacks of opportunity for most combat maneuvers.
Removing Weapon Finesse and Brutal Throw, making the benefits standard options.
Eliminating swaths of useless prerequisite feats.


In many cases, fixing these problems merely requires deleting caveats and restrictions, actually simplifying the rules in the process.


Harry Potter and the Natural 20
I quite enjoyed that one myself. His transfiguration lessons were particularly relevant; although in many respects Milo was leagues more powerful than other wizards, turning a toothpick to a needle was hopelessly beyond his abilities. I'm sure that at some point someone has argued that wizards from that universe must be high-level indeed because they casually throw around Polymorph Any Object.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with. its why i am trying to get my DM to allow Tome of Battle into our games so that my mundane group can have more things to do.


and while i'm talking about ToB, it is probably the best thing for mundanes since magical weapons. look at these abilities that mundanes are allowed to use, it is as close to wuxia as DnD has gotten. THIS is what a fighter should have been. i say that barbarians and other full martials should get to choose between the 3 base initators and get 1/2 of the stances and maneuvers. paladins/ rangers/ delayed caster martials should get a 1/4. this would enable those martials some extra to do while not overshadowing the as written initators AND dump the fighter period.

this would bring so much more balance to dnd mundanes.

Edit; a short list of just lvl 1 stances effects.
Dazzle createurs around you. (for martial dancers?)
fire resistance based on a skill.
enemies are -4 to hit against your allies.
heal 2hp per sucessful attack. (the power of my faith keeps me alive)
+2 AC vs one for -2 vs others.
ignore difficult terrain. (chargers ftw)
concealment while moving. (for the sneaky)
count as flanking from all angles even side by side as long at you and an allay are adjacent to the same creature. (rouges anyone?)
+2 to strength checks AND +2 AC vs taller foes. (i may be short but by gods i know how to take out those tallfolk)
+1 to ATK and DMG per crit (lets go critfishing!)
+2 bonus on will saves +4 vs fear for (you can not cow usWE ARE NOT AFRAID!)
+1 damage on charge/ initiator lvl (follow me men INTO BATTLE!!!)

Amen. Spheres of Power/Might and Dreamscarred Press material makes Pathfinder infinitely more balanced, and Tome of Battle started us down that track so thank god for it.

[death390]

I would argue that 1/2 of iterative attacks should count for fighters as standard not all. But that's a nitpick (odd iteratives, 1 3 5 ect)

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

Edit: headed into my class now will be away from board for awhile but I shall be back! And don't forget that opportunity cost is not covered in most basic stats classes I was in college level buissness courses before I heard of that term.

[Peat]

A fighter is indeed better at "hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal" - before buffs are applied. To me that makes him better because he doesn't need the crutch of spells to be skilled, he can rely on natural talent or training. It is however your GM's job to make that distinction matter, by for example fielding monsters that can dispel magical buffs from a less trained/talented gish.

And to me, if its no longer true after CoDzilla has applied their own buffs, its no longer true full stop.

Sure, the GM can (and maybe should) even that one out, but balance is there to lessen the number of times you've got to rely on the GM.


To clarify - do you mean most of your tables strain the rules, or that most of your tables don't have issues?

Most of the tables I've been at offer a fun game if no one's pushing at the game's unbalanced bits too much, but go to hell in a handcart quickly if they are. I guess... maybe 50% of the games end with someone pushing the balance too far?

Which actually means D&D (and all derivations) tend to be the best game, largely because everyone's too disorganised to ever get much beyond level 3 or so. All the various White Wolf super games though, they tend to be ugly. I'd love to play a 10th level D&D game with my current group, but I wouldn't be putting too much effort into the character back story, if you get me.


It does matter, because D&D has a mechanic that represents getting special advantages due to circumstances of your birth - they're called inherited templates, or even a new race entirely. The important thing being that they are completely separate from your class. Hercules would be the son of Zeus (and have many of the same advantages) whether he picked up a gladius, a bow, or a magic wand. Similarly, Clark Kent would have all the powers he has even if he had stayed a bumpkin farmer in Kansas. Those things come from their race, not their class.

I get that.

I still think its bad, annoying and illogical game design. And since I'm not trying to persuade anyone to think different, but rather sharing an example of how people's expectations can jar with D&D, I'll leave it there.


Finn's a god so he's out. As for Corineus, that's a fine example - the stuff he did is definitely within reach of a 3.5 Fighter, never mind a PF one.

Finn is presented as a human in the stories. His probable mythological origin is neither here nor there.


And Prospero/Seimei? Were they D&D characters too? All their power came from their class, not any supernatural birth.

Not why I brought it up and I made that pretty explicit.

[ryu]

I would argue that 1/2 of iterative attacks should count for fighters as standard not all. But that's a nitpick (odd iteratives, 1 3 5 ect)

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

Edit: headed into my class now will be away from board for awhile but I shall be back! And don't forget that opportunity cost is not covered in most basic stats classes I was in college level buissness courses before I heard of that term.

It's okay. He used it wrong anyway where absolute cost would've been the correct choice of phrase. Absolute cost is the resources put into obtaining the thing directly. This is your twenty levels XP and class picking freedom. Opportunity cost has to do with whatever your second choice would be if you either aren't allowed to pick the first choice for some reason, or simply change your mind. The opportunity costs of two vastly different options are likely different for the simple fact that in a system with a countably small number of classes, which class you're explicitly not picking may well effect what your second choice is. On the other hand the absolute cost of any two classes is manifestly always equal in this system because leveling up takes the same XP. In single classing anyway, which was the scenario he brought up.

[Nifft]

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.


For example:

Weapon Focus [General, Fighter]
Benefit: Choose one weapon type with which you are familiar. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons of this type.

BAB +8 or higher: you gain another +1 bonus to attack rolls (+2 total).
Fighter level 4 or higher: you also gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls.
Fighter level 8 or higher: you gain another +2 bonus to damage rolls (+4 total).
BAB +12 or higher: you also gain a +4 bonus to critical hit confirmation rolls.
Fighter level 12 or higher: you also gain a +4 bonus to opposed Disarm checks.


Combat Expertise [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Int 13
Benefit: At the start of your turn, you can trade BAB for defense up to -5 (etc.). When you reach level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you may choose to gain one of the following benefits for which you qualify:

* Improved Disarm: ...
* Improved Feint: ...
* Improved Trip: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Defensive Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Karmic Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Melee Evasion: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Riposte: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Improved Expertise: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6, Dodge feat) Combat Cloak Expert: ...
(Prereq: BAB +12, Dodge feat) Whirlwind Attack: ...


Two-Weapon Fighting [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Dex 15
Benefit: You can attack with both weapons for a mere -2 to each attack this turn.

If your BAB is +6 or higher, you get a second attack with your off-hand weapon, at -5.
If your BAB is +11 or higher, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, at -10.
Additionally, at BAB +____ you choose a style:

* Two-Weapon Defense -> Improved Two-Weapon Defense
* Two-Weapon Pounce -> Two-Weapon Rend

[Psikerlord]

Balance vs monsters doesnt matter. The GM can always add more monsters, using nastier ones, or change powers/stats etc.

What is critical however is a rough intra-party balance for a campaign (doenst matter for a one shot). If you have one or two PCs that dwarf the others in power, your campaign will end early. It will end early either because (i) the other players get jack of playing second fiddle to the OP PCs, or (ii) the GM will accidentally TPK the party by trying to challenge the OP PCs, killling the weaker ones first, then overwhelming the OP one(s).

So to answer the OP, a rough intra party balance is important to keep your game going. Party vs monster balance on the other hand is not an issue.

[digiman619]

Combat Expertise [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Int 13
Benefit: At the start of your turn, you can trade BAB for defense up to -5 (etc.). When you reach level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you may choose to gain one of the following benefits for which you qualify:
* Improved Disarm: ...
* Improved Feint: ...
* Improved Trip: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Defensive Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Karmic Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Melee Evasion: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Riposte: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Improved Expertise: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6, Dodge feat) Combat Cloak Expert: ...
(Prereq: BAB +12, Dodge feat) Whirlwind Attack: ...


Seriously? You're proposing remaking feats to scale and do cool stuff and you stil keep Dodge? Dodge is of the definititive bad feats that one only picks because it's a prerequisite for things that actually matter.

[Nifft]

[/INDENT]

Seriously? You're proposing remaking feats to scale and do cool stuff and you stil keep Dodge? Dodge is of the definititive bad feats that one only picks because it's a prerequisite for things that actually matter.
Why are you assuming that a re-worked Dodge won't also do cool stuff?

[digiman619]

Why are you assuming that a re-worked Dodge won't also do cool stuff?
Because you didn't provide an example of what it could do, and we're already seeing that not taking it is blocking off significant aspect of other, more valid feats and are therefore still a tax.

[Nifft]

Because you didn't provide an example of what it could do, and we're already seeing that not taking it is blocking off significant aspect of other, more valid feats and are therefore still a tax.

Dodge

Low Options:
- Combat Reflexes
- Mobility
- Combat Archery
- Deceptive Dodge
- Shot on the Run

High Options:
- Sidestep
- Elusive Target
- Combat Tactician
- other cool stuff



Spring Attack
Prereq: BAB +4, Dex 13 -- does not require Dodge

Automatic: Spring Attack -> Bounding Assault -> Rapid Blitz

Options:
- cool stuff
- more cool stuff

[digiman619]

Dodge

Low Options:
- Combat Reflexes
- Mobility
- Combat Archery
- Deceptive Dodge
- Shot on the Run

High Options:
- Sidestep
- Elusive Target
- Combat Tactician
- other cool stuff



Spring Attack
Prereq: BAB +4, Dex 13 -- does not require Dodge

Automatic: Spring Attack -> Bounding Assault -> Rapid Blitz

Options:
- cool stuff
- more cool stuff
I was thinking about this and realized that there was already a d20 book that tackeld this idea: Monte Cook's Iron Heroes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes) had Mastery feats that scaled like that. I'd give a link to the book to show what I mean, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an SRD, and getting a copy will cost about $15-20 dollars, so it's a bit much to ask to prove a point.

[AvatarVecna]

I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.

I'll second this. The the Feats that come up and character optimization discussions are the ones that either scale with your level or grant more options. Knowledge devotion scales with skill bonus, item familiar scales with skill ranks, Power Attack skills with base attack bonus and grants more options as you level, combat reflexes scales with dexterity and opens up some really nice options few some of the only useful feet trees in the game, every metamagic feat current number of options that scales with your level, crafting Feats Grant benefits that scale the more base money you have, and so on
Non-scaling Feats that get mentioned a lot are usually Feats that grant particularly interesting new ability rather than just a bonus., like darkstalker, robilar's gambit, martisl study/stance, steadfast determination, rapid sho, cleave, and so on. The only non scaling feet I can think of that doesn't Grant an interesting ability but rather just ran to a static bonus is improved initiative, because initiative is a number that doesn't really scale much with your level normally so the bonus from improved Initiative continues being worth the Feats lot for quite some time.

[Nifft]

I was thinking about this and realized that there was already a d20 book that tackeld this idea: Monte Cook's Iron Heroes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes) had Mastery feats that scaled like that. I'd give a link to the book to show what I mean, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an SRD, and getting a copy will cost about $15-20 dollars, so it's a bit much to ask to prove a point. I know that I bought several heaps of PDFs when the d20 craze was going strong, but I never actually had time to read most of them... let me see if I already have it.

I've certainly got his Arcana Evolved stuff.

Anyway, thanks for the rec.


The only non scaling feet I can think of that doesn't Grant an interesting ability but rather just ran to a static bonus is improved initiative, because initiative is a number that doesn't really scale much with your level normally so the bonus from improved Initiative continues being worth the Feats lot for quite some time.

Hmm!

Let's see how to describe the benefit of Improved Initiative by level...

Level 1: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 1 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 1 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 3: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 2 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 2 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 5: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 3 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 3 spell while they are flat-footed."


... yeah I feel like there might be some scaling going on there, too, if we consider how the consequences of a single extra action can increase with level.

Or maybe that's too much of a stretch. :smile:

[death390]

scaling feats are a nice idea but i don't know if i like the way those above are presented. yes you get a extra "feat bonus" at the specified levels but at the same time it would restrict you to the options given from those. what if the fighter wants both improved disarm and improved feint. at that point he has to wait until his next freebie in order to get it since those are no longer feats they are "feats bonuses" scaling feats would definitely be better overall. something like.

Two weapon fighting
Pre-req: Dex 15.
Benefit: You can attack with both weapons as a standard action, and a extra attack on a full action .
If your BaB is +3 or higher, you get +1 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+2 when fighting defensively)
If your BAB is +6 or higher, you get a second attack with your off-hand weapon, at -5.
If your BaB is +9 or higher, you get +2 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+4 when fighting defensively)
If your BAB is +11 or higher, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, at -10.
If your BaB is +14 or higher, you get +3 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+6 when fighting defensibly)
EDIT: oh silly copy paste i i love and hate thee.

Combat Expertise
Pre-req: Int 13
Benefit: You can increase your AC by 1 per 1 you lower your BaB for the round. at -2 BaB you are considered fighting defensively.

Power Attack
Pre-req: Str 13
Benefit: You can increase your Damage by 1 per 1 you lower your BaB for the round. Fighting with a 2 handed weapon increased the damage to 2 per 1 BaB lowered and when Two Weapon Fighting each hand gets the same bonus.

Combat Maneuvers
Pre-req: none
Benefit: You do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity from attackers when attempting a combat maneuver. additionally you get +1 per 2 BaB you have as a bonus to your roll. (required for specialized maneuver feats)

i like the weapon focus one though. and just straight get rid of dodge please.

[Nifft]

scaling feats are a nice idea but i don't know if i like the way those above are presented. yes you get a extra "feat bonus" at the specified levels but at the same time it would restrict you to the options given from those. what if the fighter wants both improved disarm and improved feint. at that point he has to wait until his next freebie in order to get it since those are no longer feats they are "feats bonuses"

Everyone has to make choices, though. There's always an opportunity cost.

In my variant, it's a choice between two freebies which only compete against each other.

In the current rules, it's a choice about how to spend your only class feature, and you don't get to start a new feat chain at the same time that you're getting your one new perk.

[death390]

Everyone has to make choices, though. There's always an opportunity cost.

In my variant, it's a choice between two freebies which only compete against each other.

In the current rules, it's a choice about how to spend your only class feature, and you don't get to start a new feat chain at the same time that you're getting your one new perk.

right and i understand that its just why not keep these special maneuvers feats but drop some of the pre-reqs.

look at spring attack rename it attack on the run. and incorporate shot on the run into it.

Moving Strike
Pre-req: mobility (updated to scale somehow, maybe combined with run and some other stuff)
Benefit: As a full round action move your speed during your turn and at some point during this move perform a standard action. this standard action does not provoke an attack of opportunity for a single enemy (your primary target).

this combined with a modified standard action that lets you use half of your iterative attacks (odd numbered 1, 3, 5, ect) lets those who use melee on the run attack a target. while archers can use manyshot, and casters can cast a single spell. this is in all honesty a simple movement mode.

[Psyren]

And to me, if its no longer true after CoDzilla has applied their own buffs, its no longer true full stop.

Sure, the GM can (and maybe should) even that one out, but balance is there to lessen the number of times you've got to rely on the GM.

See, I don't think the GM needs to "even it out" most of the time. Gaps can exist between the classes, so long as they don't get too large (e.g. ice assassin aleaxes and chain-gating solars.) I would bet that in most games, these gaps stay manageable and align with people's expectations of spellcasting vs. not-spellcasting.



Most of the tables I've been at offer a fun game if no one's pushing at the game's unbalanced bits too much, but go to hell in a handcart quickly if they are. I guess... maybe 50% of the games end with someone pushing the balance too far?

Which actually means D&D (and all derivations) tend to be the best game, largely because everyone's too disorganised to ever get much beyond level 3 or so. All the various White Wolf super games though, they tend to be ugly. I'd love to play a 10th level D&D game with my current group, but I wouldn't be putting too much effort into the character back story, if you get me.

Maybe this is contributing to my bias but it just hasn't happened in mine. What's far more likely to make our GM slam on the brakes is when someone does a lot of damage in one turn - typically a martial or a gish - not a spellcaster erasing the plot with a standard action or whatnot.



Finn is presented as a human in the stories. His probable mythological origin is neither here nor there.

Whoever invented him still felt the need to "explain" his superhuman muggleness this way though. Spellcasters meanwhile can just be talented.


I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.

This I can agree with, it's long-overdue.

[Fizban]

One more for the road then, but I'll spoiler the rest since it's been two pages since I went to bed.

Your central point was that dead-magic combat is so important to D&D that it's a good idea to bring along a fighter. This is wrong in two different ways, as discussed above.
No it wasn't.

Casters make those items. Fighters are helpless. Next?
Casters have better options (i.e. spells), and if they wanted anti-ooze gear, they'd make that gear. No caster, no gear. Next?
Both irrelevant, as grabbed by another poster, and in accurate on the second as once again you can just shoot them.

You eat an AoO on every bow attack since you're unable to climb or fly over it, and you're unable to sneak past it. Skill-types can usually do one or the other; casters can usually do all of the above (or kill it with a spell). Next?
This one's particularly rich, as you're willfully ignoring the whole point of a bow and simply dictating the problems you want to happen. I could give literally the same argument against spellcasting. This is why I said there's no point in going back and forth.

It's just that the Fighter brings practically nothing to the team, when compared with a second Cleric. (Did I just blow your mind? Yeah, you could have two Clerics on a team instead of one Cleric and one Fighter. Guess which team is going to perform better?)
Your team is: Fighter + Healer + Monk + Ranger (ACFs: minus-spells, plus-trapfinding)
My team is: Wizard + Cleric + Druid + Beguiler
Unsurprisingly, "my team" is underpowered since you've denied them their standard arcanist, and your team is grossly overpowered. But you don't believe it's possible to be overpowered, so you perceive an imbalance in the normally powered party, nor do you believe in the standard party around which the game and all its assumptions are designed.

Now you can't move the goalposts in this particular direction again.
(No u)

It's not rare at all. Look through White Plume Mountain for a decent variety of difficult terrain encounters. Also, of course, it's a condition that my spellcasters can and do impose on NPC monsters all the time. Next?
Well lets take a look at all the adventures I consider myself well familiar with. Red Hand of Doom, World's Largest Dungeon, Shadowdale: TSotL, Anauraoch: TEoS, War of the Burning Sky (up through chapter 8/12), and The Sunless Citadel. Of those, the only one that majorly features fighting on "screw you" terrain is the last, which has you roll reflex saves to not fall off the cliff at level 1 while fighting rats- against all the rules of how that actually works (it's the first 3.0 main module though so I cut it some slack). All the rest are deliberately designed so as to not screw the players and/or specifically mention they're intended to covered by spellcasting (and more spells spent on obstacles means more reliance on not-spells to kill enemies) Meanwhile Shadowdale and Anauroch are specifically about the spread of dead magic areas, WotBS includes penalties for teleporting and high level NPCs dedicated to reactive counterspelling, and WLD says straight out that some spells might be too good (then spoils it later by using them anyway of course). No, once again you're using an incredibly vague definition of "difficult terrain encounters" and then assuming that fighters are useless.

You are the target in 50% of these scenarios, so your answer is you let yourself get caught and die? Okay then. Fighter-tier "winning" I guess. But even in the other 50% of cases, the targets can do sneaky things like go around corners or hide behind a tree and you're going to lose anyway. You have chosen poorly. Next?
Yeah, it's called teamwork bro. When they're attacking you they're not attacking the other 3 party members and the team wins. When you stand in front of the other party members you block charges and force them to waste extra turns not hitting people, and that's if you don't have a convenient choke point like say the hallway of a dungeon. And I find it hilarious that you managed so say "the enemy hides behind a tree" and declare that a loss.

No, I'm talking about how spellcasters can impose all the preceding conditions on you, stuff like "create difficult terrain" or "summon a colossal scorpion" or "cast spells while flying away", plus they can dominate / blind / stun / petrify / confuse / etc. a weak-willed muggle.
And they have less hit points and defenses than actual monsters and you have two magical party members for dealing with magic. But again, you don't seem to believe in teamwork or party composition.

What was my anti-Fighter scenario?
Uh, what? The list of 9 things of increasing vagueness you picked where "fighters fall flat" back on page 3?

You are saying that you don't care about normal D&D combat.
I should have seen that coming.
No, I'm saying your definition of "contribute" is wrong, as well as your expectations of normal DnD combat. Every single thing you've listed as screwing fighters (both specific and vague) could be listed as screwing wizards simply by changing the viewpoint. In fact they frequently are as ways to deal with out of control casters-but you only see them as anti-fighter. You are essentially assuming a DM that uses a bunch of difficulty increasing scenarios, but doesn't spread them around evenly, allowing the caster to dominate by "always having the perfect spell" while never running an adventure where casters have to rely on the fighter. Of course that's difficult to do when you're blind to the role of the fighter and the expectations of encounter design.

Sadly, what you are trying to blame on "my metagame" is actually the exact and specific thing which is supported by the default rules. Even more sadly, it's the ONLY thing supported by the default rules.
It's a strange habit that some people seem to have: I'm telling you about a flaw, so you're trying to assign the flaw to something specific about me.
I can only tell you that you've misunderstood the base game so many times when you refuse to believe it. Like Cosi, you're raging about this horrible flaw, as you put it, your PHB lied to you. But its quite clear even with just the the PHB and DMG that your base assumption is wrong and the flaw is not considered a flaw by the designers-the other books just reinforce it. Your values do not match the game.

I wonder if this is the same basic cognitive error which leads to victim-blaming.
Nice try, but you're not a victim and it's not victim-blaming to point out your argument starts on the wrong foot. Funny how you pull this line after accusing me of personal insults for using the word "whining" though.

I think virtually everyone would agree that Fighters are supposed to be balanced well against spellcasters.
You can of course think whatever you want, but clearly it's not true, as multiple people in this thread have argued against you and the game itself knows perfectly well it was not designed to match your definition of "balance."

I wish you were saying something true here.
So your strategy in an argument is to continue saying "nuh uh" rather than provide evidence of your position. Or is it that you demand I cite all the lines for you individually? I've done that before against people more receptive to arguments than you and it still didn't work, so no, I've wasted enough time.

If the designers knew that Fighters were garbage, they'd make Fighter NPCs lower CR than Wizard NPCs. They did not do this. I can't see any justification for your assertion that the Fighter's poor relative performance was "fully intentional".
And trying to reverse the CR system, yup, this argument would lead to exactly the same point as I predicted. In short, no, the CR of NPCs does not justify any assumptions about class balance, and no, I'm not walking you through line by line on how to read it. I already know from your refusal to consider any definitions other than those you consider "natural reading" that you will never consider that your natural reading might be off, or that the reading needs to be informed by other things you'd rather ignore.

In short, this argument is over, as you refuse to acknowledge the reason there even is an argument.

Running a caster-heavy 16th level 3.5e game was a lot more rewarding than constantly shoring up the self-esteem of a Fighter-type who felt useless (spoiler: Fighters were in fact useless).
I'm not talking from theory here -- it's way more fun to be surprised by the creativity of my players than it is to dig for ways that the useless Fighter might be able to contribute. Getting that guy to play a Tome of Battle class made the game significantly more fun for everyone, including him.
Congratulations, you have discovered that your metagame is of a higher optimization level than the base game (and that include both player and DM sides), wherein the fighter class is underpowered. It's quite a popular one, the forums love it. This does not affect the fighters ability to contribute in games of the expected optimization level, which is lower.


Incidentally, I find it amusing that people who say the fighter is completely useless will recommend fighter fixes that. . . give them slightly better numbers and more feats. It's not actually wrong, in fact it's pretty effective at dealing with power-creep, but it's so at odds with the so-called problem it's laughable.

[AvatarVecna]

Hmm!

Let's see how to describe the benefit of Improved Initiative by level...

Level 1: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 1 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 1 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 3: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 2 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 2 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 5: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 3 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 3 spell while they are flat-footed."


... yeah I feel like there might be some scaling going on there, too, if we consider how the consequences of a single extra action can increase with level.

Or maybe that's too much of a stretch. :smile:

I think it's too much of a stretch. It's like saying that Weapon Focus scales because you get more attacks as you level up, or that Lightning Reflexes scales with level because the higher-level you are, the more often you'll need to make Reflex saves in a fight and the more dire the consequences are for failure. The fact that circumstances related to the roll have changed doesn't change the fact that +1 to attacks is a much larger portion of your attack bonus at lvl 1 than at lvl 20. If you have a stat that scales with level in some fashion (BAB, saves, skill bonuses, AC, HP), a flat bonus will, inevitably, become such a small percentage of your total that it doesn't matter. For obvious reasons, this becomes a lot more painfully clear in epic than it does pre-epic, but it still comes up pre-epic.

The poster child of this is Toughness: a first level Fighter with Con 14 will have 12 HP, and another 3 is maybe worth a feat, but the Barbarian 1 with Con 18 and rage will have 18 HP during combat, and another 3 just isn't worth the feat. For any class with a good Fort save, Toughness is objectively worse than Improved Toughness starting at lvl 3; for any class with a bad Fort save, it's objectively worse starting at lvl 6. The existence of Improved Toughness points out that even WotC is aware that awful flats don't scale well. The epic version of Toughness gives +30 HP, and honestly...probably isn't worth your epic feat slots even if you're playing in a game where HP still matter. A Wizard 21 will probably have base Con 12 and another +6 from an item or spell or something, so they're probably looking at 21d4+84 (avg 136.5), another 30 just can't compete with even just +1 to Int, let alone epic feats that give new abilities...and that's assuming the wizard didn't pick up FMI to get Int to HP instead of Con - those Wizards are playing with the big boys, rocking 21d4+252 (avg 304.5). 3 extra HP is worth nothing to these guys; even 30 is only maybe worth it to them, and that feat's got some stiff competition. And even if you have so few HP that Epic Toughness is a must-have, even that Epic Feat will eventually (read: lvl 31) be outstripped by the non-epic feat Improved Toughness. Saying "but wait, at any given level those extra 3 HP could make the difference between bleeding out and getting another attack" is technically correct, but is making the circumstance out to be more common than it is.

Think of opposed rolls like races, damage vs HP, attack bonus vs AC, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Spot vs Hide, Init vs Init. Scaling bonuses are an increase in Velocity, while flat bonuses merely represent who gets a headstart. Depending on how long the race goes, who had the biggest headstart will inevitably not matter compared to who was going faster. The shorter the race is and the slower people are going, the more the headstarts matter. Of course, of the races listed, only one race has next to no Velocity: Init vs Init, both of which level with Dex (which, for a lot of characters, won't really advance very often - maybe when you pick up an item for it), so a +4 headstart is a big bonus for a lvl 1 character, and is still a sizeable bonus for a lvl 20 character. But, depending on the lvl 20 character, that +4 bonus might not even be the biggest headstart you have, particularly if you're a class with a good Dexterity Velocity. The headstart of Imp Init matters because the race is slow for most creatures.

To be clear, I'm mostly fine with Improved Initiative not scaling - like I said, it's basically the only flat-bonus feat I can think of that's actually good, and it only really becomes a wasted feat when you're playing in games where either nobody's ever really rolling initiative (high-level rocket tag involving Celerity, Contingency, and dire turtles comes to mind), or everybody's initiative bonuses are so different that no amount of dice rolling will change the order people act in. Improved Initiative is a feat that I don't think needs to scale, because it's a race that goes slow enough for the +4 headstart to matter well into low-epic for most games, which is good enough for the vast majority of tables. But feats that give a flat bonus to things that have per-level scaling? Toughness needs to scale (and Improved Toughness is the proof). Weapon Focus needs to scale. Iron Will needs to scale - and to counter it, Spell Focus should probably scale too (although we don't want casters getting too many nice things:smalltongue:).

[Fizban]

I think it's too much of a stretch. It's like saying that Weapon Focus scales because you get more attacks as you level up, or that Lightning Reflexes scales with level because the higher-level you are, the more often you'll need to make Reflex saves in a fight and the more dire the consequences are for failure. The fact that circumstances related to the roll have changed doesn't change the fact that +1 to attacks is a much larger portion of your attack bonus at lvl 1 than at lvl 20. If you have a stat that scales with level in some fashion (BAB, saves, skill bonuses, AC, HP), a flat bonus will, inevitably, become such a small percentage of your total that it doesn't matter.
Except that's not how d20 rolls work. The total is irrelevant, what matters is the gap between the bonus and the DC. This gap does tend to get larger as time goes on, but not as much as "percentage of total" implies. And of course it's further muddied by having to make educated guesses at what the expected gear is.

The question is weather the gap is huge enough that those headstarts are inevitably shut down by scaling. I say that with expected gear against standard monsters, it's far less of a sure thing. But as everything gets more exaggerated by optimization, it is inevitable that higher op will demand more scaling.

[Nifft]

In short, this argument is over, as you refuse to acknowledge the reason there even is an argument.
The reason there is an argument is because someone on the internet is wrong.


It's you, Fizban.

You are wrong on the internet.




The epic version of Toughness gives +30 HP, and honestly...probably isn't worth your epic feat slots even if you're playing in a game where HP still matter. A Wizard 21 will probably have base Con 12 and another +6 from an item or spell or something, so they're probably looking at 21d4+84 (avg 136.5), another 30 just can't compete Another +30 gives immunity* to Power Word: Stun, which is a mainstream spell.

But yeah, I'd expect a low-op PC to use a +6 item and spend or quest for a +5 Inherent bonus, and then either spend a point of level-up or take one Epic +1 Con feat for a total of 12 + 12 = 24 Con (for another 7 x 21 = 147 bonus hp; 199.5 expected total baseline hp) before considering Epic Toughness.


Saying "but wait, at any given level those extra 3 HP could make the difference between bleeding out and getting another attack" is technically correct, but is making the circumstance out to be more common than it is. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

I bet there's someone out there for whom this exact scenario was a reality, and to this day that person will swear that Toughness is a great feat. It saved brave Ser Cuitous, after all.


The headstart of Imp Init matters because the race is slow for most creatures. Creatures don't use spells as aggressively as PCs do. There's an easy +10 / -10 if you've got a few slots to burn. The fact that creatures haven't optimized around initiative is


To be clear, I'm mostly fine with Improved Initiative not scaling - like I said, it's basically the only flat-bonus feat I can think of that's actually good, and it only really becomes a wasted feat when you're playing in games where either nobody's ever really rolling initiative (high-level rocket tag involving Celerity, Contingency, and dire turtles comes to mind), or everybody's initiative bonuses are so different that no amount of dice rolling will change the order people act in. Improved Initiative is a feat that I don't think needs to scale, because it's a race that goes slow enough for the +4 headstart to matter well into low-epic for most games, which is good enough for the vast majority of tables. But feats that give a flat bonus to things that have per-level scaling? Toughness needs to scale (and Improved Toughness is the proof). Weapon Focus needs to scale. Iron Will needs to scale - and to counter it, Spell Focus should probably scale too (although we don't want casters getting too many nice things:smalltongue:). Hmm. What I'd worry about there is just creating an arms-race / feat-tax.

The direction I'd prefer would be something like...
- Spell Focus gives you a +2 to one school or descriptor. Does not stack with itself. There is no Greater version.
- How do you deal with high defenses? Debuff spells that target a different defense (e.g. touch AC), or that have no defense (no-save-just-suck). These would trade time for accuracy -- they'd be poor debuffs in themselves, except for the way they help your real debuffs land. It seems like this is already the way that SR is handled.
- Since the trade-off is time, a muggle-type PC would have more actions with which to perpetrate violence upon the spellcaster.

That could allow scaling defenses without also needing scaling accuracy buffs.


*) terms and conditions may apply

[Peat]

See, I don't think the GM needs to "even it out" most of the time. Gaps can exist between the classes, so long as they don't get too large (e.g. ice assassin aleaxes and chain-gating solars.) I would bet that in most games, these gaps stay manageable and align with people's expectations of spellcasting vs. not-spellcasting.

I am happy with there being gaps if those are as advertised and as fit expectations.

But to go back to the start of the argument, in this particular area (physical combat), it doesn't fit the expectations I'm given and based on everything I see on the internet, it doesn't fit a lot of people's expectations.


Maybe this is contributing to my bias but it just hasn't happened in mine. What's far more likely to make our GM slam on the brakes is when someone does a lot of damage in one turn - typically a martial or a gish - not a spellcaster erasing the plot with a standard action or whatnot.

... I don't think I said the imbalance of martials vs casters was the problem at our table?

I said bad balance was. Argument about whether the martial vs caster disparity is expected aside, all I'm talking about is all bad balance. To me, the point of this thread is to point out why a balanced game is a good one. Not martials vs casters.

And yes big damage numbers are a lot of our problem too. A lot of the time our problems will come from the GM setting all of the enemies' difficulty to match the outlier in the group, leaving everyone else cowering away in long boring combats... after which someone usually runs out of patience and tries to force their superpower into the plot, usually with bad consequences.

We've also had problems with people maxing out luck or social powers right at chargen - something where D&D's level system actually makes the game a lot more balanced - and GMs not really understanding action economy. Mainly in Shadowrun.

Ironically D&D is one of the games that's been most balanced for us. The last time someone caused trouble with a spellcaster was me experimenting to see what the hype with Prismatic Spray was. Then after two sessions we stopped adventuring in small dungeon rooms and all was well again.

Apologies if you didn't need to hear this - but given his question, maybe the OP did if still around.


Whoever invented him still felt the need to "explain" his superhuman muggleness this way though. Spellcasters meanwhile can just be talented.

The many retellers of his story haven't felt the need to preserve Finn's probable divinity though.

[Psyren]

I am happy with there being gaps if those are as advertised and as fit expectations.

But to go back to the start of the argument, in this particular area (physical combat), it doesn't fit the expectations I'm given and based on everything I see on the internet, it doesn't fit a lot of people's expectations.

And I feel (kinda) bad for those people, but they can't realistically please everyone. Which takes me back to one of the earlier posts I made in the thread:


Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?


... I don't think I said the imbalance of martials vs casters was the problem at our table?

I said bad balance was. Argument about whether the martial vs caster disparity is expected aside, all I'm talking about is all bad balance. To me, the point of this thread is to point out why a balanced game is a good one. Not martials vs casters.

The two seem intertwined. How do you propose balancing the game without addressing that disparity? More importantly, what would addressing that mean?

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

[Vhaidara]

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

[Psyren]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

I'll take your word for it.

[Nifft]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

The trouble is that 4e reads like a VCR manual, instead of like a fantasy novel glossary.

The homogeneity of presentation makes 4e boring for people who read RPGs but don't actually play them.

In contrast, 3.pf is a wonderland for people who don't play RPGs -- the solo character building min-game is quite extensive.

[Gnaeus]

The two seem intertwined. How do you propose balancing the game without addressing that disparity? More importantly, what would addressing that mean?

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

I still think the easiest way is to limit casters to some subsets of magic. Just because wizards should be able to teleport, summon, polymorph, fireball, animate zombies, use divinations, etc. doesn’t mean that a specific character should do all those things. Beguiler, Warmage, DN, Bard, are all better classes than Wizard, because they aren’t trying to do Everything. Most fantasy wizards can only do a small subset of those things.

One way to get there might be to have spell prerequisites. Limit spells known/level, and to learn Polymorph you need x transmutation spells, and PAO requires Polymorph and SF Transmutation, or something similar. So wizard can still do things fighter wouldn’t dream of, but not all the things.

[Psyren]

I'd say 3.P is fun for people who both read and play. (Source: myself)


I still think the easiest way is to limit casters to some subsets of magic. Just because wizards should be able to teleport, summon, polymorph, fireball, animate zombies, use divinations, etc. doesn’t mean that a specific character should do all those things. Beguiler, Warmage, DN, Bard, are all better classes than Wizard, because they aren’t trying to do Everything. Most fantasy wizards can only do a small subset of those things.

One way to get there might be to have spell prerequisites. Limit spells known/level, and to learn Polymorph you need x transmutation spells, and PAO requires Polymorph and SF Transmutation, or something similar. So wizard can still do things fighter wouldn’t dream of, but not all the things.

If that's what you want, I recommend Spheres of Power - it does a decent job of forcing casters to specialize (or generalize with more tradeoffs and balanced effects.)

[Calthropstu]

Without balance we'd spend most of our time on the floor.

[Gnaeus]

If that's what you want, I recommend Spheres of Power - it does a decent job of forcing casters to specialize (or generalize with more tradeoffs and balanced effects.)

We mostly use PoW, Akashic magic, and the PF 6 level casters. I’ve heard good things about SoP, but we’re doing ok with Pathfinder + Dreamscarred Press and lurking in the high 4-low 2 range. T1 spells are still in play, if the Vizier or Mystic wants to make a scroll of them.

[Deadline]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

I'm right there with you. And yeah, it's super newbie friendly, as we've had several new gamers cycle through our group who were able to pick it up right away. Our group has used 4e quite a bit.

In fact, after running several campaigns using it, our gaming group eventually stripped 4e down to its base components. We took the published powers as a source of keywords (not keywords in the 4e sense, but in the sense of what they do: extra damage, push, pull, temp hp, teleport x squares and attack, grant an ally a basic attack, -x to enemy attacks, etc.), and worked up a value for each of them. Your daily, encounter, and at will slots have a maximum point value of keywords that can be used, and bam!, you get to dynamically create an attack that suits your needs each time you attack. Leveling up gets you more keywords you can use, and increases the amount of points you can use (at similar breakpoints to the 4e system).

Of course, we've used a variety of systems for our games (including d20, Earthdawn, Iron Heroes, Rolemaster, and recently the new FFG Star Wars system), but 4e was certainly a noticeable contender for top system due to its being easy to use, and easy to hack.

[Calthropstu]

I'm right there with you. And yeah, it's super newbie friendly, as we've had several new gamers cycle through our group who were able to pick it up right away. Our group has used 4e quite a bit.

In fact, after running several campaigns using it, our gaming group eventually stripped 4e down to its base components. We took the published powers as a source of keywords (not keywords in the 4e sense, but in the sense of what they do: extra damage, push, pull, temp hp, teleport x squares and attack, grant an ally a basic attack, -x to enemy attacks, etc.), and worked up a value for each of them. Your daily, encounter, and at will slots have a maximum point value of keywords that can be used, and bam!, you get to dynamically create an attack that suits your needs each time you attack. Leveling up gets you more keywords you can use, and increases the amount of points you can use (at similar breakpoints to the 4e system).

Of course, we've used a variety of systems for our games (including d20, Earthdawn, Iron Heroes, Rolemaster, and recently the new FFG Star Wars system), but 4e was certainly a noticeable contender for top system due to its being easy to use, and easy to hack.
Errr... that's why it flopped so hard?
4e was such a disaster for wotc that they literally lost the top selling rpg title to pathfinder.
My experience with the game was that literally every character type had the exact same look and feel. The abilities made me feel like I was playing an mmo.
It was an unabashed attempt by wotc to get at the wow crowd and a complete snub of their core fan base... and it cost them my business for life.

[Deadline]

Errr... that's why it flopped so hard?
4e was such a disaster for wotc that they literally lost the top selling rpg title to pathfinder.
My experience with the game was that literally every character type had the exact same look and feel. The abilities made me feel like I was playing an mmo.
It was an unabashed attempt by wotc to get at the wow crowd and a complete snub of their core fan base... and it cost them my business for life.

It was a solid design, but killed a lot of sacred D&D cows. I know a handful of people who very much didn't like it, but enjoyed the stripped down version we put together because it didn't have a strong tie to the D&D brand. That's definitely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder how much of the dislike was rooted in edition loyalty. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting an edition war, all the above is just my opinion (and for reference, I enjoy 3.5, 4e, and 5e). I'm simply sharing my experience with the system.

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

[Psyren]

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

Of course it was - that late design philosophy was itself the Alpha for 4e.

As for "edition loyalty" - the runaway success of 5e proves that wasn't it, 5e either slaughtered or simply failed to revive plenty of 3e sacred cows all on its own.

[Lazymancer]

Balance vs monsters doesnt matter. The GM can always add more monsters, using nastier ones, or change powers/stats etc.
Why should GM be doing game designers job?



What is critical however is a rough intra-party balance for a campaign (doenst matter for a one shot). If you have one or two PCs that dwarf the others in power, your campaign will end early. It will end early either because (i) the other players get jack of playing second fiddle to the OP PCs, or (ii) the GM will accidentally TPK the party by trying to challenge the OP PCs, killling the weaker ones first, then overwhelming the OP one(s).
No, it's not critical. Not as long as you treat it like a game, rather than a performance art.

Also, it's not GM's job to challenge party, but party's - to choose what challenges they wish to tackle.

[Nifft]

It was a solid design, but killed a lot of sacred D&D cows. I know a handful of people who very much didn't like it, but enjoyed the stripped down version we put together because it didn't have a strong tie to the D&D brand. That's definitely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder how much of the dislike was rooted in edition loyalty. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting an edition war, all the above is just my opinion (and for reference, I enjoy 3.5, 4e, and 5e). I'm simply sharing my experience with the system.

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

Practically every edition war has included the "too video-gamey" accusation, so that's only to be expected.

Ironically, the edition which had mechanics most closely modeled by MMO / cRPGs was 2e, with its trigger-twitch spell interrupt mechanics being very heavily represented across a variety of games. But nobody cares, because 2e is dead, so there's no reason to accuse it of being video-gamey, since it's not a "threat" to any current games.


The "snub" complaint might be a reference to how WotC made anti-3e ads when 4e began. (IIRC, the ads were poorly received.) Or it might be some other corporate behavior -- it's certainly not a complaint about game design.


Overall, people who hate 4e often seem to do so for reasons which don't require ever actually playing 4e.

[Morty]

The argument about not sacrificing balance for variety would ring a little bit more true if 90% of what variety 3E has wasn't concentrated in the hands of spell-casting classes. The others will do the same thing from level 1 to level 20. Usually pretty poorly.

The argument about 4E "killing sacred cows" would likewise have a bit more heft to it if the 4E PHB wasn't chock-full of things that are only there because that's what D&D players expect. Such as a great deal of the wizard spell list or melee rangers' being stuck with dual-wielding. Again. Or the class list, for that matter, which squeezes the old set of classes into the power source/role paradigm. The accusations of "not being D&D" just show how resistant the fanbase is to change of any sort.

[Psyren]

Why should GM be doing game designers job?

GMs ARE game designers. That's what you and many others don't seem to get. D&D is not a complete game without a GM.



Also, it's not GM's job to challenge party, but party's - to choose what challenges they wish to tackle.

It's the GMs job to do both, and if you're only doing the latter, the DMG explicitly tells you to warn your players about this well in advance.

[Deadline]

Of course it was - that late design philosophy was itself the Alpha for 4e.

As for "edition loyalty" - the runaway success of 5e proves that wasn't it, 5e either slaughtered or simply failed to revive plenty of 3e sacred cows all on its own.

I think 5e still has several "sacred cows" intact, and that there are still quite a few people who don't like it. That being said, it keeps spellcasters in the forefront and still greatly rewards system mastery, so it's not surprising that it's more successful. I'm not a huge fan of the flattening out of the system, but it does go a long way to homogenizing the power gap between mundane and magic classes (and I personally like it more than 3.5 because of that).

[Quertus]

Why is game balance important? It isn't. What is important is fun. Does have balance produce fun? Are they synonyms? No. But balance does have certain ways in which it can affect fun.

When you create balance through symmetry, you lose variety, and get 4e D&D, which had a same-y feel, which was not fun for a lot of people, myself included. So, one implementation of balance is good for removing fun from the game.

But, generally, having a good distribution of being able to contribute, and being able to shine, is fun. Some people consider this distribution synonymous with game balance, and they're wrong. Player skill, class capabilities, and build are among the things that factor into one's contribution distribution.

Personally, I enjoy games where I have to work for certain victories, but just get handed others - and which are which is a factor of the character and simulation. Many of my characters have a whole plethora of sights - obtaining knowledge is something that should just be handed to them. Delock is more charismatic than the most charismatic gods - good PR & convincing NPCs should just be handed to him. Armus is statistically weak - actually contributing to combat should be a challenge. Etc.


It's not always about stats or mechanics, but no amount of RP and clever ideas will ever be better than the 3 words "I cast X".

It would, if I hadn't stolen your spell components while you weren't looking. No amount of "I cast X" will ever beat clever ideas on their own. :smallwink:


People are underestimating the value of balance to DMs.

If characters have equal and predictable abilities, you can pick up challenges and run them without worrying. This makes the game much easier. If they do not, you have to check every challenge against your PCs. Having game balance makes being a DM much easier, and it makes it easier in the places that are most often cited as obstacles to good DMing.

Put the burden of staying alive on the PCs / players, and the game becomes easy on the GM one again.

Harder to do with a module than a sandbox, where "for level X" is supposed to mean something. Still, if you put the burden on the player, but the module includes "this was written for level X characters with Y and Z. If this is not the case, here are some suggestions:"


(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.)

Thanks for that laugh. :smallbiggrin:


These types of arguments are always funny.

First we have a barbarian, who spent his entire life hunting. He can't read or write but he is a mountain of muscle.

Then we have a nerd, who spent his entire life in society, working with other humans, collaborating, and contributing. Eventually the nerd gets access to guns, computers, heat seaking missiles, and with enough money he builds aircraft carriers.

So now we have the barbarian getting angry that the nerd is overpowered, that his tanks make his spear look weak, that his thermonuclear bombs are flat out broken and shouldn't exist, and the world is wrong because the barbarian can't ever hope to kill the nerd in his space ship run by his army of robots armed to the teeth with computer guided weaponry. In fact he says nerds shouldn't even be allowed to have guns because guns alone can kill barbarians and it's not fair that a person who spent his entire life killing animals with his bare hands can die so easily and effortlessly to someone who spent his entire life indoors and without breaking any sweat.

The problem here isn't that the nerd is a part of an organization that spent thousands of years studying the world in attempt to understand how the world works, used that knowledge to their great advantage, and shares that knowledge to anyone who wishes to follow their methods. No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.

The solution is cooperation. A barbarian with a gun is always more dangerous than a nerd with a gun, so there is tremendous benefit when the two cooperate. The nerd builds the equipment, and the barbarian just needs to learn how to use the equipment without understanding how it works. Of course once the nerd starts building robots the barbarian becomes obsolete, but that's not the nerd's fault, it's the barbarian's fault for choosing to hone his muscles instead of his mind.

There's no reason a barbarian can't be a nerd, and why a nerd can't be a barbarian, which is why this is a solution too, but then there are some people who say pure barbarians should be able to do everything a pure nerd can do. So when someone tells me Barbarians should be able to destroy cities just as quickly as a thermonuclear bomb would, cut through metal tanks, survive point blank artillery fire unscathed, and solve theoretical physics problems just by training their muscles, I say go play a different tabletop rpg.

If you chose to play a character dedicated to muscles instead of intellect, that's fine but don't start whining when the smarter characters do everything you do better with technology (magic) because it was your choice to embrace ignorance and simplicity, not theirs. Players who play significantly more complex characters that require reading several books deserve to have more power than your core-only character.

Anyways to answer the OP's question, we don't need balance. This is a PvE game (player versus environment). It doesn't matter how strong or weak you are, everyone can contribute to the campaign and have fun. If you're a mundane and spellcasters have rendered your character obsolete, go read books and make your character stronger. Mundanes are far from dead weight even in TO tables so it is your fault your character is weak as ****, it is your fault your character is a one trick pony that is useless out of combat, and it is your fault you're not enjoying the game, not the spellcasters'. As to why people think we need balance, barbarians want to do everything nerds do without putting in the effort.

In my tables fighters are always welcome because they dish out ungodly amounts of damage with power attacks and buffs from the spellcasters. They put all my blasting shenanigans to shame so when i see people claiming fighters are too weak I question their system mastery. When I see people claiming spellcasters can do everything and fighters can't, I say play a smart character instead of a dumb one. Gishes are just as powerful as pure casters in the TO level so it's your fault for not wanting to gish and go pure mundane, who are just as powerful as pure casters in HO.

Mostly agree. Fighters can be built to be plenty capable of handling modules as written, and cooperation is the key to most things, in life or in the game.


The reason that balance is important is related to the Original Position Fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OriginalPositionFallacy). If you start a game of D&D blind; as a total newbie with no expectations other than "a cool adventure game", you are given the appearance of parity between the classes. Everyone expects that what they choose will be cool and powerful in different way, but that's not what was provided.

Imbalance can be fun if you know that going in; Rifts has characters that are literally as durable as tanks in the same party with "scholar of things the oppressive government doesn't want you to know". Similarly, in Mage: The Awakening, mages are explicitly more powerful and important than the Sleepers (the mundanes), but since you only play mages, there isn't that sense of grievous imbalance.

The difference is in both of those games, the imbalance was on purpose. Rifts is there to have a range of power levels, and Mage has the core concept of "magic is better than not-magic" and designed the game's lore around that. D&D's imbalance kinda just happened. While they wanted Wizards to be cool, they seriously failed consider how much power they were giving them, and greatly overestimated what fighter-types could do and kind of just said "Eh, they have feats, they'll be fine" without actually letting the feats do anythign interesting without also having a casting requirement.

Rifts can really hurt noobs, too, if they go in thinking a scientist was built to survive megadamage combat! Fortunately, I was warned away from such ignorant suicide.


3rd gave casters a whole pile more defenses. I think that's the biggest visible issue.
1e/2e weren't balanced either, but it felt that way because the world-altering power was offset by frailty.

A Magic-User with no concentration checks and 56hp at 18th level (assuming he could manage a 16 con, which was his effective max) was seriously squishy. If something got to melee range he was reduced to spamming 1st level spells - because anything else would be interrupted - or running away. An equal level caster had a fair chance of one-shotting him with a basic damage spell (18d6 Fireball, etc) if he didn't have defenses up. Even with Shapechange running, you were vulnerable to something.

So having the Fighter stand between you and the badguys was massively important. A Cleric would do in a pinch, but there was no Divine Power, much less Persisted Divine Power, and he had the same +2/die cap on Con bonus the M-U did. So while he was a warm body, he didn't have the durability the Fighter did.

The move to smaller parties and shorter encounter days didn't do the Fighters any favors either. The games I grew up with, if you only had 4 players, they all played 2 characters, plus all the sidekicks/henchmen/companions/familiars/etc. You got through battles with formations and reach weapons and swapping the wounded guys out of the front line. And then you pounded through at least a half-dozen set encounters in a day, plus 3 wandering monster encounters (at least one while you were trying to sleep), and if you had the temerity to cast a Rope Trick in the dungeon and not leave guards outside it, the goblins would build a bonfire under it, or dig a pit, or flood the room, or leave their pet Rust Monsters in the room, or go bribe the Orc Shaman in the next cave to come Dispel the thing while they all stood under it with braced spears.

I agree with your general sentiment, but... was there an edition where fireball wasn't capped at 10d6? And, while rare (surprising so, actually...), it was possible to have a 2e Fighter with only 1 HP


You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power at the same level.

Back in y2k, looking at how they moved everyone to the same XP table, and put in defined methods for determining encounter balance (the CR system), I certainly had the expectation that that would be true.

And, while they did a lot to make casters closer to equal to the Fighters, I found that Fighters were still better. :smalltongue:

Then my group got better at optimization, and we saw that casters had lots of broken bugs, but, even ignoring those, could actually hold their own for usefulness if everyone was built just right.

Then 3.5 nerfed Fighters into the dust, while continuing to give casters nice things.

[Calthropstu]

I was reluctant to go from 2e to 3e. After a while of playing 3e, I found I liked it. I still miss elements of 2e, but I admit 3e was a better overall system. Not so for 4e. Nearly every ability was exactly the same. There was no flavor, no difference and there was no abilities you could use outside of combat.

I have no problem with change, but 4e was bad change in every way. And RA Salvatore forcing the change into his book? Yeah... I haven't read a single dragonlance, forgoten realm etc book since, purchased any other wotc products or otherwise supported them.
And no, 2e was around before video games became a big thing. If it feels video gamey, it's because numerous games tried to emulate IT. However, when 4e came out, WoW was in full swing. It's success had game designers drooling. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.

Wotc wanted the WoW crowd, and they made WoW the rpg and called it D&D. That's what has people upset about 4e.

Edit: I gave 4e a chance, I really did. I still have my 4e books in fact. But it was very clear what they did. And I hate it.

As far as balance is concerned, up until 4e it was meant for each character to be able to serve a niche, with a party working together being more capable than the sum of its parts. A group of 4 fighters or 4 wizards should, in theory, have a worse go of going through a dungeon than rogue/wizard/cleric/fighter.
So balancing them against each other should not be needed. This isn't a game designed for pvp, but pvm.

[Nightcanon]

M
What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Why bother solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying when the party's wizard has the scroll to fix this situation in his Handy Haversack? In the older versions of the game that you refer to, wizards were far more limited in the spells they had available: limited spells known; fewer spell slots and less opportunity to carry around a library of scrolls of utility spells to solve most problems (why wouldn't a 3e wizard always have scrolls of knock, charm person and so on available to them at all times?). They also needed more XP to level up.
Part of the issue is that 3e explicitly claims that the classes are balanced and implies that such balance is desirable. It also introduces a lot of mechanics for situations that were previously governed roleplaying and clever ideas, and for most situations where there is a chance-based mechanic with a chance of failure (especially at low level) there is also a spell that gives an automatic pass.

[Deadline]

Wotc wanted the WoW crowd, and they made WoW the rpg and called it D&D. That's what has people upset about 4e.

I think it's probably clear at this point that you and I very much disagree here. 4e is a pretty clear evolution path from the later 3.5 books (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, etc). The "roles" that 4e formalized have existed in D&D in every edition. I'm honestly not sure what "videogamey" piece of 4e design I've heard mentioned isn't something that was clearly in place in the earlier editions already. So from my perspective, the "WotC made 4e to pull in the WoW crowd" doesn't really hold water. Again, YMMV.


As far as balance is concerned, up until 4e it was meant for each character to be able to serve a niche, with a party working together being more capable than the sum of its parts. A group of 4 fighters or 4 wizards should, in theory, have a worse go of going through a dungeon than rogue/wizard/cleric/fighter.
So balancing them against each other should not be needed. This isn't a game designed for pvp, but pvm.

Except, as has been pointed out since the start of this thread, a group of 4 fighters is about as bad as you can get, where a group of 4 wizards is incredibly capable (moreso than a "balanced" group of utility/blaster/healer/tank). So if it was meant for a party of those roles to have a better chance than a group of all the same role, that design goal has failed miserably in each iteration of D&D, except for 4e, because those roles are far more rigid in that edition, which makes it much harder for any one role to tick all the boxes. Can you get by in 4e with a party of all healers? Sure, but it'll be harder than if you had a balanced party. That ... isn't the case in 3.5, where a full party of Clerics can do it all, and better than the niche role equivalents.

As was pointed out earlier, the ultimate goal is to have fun, so if you and your players are doing that, you are good to go. And yes, all sorts of folks can have fun with an unbalanced system (I've had the occasional spot of fun with Rifts, for example). With the exceptions of D&D 4e and 5e, the remaining iterations of D&D have been wildly unbalanced. Balance isn't necessary so long as everyone is having fun, but that lack of balance makes things more difficult on GMs, and not knowing about the lack of balance can lead to sour experiences for new players.

Agreed on the skill challenge system in 4e though. The initial release of 4e had a terrible skill system. That said, they fixed it later, and that coupled with rituals gave you plenty of things to do outside of combat.

[Calthropstu]

I think it's probably clear at this point that you and I very much disagree here. 4e is a pretty clear evolution path from the later 3.5 books (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, etc). The "roles" that 4e formalized have existed in D&D in every edition. I'm honestly not sure what "videogamey" piece of 4e design I've heard mentioned isn't something that was clearly in place in the earlier editions already. So from my perspective, the "WotC made 4e to pull in the WoW crowd" doesn't really hold water. Again, YMMV.



Except, as has been pointed out since the start of this thread, a group of 4 fighters is about as bad as you can get, where a group of 4 wizards is incredibly capable (moreso than a "balanced" group of utility/blaster/healer/tank). So if it was meant for a party of those roles to have a better chance than a group of all the same role, that design goal has failed miserably in each iteration of D&D, except for 4e, because those roles are far more rigid in that edition, which makes it much harder for any one role to tick all the boxes. Can you get by in 4e with a party of all healers? Sure, but it'll be harder than if you had a balanced party. That ... isn't the case in 3.5, where a full party of Clerics can do it all, and better than the niche role equivalents.

As was pointed out earlier, the ultimate goal is to have fun, so if you and your players are doing that, you are good to go. And yes, all sorts of folks can have fun with an unbalanced system (I've had the occasional spot of fun with Rifts, for example). With the exceptions of D&D 4e and 5e, the remaining iterations of D&D have been wildly unbalanced. Balance isn't necessary so long as everyone is having fun, but that lack of balance makes things more difficult on GMs, and not knowing about the lack of balance can lead to sour experiences for new players.

Agreed on the skill challenge system in 4e though. The initial release of 4e had a terrible skill system. That said, they fixed it later, and that coupled with rituals gave you plenty of things to do outside of combat.

Take a 4e character.
Take an MMO character.
Place them side by side.
The 4e character has "at will" powers.
The MMO character has quick recharge spam powers.
The 4e character has encounter powers.
The MMO character has mid recharge powers taking about 10-15 seconds to recharge... essentially once per encounter.
The 4e character has a daily power, requiring rest between each use.
The MMO character has a slow recharge power taking quite a bit of time between use requiring you to wait around (mmo equivalent of resting.)

Then you look at the effects themselves and the similarities get even closer. The abilities and effects were quite literally ripped directly from WoW. I remember seeing an ability in the phb3 that did some mental damage and alliwed respositioning the enemy, and video game sound effects went through my head.
The final straw was reading orc king by salvatore.

[Psyren]

Mearls outright said that 4e was based on MMOs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309), so that's beyond dispute. The only question is whether that's a bad thing or not. Personally I don't think it's bad inherently, but I think 4e went a bit too far with it, with every kind of power in a given role being reskinned (with minor adjustments, or not) for every other class in that role, like "do damage and move the enemy" or "do damage, apply status" etc., and the interesting stuff being foisted off to rituals.

[Vhaidara]

Mearls outright said that 4e was based on MMOs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309), so that's beyond dispute. The only question is whether that's a bad thing or not. Personally I don't think it's bad inherently, but I think 4e went a bit too far with it, with every kind of power in a given role being reskinned (with minor adjustments, or not) for every other class in that role, like "do damage and move the enemy" or "do damage, apply status" etc., and the interesting stuff being foisted off to rituals.

Interesting interpretation of


As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped.

So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

[Nifft]

So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

Unsupported guesses are a solid foundation "that's beyond dispute" for an edition warrior.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

[Deadline]

Then you look at the effects themselves and the similarities get even closer. The abilities and effects were quite literally ripped directly from WoW. I remember seeing an ability in the phb3 that did some mental damage and alliwed respositioning the enemy, and video game sound effects went through my head.
The final straw was reading orc king by salvatore.

Are you familiar with the later stuff in 3.5e? Reserve feats (and for an earlier reference, racial at-will abilities in things like the Monster Manual), Encounter recharge powers (Tome of Battle Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc.), and daily powers (spells, or 1/day abilities that have been present since the inception of 3e). Repositioning allies? Look at things like the White Raven school of maneuvers, or the Benign Transposition spell. Likewise, there are plenty of abilities that reposition enemies in 3.5. I'd be honestly surprised if there wasn't a 3.5 psionic power that did damage and moved the enemy around. Battlefield control and positioning isn't new in 4e, and sure as heck didn't come from video games.

Again, the skeleton for 4e has been in place for a long while, 4e just cleaned up and codified it. So no, I don't think that video games had anything to do with it. And to borrow your argument against 2e being videogamey, the common MMO roles weren't invented by the MMO's, they came from existing games - like D&D. Take a look at the ideal D&D party (thief/fighter/wizard/cleric) and look at those roles. You could claim they aren't the same as what you find in MMO's these days, but IMO that's a hard position to argue.

I've never been a fan of Salvatore's stuff, so I can't really comment on that.

Edit - And to be clear, because tone is hard to read in the written language, I'm not saying you are a bad person, or that you should like 4e. Quite the contrary, your opinion is your own, and I shouldn't have any say in your ability to hold it. I don't have to agree with it, but that goes both ways. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Interesting interpretation of



So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

Ah, so I hallucinated his name in the development credits of my 4e PHB then. Good to know.

"I wasn't involved initially" does not translate to "I have no basis for this conclusion." Certainly as a member of the design team, he has far more insight to how the sausage was made than you ever could.


Unsupported guesses are a solid foundation "that's beyond dispute" for an edition warrior.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

Not warring - as I said, its basis on video games is not automatically a negative for me. My issue is with the execution, not the concept. (BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my Ranger quote from the 3.5 PHB?)

[Nifft]

Ah, so I hallucinated his name in the development credits of my 4e PHB then. Good to know.

"I wasn't involved initially" does not translate to "I have no basis for this conclusion." Certainly as a member of the design team, he has far more insight to how the sausage was made than you ever could. Sure but he outright says he has no basis.


As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

He's saying that he never actually saw 4e designers copy video-game mechanics, but he's got an impression that 4e was supposed to be MMO conversion friendly.

Just FYI: 4e is vehemently NOT friendly for MMO conversion, of course. 4e has a ton of interrupt mechanics which are only usable due to the non-verbal communication possible in face-to-face gaming. Interrupt powers and Minor action powers would require interface adjustments that video-games can't currently handle. If anything, 4e took inspiration from mechanically strict games like M:tG -- which should be no surprise, given who owned M:tG.

Anyway, the point is: it's dishonest to represent an unfounded, ignorant opinion as if it were eyewitness testimony.



(BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my Ranger quote from the 3.5 PHB?)

You haven't used the word "ranger" on page 7 or 6 of this thread, so ... maybe you could describe your problem more explicitly, or link to whatever it is you're referencing?

[Morty]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.

[Peat]

And I feel (kinda) bad for those people, but they can't realistically please everyone. Which takes me back to one of the earlier posts I made in the thread:





The two seem intertwined. How do you propose balancing the game without addressing that disparity? More importantly, what would addressing that mean?

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

Maybe not 15 ft letters of flame, but I do think the game developers could be more explicit about the game's intended range and imbalance.

And to a certain extent, being open about its intent solves the issue. As pointed out, there are other games out there with gigantic chasms of balance, but where it works because people get that's the intent. If you accept D&D for what it is and the casters agree not to go mental, the game works. And I think that's the only way you balance it while keeping the range of power currently in D&D, as either you nerf the casters (mostly by having them be Warmage/Beguiler etc.etc types as suggested) or you buff the martials. Or both.

I would like to see martials' out of combat ability buffed in general though and I think Pathfinder took some much needed steps there.

[Psyren]

Sure but he outright says he has no basis.

Nah, he doesn't say that at all. He just says he wasn't involved initially - that's it. You're the one extrapolating that to mean "I have no reason to believe what I do" which is not the case. If I'm involved in building something, even if I wasn't the first one to pick up a hammer, I can still get a pretty decent idea of its inspiration and origins.



Anyway, the point is: it's dishonest to represent an unfounded, ignorant opinion as if it were eyewitness testimony.

Indeed, good thing I didn't do that.


Maybe not 15 ft letters of flame, but I do think the game developers could be more explicit about the game's intended range and imbalance.

And to a certain extent, being open about its intent solves the issue. As pointed out, there are other games out there with gigantic chasms of balance, but where it works because people get that's the intent. If you accept D&D for what it is and the casters agree not to go mental, the game works. And I think that's the only way you balance it while keeping the range of power currently in D&D, as either you nerf the casters (mostly by having them be Warmage/Beguiler etc.etc types as suggested) or you buff the martials. Or both.

I almost wish they would, so that we could kill these threads once and for all. People would finally see what is obvious - that having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case. But for me, it is indeed obvious and I genuinely have a hard time conceiving how it could not be.

[Lazymancer]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.
For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

[Psyren]

For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

This too. The Giant's 4e comic sums it up for me perfectly.

[Elkad]

I'd say that MMO vs D&D comparison is backwards.

2e had hard interrupts, and lower level spells cast faster. In 1990.
1997 we get UO, the first big MMO. Hard interrupts, and lower level spells are faster. No cooldown timers.
I didn't play EQ, but I believe it had hard interrupts as well.
2000 we get DAoC. Hard interrupts. Casting time matters (supported by dexterity instead of spell level). Still no cooldown timers on most abilities.

2000 & 2003 we get 3.0 and 3.5. With their new concentration mechanic, which makes interrupting casters difficult if not impossible.
2004 we get WOW, with it's soft interrupt mechanic, and scads of abilities on cooldown timers.
Basically every other MMO after that goes with a soft interrupt system and cooldown timers.

If 4e (and later 3.5 - like ToB) copied MMOs for encounter timers, that's news to me. But it kinda makes sense.

WoW is a terrible game from a depth-of-play standpoint. But it's excellent from a moneymaking standpoint. It's predigested pap that the masses love.
I feel like 4e and 5e tried to do the same thing. Balance and ease of play at the expense of depth. Moderately high floor, and you bump your head on the ceiling almost immediately.

[Zanos]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.
That sounds like something an MMO would say.

I'm onto you.

[Nifft]

I'd say that MMO vs D&D comparison is backwards.

2e had hard interrupts, and lower level spells cast faster. In 1990.
1997 we get UO, the first big MMO. Hard interrupts, and lower level spells are faster. No cooldown timers.
I didn't play EQ, but I believe it had hard interrupts as well.
2000 we get DAoC. Hard interrupts. Casting time matters (supported by dexterity instead of spell level). Still no cooldown timers on most abilities.

2000 & 2003 we get 3.0 and 3.5. With their new concentration mechanic, which makes interrupting casters difficult if not impossible.
2004 we get WOW, with it's soft interrupt mechanic, and scads of abilities on cooldown timers.
Basically every other MMO after that goes with a soft interrupt system and cooldown timers.

If 4e (and later 3.5 - like ToB) copied MMOs for encounter timers, that's news to me. But it kinda makes sense.

WoW is a terrible game from a depth-of-play standpoint. But it's excellent from a moneymaking standpoint. It's predigested pap that the masses love.
I feel like 4e and 5e tried to do the same thing. Balance and ease of play at the expense of depth. Moderately high floor, and you bump your head on the ceiling almost immediately.

Cooldowns can also be traced to D&D (e.g. dragon's breath recharges after 1d4 turns in 1e MM1), but D&D probably took the idea of cooldowns from tactical wargames -- stuff like musket & artillery reloading taking more time than a cavalry unit's charge attack.

[Morty]

For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase. Yes, 4E is rife with elements that focus on gameplay first, and portraying a world second. That's not the same thing as a massively-multiplayer computer game. 4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

I treat "4E is a tabletop MMO" like using "Mary Sue" towards a character someone doesn't like, or "Deus Ex Machina" towards a development they don't like. Or, for that matter, fans of other games calling new editions of the game... D&D-like. Happens a lot among Polish Warhammer Fantasy RPG grognards. Either way, it's a scary-sounding phrase that condemns the thing you dislike, but doesn't contribute to a discussion.

[Peat]

I almost wish they would, so that we could kill these threads once and for all. People would finally see what is obvious - that having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case. But for me, it is indeed obvious and I genuinely have a hard time conceiving how it could not be.

Why the almost?

[BassoonHero]

having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it is impossible to patch 3.5 to substantially improve class balance, that it is inadvisable, or that doing so would make it in your mind "a different game"? And in either case, why do you say that?

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in general. We all agree (I think) that 3.5 has severe class imbalances. Many people feel that this detracts from their enjoyment of the game. You do not. Nobody here is going to convince anyone else that they are wrong about what they enjoy.

You mention preferring 3.5's diverse mechanics to 4e's relatively homogeneous mechanics. I strongly agree. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that diversity for balance. But we're not talking about some specific proposed balance fix. Do you believe that any increase in class balance must necessarily result in unacceptably homogenous mechanics? If, hypothetically, you saw a variant that improved class balance without sacrificing diversity, how would you feel about it? Would you prefer it, prefer the less-balanced rules, or have no strong preference? If you would actively prefer the less-balanced rules, then why?

[Lazymancer]

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase.
A catch-phrase like "a completely false idea"?


4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.
Initially, I thought I should agree with this, but then I realized you must be meaning entirely different "metagame", if you consider that there was an attempt to fix it.

[Psyren]

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase. Yes, 4E is rife with elements that focus on gameplay first, and portraying a world second. That's not the same thing as a massively-multiplayer computer game. 4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

I treat "4E is a tabletop MMO" like using "Mary Sue" towards a character someone doesn't like, or "Deus Ex Machina" towards a development they don't like. Or, for that matter, fans of other games calling new editions of the game... D&D-like. Happens a lot among Polish Warhammer Fantasy RPG grognards. Either way, it's a scary-sounding phrase that condemns the thing you dislike, but doesn't contribute to a discussion.

Well fine then, it's shorthand. Shorthand you don't particularly like, but now you've demonstrated that you do know what the edition's critics are actually getting at, so the rest is pedantry.


Why the almost?

Because (first-party) dev time is finite, and having to watch these threads occasionally pop up like recurring weeds is ultimately a worthwhile price to pay if it means more content for the design philosophies I actually enjoy.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it is impossible to patch 3.5 to substantially improve class balance, that it is inadvisable, or that doing so would make it in your mind "a different game"? And in either case, why do you say that?

It's definitely possible - both 4e and 5e proved that if nothing else. The issue becomes more about what is lost in the attempt, and what we're willing to give up.


Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in general. We all agree (I think) that 3.5 has severe class imbalances. Many people feel that this detracts from their enjoyment of the game. You do not. Nobody here is going to convince anyone else that they are wrong about what they enjoy.

You're right, arguing about it probably is futile, but arguing on the internet when we can't actually play the game is a big part of why we're all here anyway.



You mention preferring 3.5's diverse mechanics to 4e's relatively homogeneous mechanics. I strongly agree. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that diversity for balance. But we're not talking about some specific proposed balance fix. Do you believe that any increase in class balance must necessarily result in unacceptably homogenous mechanics? If, hypothetically, you saw a variant that improved class balance without sacrificing diversity, how would you feel about it? Would you prefer it, prefer the less-balanced rules, or have no strong preference? If you would actively prefer the less-balanced rules, then why?

Two responses here:

a) No, I'm not opposed to it. You're correct though that I'm pessimistic that it can be done. Are you familiar with the Snowbluff Axiom from these boards?

b) The best attempt I've seen thus far (that I might actually get to play due to adoption) might very well be Starfinder. By eliminating spells above 6th level and iteratives, I think it's brining the classes more in line with one another without the mechanical homogenization of 4th or the nebulous mother-may-I style of 5th. That is however a preliminary reaction, and I'm looking forward to continuing to ingest material to see if that first impression holds up.

[death390]

i honestly don't care about who copied what for video games or tabletop. as long as either is implemented well-enough to play and have fun. so ignoring all of those posts.



i think the primary balance issue with 3.5 was the lack of things for mundane characters to do overall. most mundanes were simply i hit things. some of the classes have minor alterations that allow for more but even still not much.

Fighter: i hit things and wear heavy armor, no skill points really, lacking class skills to do job (spot/search/listen/ sense motive) these are the guards are they not? the should be the soft counter to the rouges sneaky-ness. should they be able to fly at will and solve every problem no. however they should have a better niche than i hit things.

Barbarian: i hit things and go into a frenzy. 2 more skill points than the fighters 2+ but still not enough, also these are the wilderness survivalist the people who live off the land. why the hell don't these guys have track as a free feat! again should have spot/search/listen/hide/move silently in their skill list as they are tracking/ foraging for their food.

Ranger: these our outdoors-men who are more civilized than the barbarian but still live on the fringe of society. they should have more than 2 combat styles (there are ACF's for this at least). they do have the skills to make a difference, and the points to actually do so. even ignoring their spellcasting they can solve alot of the problems the party comes across outdoors.

Paladin: oh god the guy who is unplayable in my opinion. this character is so niche that he can't get out without losing his powers. even taking the other variations they uphold one code. these are our knights riding on a white horse, our black knights sowing seeds of chaos. these are closer to what a fighter was than the fighter. thier poblem in my opinion is an identity crisis. he is a fighter/ a healer/ a mounted champion. but he fulfills none of this. i have no idea how to fix this mess.

Monk: the martial artist who strikes a thousand times and hits twice. the monk suffers from two weapon fighting syndrome in that he misses more often as he tries to hit more. additionally he is split in so many directions that he is almost needs a point-buy to get the necessary attributes. his only 2 "dump" stats are int and charisma. so while he has a decent skill list he often doesn't have the points to take advantage of it. he is an armor-less fighter forced to two weapon fighting, and cannot increase is weapons strength. (amulet of natural attacks is a slot item. monk loses the ones for his weapon slots unless you are a kick-attacker and even then those are held slots)

He should have had different martial styles that affected his combat. AND there should have been a "weapon" the monk could upgrade to increase his power (arm/leg guards/wraps?) there should have be the heavy strikes who's standard strikes have the power of two (2h fighting, NOT decisive strike that's 1 hit), the defensive fighter who while not as strong could deflect or shrug off attacks (sword and board [AC and possibly fort/ref bonus?), or our standard monk who's overwhelming speed allows for an increased number of attacks.

these "fixes" mostly affect their combat mechanics but that would make it better for them to do the job they are listed to do. the expanded skill lists would enable the fighter and barbarian to better fulfill their identities AND contribute more out of combat. would it give them the raw versatility of a wizard no. but we should focus on bringing the power floor UP, not comparing the two. as it stands there is no way to lower the magic cap of early level casters without gimping them horridly. i will admit that several of the higher power spells are broken but that can be adressed after we bring the mundanes closer to an decent versatility level.



look at the weapon mechanics alone, there is a vast discrepancy between 2h, 2w, and S&B fighting. why? power attack, feat costs, and just lack of support.

each of these styles should have some mechanical benefit to them over a long term. 2h fighting already has that with power attack, (honestly is basically a feat tax for most classes) two weapon fighting is ok as it is if not for the massive feat tax needed to do ANYTHING with it. honestly who takes more than the basic feat other than rangers and MAYBE sneak attackers, sword and board is the most under-utilized yet one of the MOST COMMON styles in medieval combat.

honestly the power scale for the three styles should be OVERWHELMING STRIKES, death by a thousand cuts with some defense, and a good offense with great defense. we do get the overwhelming strikes with two handed fighting due to power attack as already said. two weapon fighting would be fine if it was consolidated into 1-2 feats. and sword and board should have some way to better their defenses.

heck why isn't there a 1 handed weapon style? no shield no secondary weapon just a 1h weapon?

[Morty]

A catch-phrase like "a completely false idea"?

It is a completely false idea, since it has nothing to do with what 4E's strengths or weaknesses actually are.


Initially, I thought I should agree with this, but then I realized you must be meaning entirely different "metagame", if you consider that there was an attempt to fix it.

The last years of 3E's run saw a massive discussion about the game's balance and fundaments of different classes. Tome of Battle sparked the idea that non-magical classes (or, well, technically non-magical) can have discrete abilities. The abilities were assigned on a per-encounter basis. 4E effectively took a side in that debate, by making balance a priority, assigning classes discrete roles and power sources and trying to minimize overlap between them. It also doubled down on 3E's features of tactical grid combat. It's an evolution of a very particular way of looking at D&D.


Well fine then, it's shorthand. Shorthand you don't particularly like, but now you've demonstrated that you do know what the edition's critics are actually getting at, so the rest is pedantry.


It's not pedantry. How we discuss things matters, and "4E is like a MMO" is the kind of statements that sours debate.

[Psyren]

It's not pedantry. How we discuss things matters, and "4E is like a MMO" is the kind of statements that sours debate.

I honestly don't see why. MMOs are as valid a source of inspiration for game design as any other medium. Your issue should be with the folks who use that statement as a pejorative, not the statement itself (which, as noted previously, is true.)

[Nifft]

The last years of 3E's run saw a massive discussion about the game's balance and fundaments of different classes. Tome of Battle sparked the idea that non-magical classes (or, well, technically non-magical) can have discrete abilities. The abilities were assigned on a per-encounter basis. 4E effectively took a side in that debate, by making balance a priority, assigning classes discrete roles and power sources and trying to minimize overlap between them. It also doubled down on 3E's features of tactical grid combat. It's an evolution of a very particular way of looking at D&D.

UA also had a variant rule for recharge spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm).

Nobody seems to claim that 3.5e was an MMO.

(This is a good thing, since 3.5e wasn't an MMO. 4e also wasn't an MMO, and 5e continues the tradition by not being an MMO.)

[BassoonHero]

Are you familiar with the Snowbluff Axiom from these boards?
I am; however, I don't think it's especially relevant here. "Exploitability", to me, means the ability of a motivated player to substantially exceed the baseline via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I would tend to agree that exploitability is an unavoidable consequence of the kind of flexibility I look for in 3.5.

But my complaint with 3.5's class balance is not really about exploitability. That is, I'm not complaining that it's possible for a motivated player of a spellcaster to substantially exceed the baseline power of spellcasters via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I'm complaining that the baseline power of spellcasters is vastly greater than the baseline power of non-spellcasters.

There's some parsing that could be done here. If you believe that the 3.5 designers intended for the classes to be well-balanced, then you could say that a spellcaster that is vastly more powerful than the baseline power of a fighter must necessarily, by that fact alone, be "exploiting" the system by using the mechanics in a way the designers never intended. This argument is tautological, which is to say circular; it classifies all imbalances automatically as "exploits" and stipulates designer error to be a logical impossibility.

In 3.5, the power differential can manifest without any ill intent and without anyone feeling like they're exploiting the system. A novice player can demonstrate this fundamental imbalance by playing a core-only single-classed wizard. I don't think that this is inevitable in a versatile system the way that obvious exploits are. It doesn't bother me that the core rules contain an infinite-wish loop; that's much easier to regulate as a DM and as a group than deep-seated power gaps between same-level characters within a party.

In fact, given this baseline imbalance, exploitability is often a blessing. By jamming combinations of the abilities that would give the designers nightmares, you can build a non-spellcaster far above the non-spellcasting baseline, which can substantially reduce the power disparity within a mixed party of spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Of course, this is hardly an elegant solution. Doing this requires fairly deep system mastery, access to many, many sourcebooks, and a tolerant DM. It's also a lot of work, and it's not like 3.5 character creation is quick and easy in the first place. Nevertheless, the exploitability of 3.5 can be used by experienced players to mitigate its fundamental imbalances. (My biggest problem with Pathfinder is that by making the system less exploitable they made it more unbalanced.)

The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.


The best attempt I've seen thus far (that I might actually get to play due to adoption) might very well be Starfinder. By eliminating spells above 6th level and iteratives, I think it's brining the classes more in line with one another without the mechanical homogenization of 4th or the nebulous mother-may-I style of 5th. That is however a preliminary reaction, and I'm looking forward to continuing to ingest material to see if that first impression holds up.
I haven't read Starfinder, but I'm intrigued by what I've heard so far.

@death390:

I generally agree. What I think most need an upgrade are the "bones" of the system; the stuff that a Warrior 20 could do. The lack of support for obvious combat styles is a big problem, and a pet peeve of mine is the sheer number of feat taxes required to use basic mechanics.

Lackluster class features play a big role as well, particularly for the monk and paladin. There probably are more rewrites of these two classes than any others, and for good reason. The monk's dependency on magic items is also a major problem, even more so than the other martial classes. I'm hoping to come up with a simple way of addressing this.

[EldritchWeaver]

When you look at the most popular combat abilities, it's amazing how many of them simply work around these limitations. The barbarian's lion spiritual totem lets you move and still use your normal attacks. Tome of Battle strikes let you deal level-appropriate damage withot being locked into a full attack, and its counters let you use your martial prowess to defend yourself. A spiked chain build can milk the trip mechanic hard enough that you'll forget it cost you three feats just to get started.

This tells me that the system has a lot of low-hanging fruit to make life easier for fighter-types. The first ones I choose to pluck are:


Making a full attack a standard action.
Limiting the iterative attack penalty to -5.
Removing attacks of opportunity for most combat maneuvers.
Removing Weapon Finesse and Brutal Throw, making the benefits standard options.
Eliminating swaths of useless prerequisite feats.


In many cases, fixing these problems merely requires deleting caveats and restrictions, actually simplifying the rules in the process.

Spheres of Might is actually going in that direction. It focuses on standard actions, which can still give multiple aattacks. Barrage, the multishot, can provide additional attacks, but all attacks suffer a cumulative -2 for every attack except the first. IIRC, there is a single talent which removes AoOs in regards all combat maneuvers. A number of talents provide upgraded feat effects, but still count as that feat AND as its prerequisites, so feat chains are cut short and easier to fulfill. I can't remember though, if Weapon Finesse and Brutal Thrower are available as talents. I haven't required those for my builds yet.


The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.

I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced. You can in addition with the same mechanics have a wizard, who can create demiplanes, raises undead and dominates monsters. But there is no fighter, who can do more than killing monsters. In the end, the wizard's endgame is completely different than its start, while a fighter has at best higher numbers and maybe a single combat maneuver trick, which won't work against half of the enemies.

[Psyren]

I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced. You can in addition with the same mechanics have a wizard, who can create demiplanes, raises undead and dominates monsters. But there is no fighter, who can do more than killing monsters. In the end, the wizard's endgame is completely different than its start, while a fighter has at best higher numbers and maybe a single combat maneuver trick, which won't work against half of the enemies.

About the only thing in here that I see as an actual problem is "single combat maneuver." Fighters, more than any other martial class, should have multiple (even perhaps "all") and this is why I push the "Feat Taxes" link in my sig. But the rest? Not an issue.


I am; however, I don't think it's especially relevant here. "Exploitability", to me, means the ability of a motivated player to substantially exceed the baseline via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I would tend to agree that exploitability is an unavoidable consequence of the kind of flexibility I look for in 3.5.

You're focusing on the wrong part of it; the part I point to is that the game should have a very wide potential power level to please the widest audience. This more than anything is the mistake I felt 4e made, and why it feels homogenous. But as far as the "exploits" - sure they exist as possibilities, but at the tables I've played at they simply don't come up, except as a one-off trick to save us from a hopeless situation when the dice are trying to get us killed, and even those are at a much lower power level than most of the cheese and op-fu threads I've seen here.



There's some parsing that could be done here. If you believe that the 3.5 designers intended for the classes to be well-balanced, then you could say that a spellcaster that is vastly more powerful than the baseline power of a fighter must necessarily, by that fact alone, be "exploiting" the system by using the mechanics in a way the designers never intended. This argument is tautological, which is to say circular; it classifies all imbalances automatically as "exploits" and stipulates designer error to be a logical impossibility.

Define "well-balanced." If by that you mean that a class without spells should have the same capabilities as one that does - then no, I don't believe that, and can't fathom how anyone could.


(My biggest problem with Pathfinder is that by making the system less exploitable they made it more unbalanced.)

And you've completely lost me here. How can a system that lacks Ice Assassin, the original Shapechange, Craft Contingent Spell, Arcane Fusion etc. be more unbalanced?



The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.

When you can get everyone to agree on what that baseline should be, you should call the UN after that because they owe you a job. For my own groups, we're happy with the simple expedient of lowering the ceiling until most of the bad stuff is gone, and playing in the space that remains.

[Psikerlord]

It was a solid design, but killed a lot of sacred D&D cows. I know a handful of people who very much didn't like it, but enjoyed the stripped down version we put together because it didn't have a strong tie to the D&D brand. That's definitely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder how much of the dislike was rooted in edition loyalty. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting an edition war, all the above is just my opinion (and for reference, I enjoy 3.5, 4e, and 5e). I'm simply sharing my experience with the system.

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

I liked 4e, we played it for 3 years, but it was definitely more boardgamey feel. A different kind of fun. I disliked the hardcoded "striker" role, though. I prefer everyone to have decent damage.

[BassoonHero]

Spheres of Might is actually going in that direction. It focuses on standard actions, which can still give multiple aattacks. Barrage, the multishot, can provide additional attacks, but all attacks suffer a cumulative -2 for every attack except the first. IIRC, there is a single talent which removes AoOs in regards all combat maneuvers. A number of talents provide upgraded feat effects, but still count as that feat AND as its prerequisites, so feat chains are cut short and easier to fulfill. I can't remember though, if Weapon Finesse and Brutal Thrower are available as talents. I haven't required those for my builds yet.
I'll have to look deeper into Spheres of Power as well.

One thing I believe strongly in is letting basic combat options work by default. Lowering the barriers is a good start, but even a trivial tax walls off options from the majority of characters who won't choose to pay it. That's why I favor making these enablers totally free rather than lessening the tax or giving it a consolation prize.


I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced.
Yeah, but the moment the wizard diversifies their spell selection, this no longer holds. Everyone likes to use the example of a wizard who takes nothing but area-effect direct damage, but even a brand-new player with no interest in character optimization might take sleep, web, or solid fog (or, Mystra forbid, polymorph).


You're focusing on the wrong part of it; the part I point to is that the game should have a very wide potential power level to please the widest audience.
You and I don't disagree here. One of the best parts of 3.5 is the vast range of power levels it encompasses. I've played hardcore high-optimization games with experienced min/maxers and lower-powered games with new players. And in addition to that sort of power range, the progression of a 3.5 character from level 1 to level 20 is nearly unrivalled in fantasy RPGs. Certainly, it's not rivalled by 5e. And, as I've said repeatedly, I'm willing to forgive a lot for a system that makes this possible. There's an infinite wish loop in the core rules, for crying out loud. As you say, the real cheese is unlikely to see practical play; is a player is trying to get infinite wishes, that's a problem best dealt with at a metagame level.


Define "well-balanced." If by that you mean that a class without spells should have the same capabilities as one that does - then no, I don't believe that, and can't fathom how anyone could.
I'm aware that you don't believe that class balance is a desirable trait, and I'm not trying to convince you that you like the wrong thing.


And you've completely lost me here. How can a system that lacks Ice Assassin, the original Shapechange, Craft Contingent Spell, Arcane Fusion etc. be more unbalanced?
The effect of Ice Assassin on 3.5 game balance is pretty much nil. You said it yourself — the real cheese simply doesn't come up in a typical game. Anyone who makes a spreadsheet to track their contingency crafting XP knows what they're getting themselves and their party into. These are fun things to talk about online, but by the time you get to 17th level for Shapechange it's a bit late to worry about magic screwing up game balance.

That's not to say that in a perfect world these things wouldn't be patched. On the contrary, in my list of D&D 3.5 spell house rules, quite a few of the entries read simply “use the Pathfinder version”. These are real improvements, and I appreciate them. But nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types. A half-ogre spiked-chain tripping specialist is not a theoretical exploit; it's a real, playable build that you can run in a moderate-power-level game. Some of the ubercharger builds could get out of hand, but removing all of the tools they relied upon was excessive. And, of course, the absence of the Tome of Battle shifts class balance dramatically further toward the spellcasters. (Simply adding back the Tome of Battle into Pathfinder improves it tremendously.)


When you can get everyone to agree on what that baseline should be, you should call the UN after that because they owe you a job.
There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You don't have to agree with my assessment of every mechanic in 3.5 to acknowledge that a vast gap exists between the have-spells and the have-nots. You don't have to determine the exact ideal balance point to know what direction it's in.

[ryu]

I'll have to look deeper into Spheres of Power as well.

One thing I believe strongly in is letting basic combat options work by default. Lowering the barriers is a good start, but even a trivial tax walls off options from the majority of characters who won't choose to pay it. That's why I favor making these enablers totally free rather than lessening the tax or giving it a consolation prize.


Yeah, but the moment the wizard diversifies their spell selection, this no longer holds. Everyone likes to use the example of a wizard who takes nothing but area-effect direct damage, but even a brand-new player with no interest in character optimization might take sleep, web, or solid fog (or, Mystra forbid, polymorph).


You and I don't disagree here. One of the best parts of 3.5 is the vast range of power levels it encompasses. I've played hardcore high-optimization games with experienced min/maxers and lower-powered games with new players. And in addition to that sort of power range, the progression of a 3.5 character from level 1 to level 20 is nearly unrivalled in fantasy RPGs. Certainly, it's not rivalled by 5e. And, as I've said repeatedly, I'm willing to forgive a lot for a system that makes this possible. There's an infinite wish loop in the core rules, for crying out loud. As you say, the real cheese is unlikely to see practical play; is a player is trying to get infinite wishes, that's a problem best dealt with at a metagame level.


I'm aware that you don't believe that class balance is a desirable trait, and I'm not trying to convince you that you like the wrong thing.


The effect of Ice Assassin on 3.5 game balance is pretty much nil. You said it yourself — the real cheese simply doesn't come up in a typical game. Anyone who makes a spreadsheet to track their contingency crafting XP knows what they're getting themselves and their party into. These are fun things to talk about online, but by the time you get to 17th level for Shapechange it's a bit late to worry about magic screwing up game balance.

That's not to say that in a perfect world these things wouldn't be patched. On the contrary, in my list of D&D 3.5 spell house rules, quite a few of the entries read simply “use the Pathfinder version”. These are real improvements, and I appreciate them. But nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types. A half-ogre spiked-chain tripping specialist is not a theoretical exploit; it's a real, playable build that you can run in a moderate-power-level game. Some of the ubercharger builds could get out of hand, but removing all of the tools they relied upon was excessive. And, of course, the absence of the Tome of Battle shifts class balance dramatically further toward the spellcasters. (Simply adding back the Tome of Battle into Pathfinder improves it tremendously.)


There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You don't have to agree with my assessment of every mechanic in 3.5 to acknowledge that a vast gap exists between the have-spells and the have-nots. You don't have to determine the exact ideal balance point to know what direction it's in.

Exactly the ideal balance point is in the general direction of t1. It's the most interesting place in the system, AND the place hardest to replicate outside a tabletop setting. Similarly I've played PS1 rpgs with more meat on their bones than you'll ever see in a t5 or even t4 game. The highest games have ever gotten on the tier ladder was xenoblade chronicles for debatable t2 protagonists.

[BassoonHero]

Exactly the ideal balance point is in the general direction of t1.
Personally, I'd prefer something closer to tier 2. But from the perspective of a fighter, tiers 1 and 2 are in the same direction, so we agree on this.

[Psyren]

I'm aware that you don't believe that class balance is a desirable trait, and I'm not trying to convince you that you like the wrong thing.

I do desire class balance, but I suspect my definition of that term is considerably more... flexible than yours.



The effect of Ice Assassin on 3.5 game balance is pretty much nil. You said it yourself — the real cheese simply doesn't come up in a typical game. Anyone who makes a spreadsheet to track their contingency crafting XP knows what they're getting themselves and their party into. These are fun things to talk about online, but by the time you get to 17th level for Shapechange it's a bit late to worry about magic screwing up game balance.

You're right, but that still raises the question of what the heck you meant when you said PF was "more unbalanced." Even without Ice Assassin, it makes no sense to me.



There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You don't have to agree with my assessment of every mechanic in 3.5 to acknowledge that a vast gap exists between the have-spells and the have-nots. You don't have to determine the exact ideal balance point to know what direction it's in.

But you do have to determine where it is to arrive at a "common baseline." The only other solution is what we have right now - a wild west of table variations, that thankfully most of us never see because we don't play with one another directly.


Exactly the ideal balance point is in the general direction of t1. It's the most interesting place in the system, AND the place hardest to replicate outside a tabletop setting. Similarly I've played PS1 rpgs with more meat on their bones than you'll ever see in a t5 or even t4 game. The highest games have ever gotten on the tier ladder was xenoblade chronicles for debatable t2 protagonists.


Personally, I'd prefer something closer to tier 2. But from the perspective of a fighter, tiers 1 and 2 are in the same direction, so we agree on this.

And my point is illustrated instantly.

[BassoonHero]

You're right, but that still raises the question of what the heck you meant when you said PF was "more unbalanced." Even without Ice Assassin, it makes no sense to me.
I think you may have missed part of my comment (“…nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types”).


But you do have to determine where it is to arrive at a "common baseline."
To arrive at a destination, you have to know where it is. But if you only have an idea as to the right direction, you can still get closer. I like tier 2, and ryu likes tier 1. What does this mean? Buff the hell out of fighter-types. Even if we don't agree on the best end result, we'd travel essentially the same path to get there, and we wouldn't have much to disagree about for a long, long time.

[ryu]

I think you may have missed part of my comment (“…nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types”).


To arrive at a destination, you have to know where it is. But if you only have an idea as to the right direction, you can still get closer. I like tier 2, and ryu likes tier 1. What does this mean? Buff the hell out of fighter-types. Even if we don't agree on the best end result, we'd travel essentially the same path to get there, and we wouldn't have much to disagree about for a long, long time.

Not altogether wrong. My first instinct is buffing the ever-loving crap out of everything that isn't already a caster by stapling together a spell list of every possible thing that could be considered relevant to their stated utility goals plus some simple general stuff until the result is at a minimum a tier 2 caster with a good chassis. Everything that IS a caster but below the stated line situationally gets either more spells known, an expanded list or both. Also everyone is some sort of full caster. Distinction between classes is achieved by a combination of differing spell lists, and various expanded automatic improvements to level up goodies.

Stuff like sorcerers gaining access to a single buff spell two levels behind the curve that is ALWAYS on in pretty much any situation not involving AMFs or Dead Magic. This happens at every interval they aren't gaining a new level of spells. Also wizard speed progression and more spells known, but lack of ability to learn them at a cheap gold cost or scavenge new spells known form loot. THAT is how I'd make sorcerers interesting in an entirely tier 1 system.

[death390]

so what spell lists would work?

a fighter with a combat spell list and defnesive buffs (exists its duskblade '[magus in pathfinder])
a rouge with invisibility and stealth magic (exists Beguiler)
a monk with what? first instinct is spider walk so transmutation and divination? for insight!
a barbarian with transmutation and conjuration? so that he can heal his injuries and summon his totem animal (probably divine list with SNA).
ranger has a spell list but it just doesn't help much since its delayed.
and the spell list doesnt help much for the paladin.

[Psyren]

I think you may have missed part of my comment (“…nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types”).

Yeah, but nobody in PF is "eliminating combat abilities." Quite the opposite, Fighters are getting more and more nice things. So I'm still confused.



To arrive at a destination, you have to know where it is. But if you only have an idea as to the right direction, you can still get closer. I like tier 2, and ryu likes tier 1. What does this mean? Buff the hell out of fighter-types. Even if we don't agree on the best end result, we'd travel essentially the same path to get there, and we wouldn't have much to disagree about for a long, long time.

Again, "buff the hell out of Fighter types" is exactly what PF is doing, just not to anywhere near T2 or T1. So we have three people here with three baselines, the exact problem with your idea that I pointed out initially.

[Nifft]

so what spell lists would work?

a fighter with a combat spell list and defnesive buffs (exists its duskblade '[magus in pathfinder])
a rouge with invisibility and stealth magic (exists Beguiler)
a monk with what? first instinct is spider walk so transmutation and divination? for insight!
a barbarian with transmutation and conjuration? so that he can heal his injuries and summon his totem animal (probably divine list with SNA).
ranger has a spell list but it just doesn't help much since its delayed.
and the spell list doesnt help much for the paladin.

Duskblade with bonus Fighter feats would be fun.

Beguiler with Sneak Attack would be fun.

Monk with Psychic Warrior power progression would fix the class. In fact just make Monk a variant Psychic Warrior.

Barbarian is already decent at its job, give it some sort of non-combat utility stuff.

Ranger should get the Duskblade's spell progression, except with a number of spells "readied" daily, from which they spontaneously cast. Use the Mystic Ranger's list for level 0 and level 5 spells. Also, their animal should progress at full rate.

Paladin spells should also progress like Duskblade. Battle Blessing helps a lot more when you've got a lot of spell slots. Again, prep a list of daily spells, then spontaneously cast from that list.

[death390]

one thing i disagree with is the fighter bonus feats, if we comepletly get rid of the fighters bonus feats we can safely get rid of alot of the feat chains, and consolidate.

[ryu]

one thing i disagree with is the fighter bonus feats, if we comepletly get rid of the fighters bonus feats we can safely get rid of alot of the feat chains, and consolidate.

No no. Get rid of taxes, consolidate, and let him KEEP THEM. I don't think you understand how fully awful a class feature that currently is. As a matter of fact go further. Expand on what those feats can do as well. Do you honestly think even all of that together would be of a par with the listed ability of picking any buff spell two levels lower than your max that's on pretty much at all times? CUMULATIVELY!?

Further still many of your stated spell list gifts are incomplete. Keep in mind the stated goal was to make every class tier 2 at minimum based purely on its casting then give them notable unique boosts so that even the weakest class in the new paradigm breaks into what most would agree is the low end of t1.

[Psyren]

No no. Get rid of taxes, consolidate, and let him KEEP THEM.

Agreed, I see no reason to get rid of them even after consolidation.

[Nifft]

one thing i disagree with is the fighter bonus feats, if we comepletly get rid of the fighters bonus feats we can safely get rid of alot of the feat chains, and consolidate.

Get rid of the Fighter as a class.

Give other classes the Fighter's bonus feats.

Feats are cool. Bonus feats are useful. They're not a replacement for actual class features, but they go really well with some class features.

[ryu]

Agreed, I see no reason to get rid of them even after consolidation.

The main obstacle I seem to be facing is a lack understanding of just how hard some classes need to change to reach even low tier 1. Like, for fighter I was thinking all that's already been mentioned, some divination for effective battlefield strategic advantage, the ability to no sell a number of save requiring effects per day equal to relevant save stat bonus, at high levels the ability to simply not die NO MATTER WHAT WOULD'VE KILLED YOU once per day, various flight spells, attack of opportunity range extending to every square adjacent to where they'd normally be for the weapon in use, attacks of opportunity by this class can disrupt a spell being cast defensively which still provoke and unless the caster makes a concentration check equal to twice the difference between attack roll and AC received with successfully casting defensively granting a bonus to this second roll, spells with swift or immediate casting times still provoke but will go off regardless so long as the mage makes the standard defensive casting check, automatic DR piercing based on level, and the ability to automatically provide partial, or even full depending on level, cover to nearby allies with an immediate action.

[Psyren]

I think my opinion of "T1 Fighters" is pretty well known at this point so I'll leave that one alone.

[ryu]

I think my opinion of "T1 Fighters" is pretty well known at this point so I'll leave that one alone.

The fact it unsettles you so is pretty good benchmark that the design is on exactly the right track to achieve the intended goals. Oh also slightly better skills and not being blind and deaf typecast thank you very much.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure "unsettled" is strong enough to capture the revulsion the concept carries for me, but hey, you do you at your table man!

[Peat]

I think if I wanted to play Everything As Tier 1, I'd go play Exalted. Making everything Tier 1 is (imo) no longer D&D, but d20 Exalted with the serial numbers filed off.

If I wanted to move everything to Tier 1, I'd make Eldritch Knight a 20 level base career and give that to the Fighter. There's probably better ways of doing it but its the easiest. Way D&D is set up, Tier 1 will always mean magic. Hell, Tier 3 will always mean magic (or magic with the serial numbers filed off).

Also, any upgrading of martials should concentrate far more heavily on out of combat options than combat power.

And finally, you can totally give the Fighter real class abilities and keep all the bonus feats.



Because (first-party) dev time is finite, and having to watch these threads occasionally pop up like recurring weeds is ultimately a worthwhile price to pay if it means more content for the design philosophies I actually enjoy.


There's a whole bunch of text written about the classes, the races, etc.etc. already. I'm not sure they'd need to do anything other than write that text better. If they did need to do more, we're talking about writing a single page of A4 outlining the design philosophy, and that would only take an evening.

I get their time is finite, but this is kinda like a banker donating his spare change to charity.

[ryu]

I'm not sure "unsettled" is strong enough to capture the revulsion the concept carries for me, but hey, you do you at your table man!

Oh wow. All the way to revulsion? Excellent. That means that concept with all the actual work put into it would probably come out as far as mid tier 1.

[Matthias]

I would call Exalted closer to T2-3, because while an Exalt can be extremely scary in her area of specialization and broadly competent outside it, it's rare for them to possess the sheer breadth of power held by Wizards or Clerics. The things that come closest are Wyld shaping, demon summoning, and (in 3e) sorcerous workings, all of which are 1) dangerous and/or time-intensive and 2) interestingly, places where they're conceptually overlapping with wizards.

A Dawn Caste who doesn't use Sorcery or the Wyld-shaping tree can be a terrifying warrior and, at the same time, quite competent at talking to people and moving through environments - comparable to a high-level Conscript or Warlord. The Dawn will be a little aesthetically flashier, but in general her abilities will be extensions of normal human skill.

In general I do think there are conceptual difficulties in getting "extension of natural human abilities" (where this includes slaying a hundred warriors with the jawbone of an ox, holding your breath for an hour while you fight a dragon underwater, that kind of thing) to cover the kinds of things that prepared 9/9 casters can do. Which doesn't mean that setting T1 as your balance point is at all wrong, just that it's easier to bring a lot of concepts down from T1 to T3 (most mythic and literary sorcerers and prophets and such aren't quite so generalist as D&D tends to go with, after all) than up from T5 to T1. This is probably a big part of why 3rd party fixes to this kind of thing, like PoW or Spheres, tend to shoot for around T3.

[Cosi]

The main obstacle I seem to be facing is a lack understanding of just how hard some classes need to change to reach even low tier 1. Like, for fighter I was thinking all that's already been mentioned, some divination for effective battlefield strategic advantage, the ability to no sell a number of save requiring effects per day equal to relevant save stat bonus, at high levels the ability to simply not die NO MATTER WHAT WOULD'VE KILLED YOU once per day, various flight spells, attack of opportunity range extending to every square adjacent to where they'd normally be for the weapon in use, attacks of opportunity by this class can disrupt a spell being cast defensively which still provoke and unless the caster makes a concentration check equal to twice the difference between attack roll and AC received with successfully casting defensively granting a bonus to this second roll, spells with swift or immediate casting times still provoke but will go off regardless so long as the mage makes the standard defensive casting check, automatic DR piercing based on level, and the ability to automatically provide partial, or even full depending on level, cover to nearby allies with an immediate action.

Honestly, that's not even the real problem. Yeah, that probably makes a Fighter into a real threat in a fight, but that wasn't really the issue in play, or at least not the primary issue. An Ubercharger is a reasonable threat. Not super deadly or anything, and it could be better (particularly defensively), but you actually do care about it even at relatively high levels of optimization. The problem the Fighter has is that he has nothing to do when it isn't a fight. A Wizard or Cleric or Druid has a wide variety of options for things to do to solve non-combat problems. The Fighter has ... between one and three skills, from a sub-par list. That's where you need to do work, because even the good (comparatively) martial characters falter there.

[Psyren]

I think if I wanted to play Everything As Tier 1, I'd go play Exalted. Making everything Tier 1 is (imo) no longer D&D, but d20 Exalted with the serial numbers filed off.

Basically this, yeah.



There's a whole bunch of text written about the classes, the races, etc.etc. already. I'm not sure they'd need to do anything other than write that text better. If they did need to do more, we're talking about writing a single page of A4 outlining the design philosophy, and that would only take an evening.

I get their time is finite, but this is kinda like a banker donating his spare change to charity.

Then I can only suggest you write them a strongly-worded letter.

[AvatarVecna]

To be honest, I don't really think any class should absolutely be at Tier 1. Someone made a good point awhile upthread that, just because A, B, C, D...X, Y, and Z are all things that should be things a wizard can possibly be good at, and A to Z should be fine covering every single thing in the entire game, I don't think wizard as a class should have sufficient resources to be a 10 out of 10 on the power scale in everything from A to Z. If a 20th level wizard wants to have 10 out of 10 on the power scale for everything that particular wizard is capable of doing, then "everything that particular wizard is capable of doing" should not be "everything". Similarly, if you want a wizard who is equally competent at everything from A to Z, they shouldn't be at 10 out of 10 on the power scale for anything, but should have enough variety to always have something useful to do (even if it's not overpowered).

Of course, I think non-caster classes like Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and so on should operate on a similar principle - there should probably be some things between A and Z that they just can't do, but I'd like them to be a lot less limited than they are right now. Similarly, the more specialized they are, the higher their power should be in the things they're specialized in. I wouldn't demand that a Fighter 20 who puts every resource he has into fighting be a better help in combat than a Wizard 20 who puts every resource he has into fighting, but they should at least be comparable.

If I were rebalancing the system as a whole, fixing the magic system to be less abusable and making spellcasters have to make real choices between being a passable jack-of-all trades and being a highly-competent specialist in a particular area of expertise would be a top priority. Barring significant changes to how vancian casting works, I doubt I could really change T1 casters in a way that made them really T3, but bringing T1 down to T2 and bring T5/T6 up to T3/T4 would do wonders for the imbalances that show up in the game. Between the vast number of archetype combos, Unchained, SoP, PoW, VMC, and the way easy-high-op tactics like crafting/metamagic abuse and the more broken spells have been been made a lot harder to break, PF is doing a good enough job at this for most purposes.

[AnimeTheCat]

To be honest, I don't really think any class should absolutely be at Tier 1. Someone made a good point awhile upthread that, just because A, B, C, D...X, Y, and Z are all things that should be things a wizard can possibly be good at, and A to Z should be fine covering every single thing in the entire game, I don't think wizard as a class should have sufficient resources to be a 10 out of 10 on the power scale in everything from A to Z. If a 20th level wizard wants to have 10 out of 10 on the power scale for everything that particular wizard is capable of doing, then "everything that particular wizard is capable of doing" should not be "everything". Similarly, if you want a wizard who is equally competent at everything from A to Z, they shouldn't be at 10 out of 10 on the power scale for anything, but should have enough variety to always have something useful to do (even if it's not overpowered).

Of course, I think non-caster classes like Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and so on should operate on a similar principle - there should probably be some things between A and Z that they just can't do, but I'd like them to be a lot less limited than they are right now. Similarly, the more specialized they are, the higher their power should be in the things they're specialized in. I wouldn't demand that a Fighter 20 who puts every resource he has into fighting be a better help in combat than a Wizard 20 who puts every resource he has into fighting, but they should at least be comparable.

If I were rebalancing the system as a whole, fixing the magic system to be less abusable and making spellcasters have to make real choices between being a passable jack-of-all trades and being a highly-competent specialist in a particular area of expertise would be a top priority. Barring significant changes to how vancian casting works, I doubt I could really change T1 casters in a way that made them really T3, but bringing T1 down to T2 and bring T5/T6 up to T3/T4 would do wonders for the imbalances that show up in the game. Between the vast number of archetype combos, Unchained, SoP, PoW, VMC, and the way easy-high-op tactics like crafting/metamagic abuse and the more broken spells have been been made a lot harder to break, PF is doing a good enough job at this for most purposes.

@AvatarVecna, I wanted to quote your whole post, but it's big so I just put it in spoilers for the sake of reading.

I read through all of the previous pages and something that it seems people either just unaimously agreed with and didn't feel the need to acknowledge (possible) or disagreed with and didn't feel the need to acknoweldge (also possible) was the point that not every class needed to contribute to every possible scenario (combat, social, exploration, etc.) but that every class should contribute something to the party as a whole. If I read correctly, your point was about no one class being able to do A-Z right? That, to me, falls in line with the mentality that not every class should do everything but every class should do something.

I would go one further, and in doing so agree with what I believe the second portion of your post was about, and say that no one class should be able to eclipse the other classes. That is not to say that any given class can't be comprable, but that they should not be eclipsed. In 3.5, this concept would include providing an increase to power/flexibility/adaptability of the lower tier classes conenciding with a reduction in power/flexibility/adaptability to the higher tier classes. I'll spoil a proposed way to do this as it's not really important and I know not everyone will want to read it.

Because of the way that the magic system and schools are set up, there are some schools that are better than other (Illusion, Conjuration) and schools that are regularly dropped by specialists (Evocation, Enchantment). In keeping in line with the above idea that "No one class should be able to do everything" I think that adjusting the schools to a similar mindset would go far with forcing casters to "make real choices" (as AvatarVecna said). I would think that adjusting all of the defensive spells into one school would help, moving all primary damage spells into evocation would help (Orb of X spells go to Evocation, etc.) Spells that have the primary function of battlefield debilitation should go into one schools (grease,
colorspray, etc all to... conjuration we'll say.) Spells that primarily provide benefits to the party all go in one school (Transmutation perhaps, but then most of them are already there.)
Doing this with the intent that no one school is really always removed and if the school is, then something major missing and it is impossible for that character to do A-Z the best 10/10 times.

The next part of adjusting magic, in my mind, would be restricting the most powerful spells of each school for only specialists in that school. An example of this would be the Alter Self/Polymorph line of spells in the Transmutation School. Those spells would be limited to only specialists. This has a two-fold effect of requireing specialization if you want access to those spells, but forcing you to decide which of the most powerful spells you want OR letting you have access to all of the schools, but not having access to ANY of the most powerful spells of each school.

The last part of this proposal is to upgrade the martial characters. Part of this is, as mentioned earlier, reducing feat taxes, increasing skill points, and granting more wholesome class abilities.
I would be a fan of Fighters expanding their skill list to include normal guard skills like spot, listen, search, sense motive AND 6+int skill points per level. I would also be a fan of Fighters getting class abilities that granted them bonuses to such skills AND could be used to grant bonuses in combat (such as a spot ability that would allow them to target the enemie's touch AC or something). Barbarians and Rangers have less to fix, but could still use a little love.

It would take some work, but I feel like this would be a way to adjust D&D and still let you feel like you're playing D&D and not some other game.

[Gnaeus]

I’d add that all things are not equal. I wouldn’t care if Big Stupid Fighter was bad at almost everything, if he were actually good in combat. It would perform as indicated, and you probably wouldn’t play it in a game in which fighting wasn’t going to be a significant part.

[BassoonHero]

My first instinct is buffing the ever-loving crap out of everything that isn't already a caster by stapling together a spell list of every possible thing that could be considered relevant to their stated utility goals plus some simple general stuff until the result is at a minimum a tier 2 caster with a good chassis.
Sure. Are you talking about giving the mundanes explicitly magical effects or just about using magical effects as inspiration? Myself, I'd like to see how far I can get without adding spellcasting. The two approaches are fundamentally compatible, of course; in principle, there's no reason a gish can't coexist at the same tier as a mundane fighter-type.

At the present time, the program I'm looking at is:


Eliminating unnecessary taxes; enhancing versatility by making martial characters "competent by default".
Fixing fighter-types' fundamental action-economy deficit.
Greatly powering up the skill system to give high-level mundanes cool, useful tools that can in some cases compensate for a lack of spellcasting.
Buffing currently-useless abilities to give martial characters more powerful options.
Revamping some classes to tie into the new abilties and scale more gracefully.


The best possible result of these changes would be to put fighters in tier 3 (where the Warblade is today). Obviously, this doesn't eliminate the gap by itself, but it's a start.


Yeah, but nobody in PF is "eliminating combat abilities." Quite the opposite, Fighters are getting more and more nice things. So I'm still confused.
Examples of abilities for martial characters in 3.5 that are not available in Pathfinder:


Power Attack.
The spiked chain.
Lion spiritual totem.
Travel Devotion.
Knowledge Devotion.
Leap Attack.
Shock Trooper.
Robilar's Gambit.
Greater Manyshot.
Brutal Throw.
Power Throw.
Improved Buckler Defense.
Intimidating Rage.
Battle Blessing.
Daring Outlaw.
Swift Hunter.
Throat Punch.
Knockdown.
Stand Still.
Evasive Reflexes.
Martial Study.
Intuitive Attack.
Large PC races.
The Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage.


This list is not exhaustive. Some of these are available in a substantially nerfed form, or if you make a deep investment in a particular class. Overall, though, it's clear that martial characters lose a lot in Pathfinder. They do make some gains as well. For example, the fighter gains several small numeric bonuses. But the fighter is also hit hardest by these nerfs, because feats are its class features, and Pathfinder nerfs or omits many of the "exploitable" feats that 3.5 fighters rely on.

It's true that you can fix this by reintroducing some of the missing material. In particular, simply adding the Tome of Battle goes a long way toward undoing the nerfs. I understand that a similar subsystem was eventually released for Pathfinder; to the extent that it is a suitable replacement, consider my criticism softened.

It's true that many of the builds relying on those missing mechanics could be fairly described as "exploiting" the system (combining and using them in ways the designers never intended or envisioned with the result of a substantial increase in character power). All else being equal, it seems reasonable to eliminate such exploits by nerfing or restricting those mechanics. But all else is not equal; as I've said before, these exploits have generally had the effect of shrinking the power gap between their users and spellcasters, and removing them enlarges that gap.

In a perfect world, you could attain the same results without resorting to exploits. The Tome of Battle is an excellent solution, although I have my own concerns about relying upon it exclusively. I'd rather that a novice player could attain similar results with a fighter or paladin.


So we have three people here with three baselines, the exact problem with your idea that I pointed out initially.
We three disagree as to how much more powerful fighters should be. But we all agree that fighters should be more powerful, and we have a long way to go before we would reach a point at which any of us would be satisfied.

The soup needs more salt. We disagree on how salty it should be in the end. Maybe we won't be sure until we're getting close to those endpoints. Maybe we'll err on the side of caution and let those who prefer the most salt add it at the table. But we can still go ahead and add some salt, because everyone agrees that the soup needs more.

[AvatarVecna]

Depending on what exactly you mean by it, some might say this soup is already too salty. :smalltongue:

[Nifft]

Depending on what exactly you mean by it, some might say this soup is already too salty. :smalltongue:

Heh.

The soup is delicious.

Perhaps some of the chefs are too salty. :wink:

[death390]

honestly if you look at the stylistic quality that mundanes had over spellcasters in media i honestly don't think that that mundanes should be anywhere NEAR T1. T1 as defined previously is the ability to solve any problem and break any campaign. this is not what i want out of a fighter. i want a T3 fighter, someone who is competent at their job and can excell in certain situations but doesn't have all the answers. T2 at best with game-breaking builds is as far as i would want mundanes to go.

i want to do this by reducing thier costs and adding versatility.

[digiman619]

honestly if you look at the stylistic quality that mundanes had over spellcasters in media i honestly don't think that that mundanes should be anywhere NEAR T1. T1 as defined previously is the ability to solve any problem and break any campaign. this is not what i want out of a fighter. i want a T3 fighter, someone who is competent at their job and can excell in certain situations but doesn't have all the answers. T2 at best with game-breaking builds is as far as i would want mundanes to go.

i want to do this by reducing thier costs and adding versatility.

Then again, if you look at the spellcasters in most media, they aren't anywhere near T1 either. It's almost like that's way too much power for a character to have.

[Gnaeus]

honestly if you look at the stylistic quality that mundanes had over spellcasters in media i honestly don't think that that mundanes should be anywhere NEAR T1. T1 as defined previously is the ability to solve any problem and break any campaign. this is not what i want out of a fighter. i want a T3 fighter, someone who is competent at their job and can excell in certain situations but doesn't have all the answers. T2 at best with game-breaking builds is as far as i would want mundanes to go.

i want to do this by reducing thier costs and adding versatility.

I don’t think the “pick your powers today” ability of tier 1s is necessary. Tier 2 wouldn’t be hard though. Start with something like warblade or crusader as a base and add some powers like
Recruiting: add x points/day for recruiting minions when in a population center up to a maximum of Yxlevel points (a counter to powers like animate dead or planar binding)
Heroic feat (level 13, improved at level 17): Fighter picks an ability score and can perform limited wish level powers based on that score. Wish/miracle level powers at level 17. So a strength fighter might be able to divert a river or toss a mountain on another like Hercules or pull an island up from sea bottom with a fishhook. A charisma fighter might have a raise dead like ability by tricking/charming a death god when he comes to take your friend. (Counter to wish/limited wish/miracle)
Stronghold: fighter gets stronghold points to build his castle/lair (counter to genesis)
Right gear: fighter can pull expendable items from a bag w/ a limit as to gp/day. Because he “bought it at last town”. (Counter to fly/resist energy/50 other low level utility things).

[ryu]

Honestly, that's not even the real problem. Yeah, that probably makes a Fighter into a real threat in a fight, but that wasn't really the issue in play, or at least not the primary issue. An Ubercharger is a reasonable threat. Not super deadly or anything, and it could be better (particularly defensively), but you actually do care about it even at relatively high levels of optimization. The problem the Fighter has is that he has nothing to do when it isn't a fight. A Wizard or Cleric or Druid has a wide variety of options for things to do to solve non-combat problems. The Fighter has ... between one and three skills, from a sub-par list. That's where you need to do work, because even the good (comparatively) martial characters falter there.

Which was to fall under the incredible powers of movement related spells, transformation spells the fighter commonly wants, divination spells, creative uses of battlefield control as building material, and more or less making heavy use of spells in ways that aren't common amongst people with wider options. Would it have the full utility of a wizard? Probably not. It would damn well have more than a current sorcerer while being significantly better in combat without much effort. New sorcerer is not what is discussed in that last sentence by the way just for those who get confused. I'm still confident in THAT concept with the three simple buffs listed being easily mid tier 1.

[Psyren]

Examples of abilities for martial characters in 3.5 that are not available in Pathfinder:

*snip*

This list is not exhaustive.

No offense but you're woefully inexperienced in Pathfinder if this is the list you go to. The vast majority of these are "more attacks" and "bigger damage numbers" which PF martials can easily get via other means; almost nothing here actually grants them new capabilities. Compare this to the likes of Item Mastery, Advanced Weapon Training, Master Craftsman, and Combat Stamina, and you'll see that PF martials (especially Fighters) absolutely crush in terms of true capabilities added. The only way 3.5 Fighters keep up is by using feats that make them into watered down versions of other classes, e.g. by access incarnum and binding. The ability to craft magic items and then use them to generate SLAs, using BAB and Con to set caster level and DCs, is several degrees more versatile than doing more damage on a knowledge check.

[BassoonHero]

The vast majority of these are "more attacks" and "bigger damage numbers"
“More attacks” is a rather reductive. There are plenty of ways to get more attacks in both 3.5 and in Pathfinder. There's another unifying theme in the relevant items I listed.

I mentioned earlier that many of the best martial abilities in 3.5 are essentially just loopholes around built-in restrictions of the combat system. One of those restrictions is that if you move, you can't make all of your attacks. Spellcasters don't have this problem; they can cast spells of any level while moving. It's fighter-types that lose access to one of their most important forms of scaling when facing mobile opponents (including said spellcasters). As a result, mechanics that circumvent this restriction are greatly prized. In 3.5, there are several options that can be worked into a wide variety of character builds: the lion spiritual totem, Travel Devotion, the belt of battle, and so on. These mechanics don't just grant an extra attack; they functionally provide extra actions.

In Pathfinder, such mechanics are scarce, and they require substantial investment in specific classes. In the interests of fairness, I'll try to find an exhaustive list:


The Mobile Fighter can full-attack as a standard action… at level 20.
It can also move and use iterative attacks at level 11, but it loses its highest attack.
The Dervish Dancer (a bard archetype) can essentially move and full-attack at level 12, with some restriction.
The Quick Runner's Shirt lets you take an extra move action once per day… but you lose the rest of your turn, so you can full-attack and move but not move and full-attack.
At level 17, a Monk of the Four Winds can pounce once per day if they choose the Aspect of the Tiger.
At level 12, the same monk archetype can use Slow Time to move and full-attack, and even get an extra attack or two in the bargain. Nice. This does use six ki points, so the monk can do it maybe once or twice per day.
A barbarian with Greater Beast Totem can straight-up pounce while raging. This does require several prerequisite rage powers.
The Dimensional Dervish feat lets you essentially full-attack while using Dimension Door or Abundant Step. This requires either fourth-level spellcasting or the monk's 12th-level Abundant Step ability, plus three feats.
A Beastmorph Alchemist can gain pounce at 10th level via Greater Beastform Mutagen.
The Surprising Charge revelation of the Battle mystery lets an Oracle move and full-attack once per day. This is notable for being available as a one-level dip.


By far the most accessible of these is the Oracle revelation; you can dip into the class for one level and pick up some spells and the revelation. You lose a point of BAB and get a free curse. Unfortunately, this only works once per day. You can spend money and/or a feat on additional uses. Excluding an Oracle dip, the best options are twelve levels of bard or ten levels of barbarian (plus several specific rage power choices). Each of these comes with restrictions. Compare to 3.5, where one level of barbarian will get you full-on, no-compromises unconditional pounce. It comes on a chassis with full BAB, a d12 hit die, and four skill points. And you get rage, too, if you're into that. (Buy a second level and get Improved Trip free! Our competitor will charge you three feats for the same thing.)

In 3.5, you can piece together class dips, obscure feats, and abilities from a dozen sourcebooks to build a martial character much greater than the sum of its parts. In Pathfinder, many of the same abilities are available, but they are much more exclusive — they each require a substantial investment of character resources, so you can't combine them to the same degree. And that's just the stuff for which substitutes are available at all.


Compare this to the likes of Item Mastery, Advanced Weapon Training, Master Craftsman, and Combat Stamina
I have to admit I'm largely unimpressed. Item Mastery costs a feat and lets you effectively cast a low-level spell a few times a day. This is fine, but I'd hardly call it a game-changer. Advanced Weapon Training is great, sure, but most of the options are flat numeric bonuses. I'm not sure that I'd give any of them a second thought as a feat in 3.5. Master Craftsman is just a way for fighters to get one feat for the price of two.

Combat Stamina, on the other hand, is really cool. I completely approve of the applications of the stamina pool to other feats. Point to Pathfinder for this one, no question. All the same, I don't think I'd take it over (say) pounce.

[CharonsHelper]

In Pathfinder, such mechanics are scarce, and they require substantial investment in specific classes. In the interests of fairness, I'll try to find an exhaustive list:


There are quite a few more, though many are class specific

1. Pummeling Charge (albeit unarmed only)
2. Mounted Skirmish
3. Coordinated Teamwork feat
4. Metamorph Archetype (alchemist)
5. Cleric Plains Domain (level 6 ability)
6. Flying Kick (Unchained Monk)
7. Druid Wildshape (starting at 6)
8. Kinetic Knight archetype
9. Magus spell combat spells (several - Bladed Dash pretty early)
10. Rogue - swordmaster archetype
11. Monk of the four winds archetype (albeit not until level 17)
12. Synthesist summoner
13. Claw Pounce (catfolk)
14. Vulpine Pounce (kitsune)

There are a lot more semi-pounce moves in Pathfinder. They don't technically get you a full attack - but they're better than a single attack.

As a couple of example -

1. Deadly Stroke - standard action for x2 damage & 1 Con against flat-footed or stunned - so with a solid initiative roll you can do it first round without any work

2. Vital Strike (yes - it's rarely worth a feat outside of specific builds - but it definitely shows Pathfinder's intent that it was core)

3. Cleave (usefulness varies - but situationally very solid)

4. Lunge (not really - but goes on the list as with a reach weapon you can attack from 15ft and make most foes come to you)

5. Archery for full attacks every round (yes - you could do it in 3.5 - but it's way scarier in Pathfinder)

6. I know that there are more - I just can't think of them and I'm tired


I will also point out that one of the more popular Pathfinder Unchained changes was altering the action system to avoid the whole full-attack issue.

I will also agree with Psyren - while some specific builds were nerfed, in general martials are much more potent in Pathfinder. Largely it's lots of little things - but to name a few differences -

Barbarian's Spell Sunder? Awesome. Paladin is FAR better than 3.5 (partially because more toys - partially because less MAD.) Urouge is sweet. Monk (either unchained or archetyped) is not only playable but solid. Rangers are beefier and their combat styles are much better.

The Pathfinder chassis gives more feats - which benefits martials more than casters.


(Why do people always mention Power Attack as a nerf in Pathfinder? While it combo-d with a few other feats like Shock Trooper, on its own it was pretty terrible in 3.5. Much better in Pathfinder as you get a 3/1 ratio instead of 2/1. Plus it's easier to track since it's either on or off.)

[Psyren]

“More attacks” is a rather reductive.

I don't think it is. If the problem requires not swinging a pointy stick or blunt object at it, then Robilar's Gambit, Knowledge Devotion, Power Attack, Brutal Throw, Stand Still, pounce, and the remaining majority of your list do nothing. Whereas being able to craft magic items you need, use your BAB as skill ranks in a skill you don't possess, and generate utility SLAs from your existing items do. So you're just incorrect.


Advanced Weapon Training is great, sure, but most of the options are flat numeric bonuses.

And several are not, so pick the ones that expand your capabilities rather than simply adding numbers.

3.5 will always have higher numbers than PF, I'm not disputing that. But I also don't care about that. "Numbers" was never the Fighter's problem; hell, even a Samurai and Soulknife can put out "numbers" if optimized.

[AvatarVecna]

(Why do people always mention Power Attack as a nerf in Pathfinder? While it combo-d with a few other feats like Shock Trooper, on its own it was pretty terrible in 3.5. Much better in Pathfinder as you get a 3/1 ratio instead of 2/1. Plus it's easier to track since it's either on or off.)

I see this mentioned on more than a few occasions, so I'll say my piece on it: the base ratio of attack penalty to damage bonus is slightly better in PF, but the lack of things that increase that ratio further means it can't compete once 3.5 PA gets more involved. Leap Attack, with the ranks prereq it has, may as well be free extra damage - but then it's two feats competing with one, and the two are in a more feat-starved system. However, the damage tradeoff of 3.5 PA is only part of the draw. PF PA is binary, where 3.5 PA is analog. A PF Fighter 8 can trade -3 attack for +9 damage, which is superior to the 3.5 equivalent of -3 for +6, but the growing array of options made 3.5 PA a lot more rewarding for those who knew they could afford to take a bigger risk. I think this change in PF was made to make it harder to get ridiculous damage numbers despite the better tradeoff while also making it a lot less of an involved decision for the fighter player and the DM; no worrying about how much penalty to take this round based on what you think the enemy's AC is, just whether you think this particular trade off works (and on the DM's side, no needing to remember what attack penalty your AoOs will be at, just whether or not you used PA - not that I think this was a huge issue for DMs anyway). Of course, it's not like PF players have trouble dealing damage anyway, but it makes it harder to reach the absurd heights some higher-PO builds got to in 3.5

When it comes down to it, I don't think it was a nerf, I think the two feats are generally comparable; one gives a better tradeoff, but the other gives the options of taking less/more risk for less/more reward. If it was a choice between 3.5 PA and PF PA, I'd probably go with 3.5 for the flexibility, but the PF ones still great by virtue of being one of the only useful martial feats that really scales up. If it was a choice between 3.5 PA+Leap Attack and PF PA+Furious Focus...probably still 3.5, but it's hardly a runaway victory in either case.

I guess at the end of the day, I'd just like the Fighter's power curve to actually have some curve to it, and scaling feats/class features are the way to get there. PF does some good stuff for that.

[BassoonHero]

If the problem requires not swinging a pointy stick or blunt object at it, then Robilar's Gambit, Knowledge Devotion, Power Attack, Brutal Throw, Stand Still, pounce, and the remaining majority of your list do nothing.
Surely you aren't saying that we should totally disregard "swinging a pointy stick" when evaluating the power of martial characters.


Whereas being able to craft magic items you need, use your BAB as skill ranks in a skill you don't possess, and generate utility SLAs from your existing items do.
I think I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds like we're talking about different things.

In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, most of the power of martial characters is concentrated in "swinging a pointy stick or blunt object". This is their primary means of contributing in combat. It's true that this is not a universal solution to all problems, that these characters tend to lack versatility outside combat, and that access to more versatile abilities is a plus. But it's important to keep this in perspective; a fighter who replaces several of their best combat abilities with low-level spell-like abilities has probably come off worse overall.

Here, you're talking about a martial character who has spent a feat on being allowed to take item creation feats, then an item creation feat, and then a feat to be able to use a single spell-like ability once or a few times per day. (In addition, I'm not sure how you're using your BAB in place of spending a substantial fraction of your skill points on this. I presume this is another mechanic I'm not familiar with.) That is, you're dedicating substantial character resources to doing something that the party wizard was better at several levels ago. I'm not saying that these are all bad feats. Some of them could be pretty useful at the levels you'd pick them up. Any of them could be easily replaced by a reasonably-priced magic item.

Perhaps it would help if you were more specific with which abilities you're recommending. Which item mastery feat(s) do you feel substantially increase the power of martial characters?


And several are not, so pick the ones that expand your capabilities rather than simply adding numbers.
As with item mastery feats, I think I'd rather let you pick. Which ones are you talking about?

[Psyren]

Surely you aren't saying that we should totally disregard "swinging a pointy stick" when evaluating the power of martial characters.

No, but when you're attempting to evaluate what martials gained and lost in a particular edition, ignoring everything that isn't swinging a pointy stick is pretty disingenuous.



(In addition, I'm not sure how you're using your BAB in place of spending a substantial fraction of your skill points on this. I presume this is another mechanic I'm not familiar with.)

Versatile Training is the ability in question. Not only does it let you use your BAB as skill ranks in a number of skills, it makes them count as class skills too (giving you the class skill bonus for each of them) and if you had any ranks in those skills previously you can reassign them for free. This gives you Bluff and Intimidate, plus up to four others.



Perhaps it would help if you were more specific with which abilities you're recommending. Which item mastery feat(s) do you feel substantially increase the power of martial characters?


As with item mastery feats, I think I'd rather let you pick. Which ones are you talking about?

Off the top of my head, perhaps the best one overall is Telekinetic Mastery, because it works with Abundant Tactics due to also being a combat feat. This gives you up to 8/day Telekinesis (10/day with Gloves of Dueling, which you can craft yourself) at full caster level, and all its calculations use Constitution instead of Intelligence or Charisma. You can probably think of lots of uses for an ability like that. Teleportation Mastery is good too as it lets you qualify for the Dimensional Agility chain, which gives you tele-pounce, as well as the ability to follow teleporting foes any distance as an immediate action. Those numbers are just for the base fighter - the Relic Master archetype can make even greater use of these feats.

But Item Mastery isn't even the main one I was bringing up - Master Craftsman is to me the bigger deal of the two. Rather than begging for buffs or to be brought to a Magic-Mart, it lets you cover your own gaps (e.g. Winged Boots, Figment Piercing/Truesight), enable various builds (e.g. Blinkback/Mighty Hurling), and even increase your own ability scores without Wishing (the Manuals.) That's before we get to all the stuff you can get from ioun stones, and combining printed items into a single slot.

Another advantage PF Fighters have is that their large number of feats gives them the most leeway to VMC. Wizard, Rogue, Oracle and Summoner are all good choices there.

And Stamina you already agreed on.

[Gnaeus]

But Item Mastery isn't even the main one I was bringing up - Master Craftsman is to me the bigger deal of the two. Rather than begging for buffs or to be brought to a Magic-Mart, it lets you cover your own gaps (e.g. Winged Boots, Figment Piercing/Truesight), enable various builds (e.g. Blinkback/Mighty Hurling), and even increase your own ability scores without Wishing (the Manuals.) That's before we get to all the stuff you can get from ioun stones, and combining printed items into a single slot.


I agree with many of your points, but I think master craftsman is kinda awful. It’s pretty much a straight feat tax to do something 90% of the games classes can do out of the box. I love item crafting. And I like that PF made it more egalitarian so a sorcerer or magus can craft almost as well as a wizard. But unless you are in a solo game, crafting is something the casters should do to increase the fighters competence, not something the fighter should be losing feats for. And certainly not more feats than the wizard. In a game with any kind of optimization levels I’d be arguing it would have been more fair just to remove the caster only requirement for the craft feat.

[Psyren]

It's precisely one more feat than a wizard would need to do the same thing, so I don't see it being a big burden even in a party situation. And if you don't have a wizard, a Fighter is actually a logical choice to take this role on. Even if you do, this lets you spread the crafting feat burden, such that the Fighter for instance has CWI and CMAAA while the Wizard grabs Craft Rod, Forge Ring, Craft Wand etc. Hell, the fighter has more feats than ever before when you consider things like Weapon Specialist, Martial Flexibility and Barroom Brawler (i.e. abilities that get you multiple feats for the price of one) so spending a few on crafting is even easier to justify.

And in-universe it's even more sensible, because any given Fighter can't guarantee having a wizard in his pocket or access to magic mart to get the gear he needs to keep up, much less utility items.