Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://coboard.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) and the 10 Commandments of Optimization (https://ninjadebugger.livejournal.com/90849.html). In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471542-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-a-God-in-D-amp-D-3-5-(Treantmonklvl20-CantripN-Tsuyoshi-Dan2)) a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=7200) cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

What say you?

[KarlMarx]

There is definitely a curve between T1-T2 full casters and, well, pretty much everyone else. As you point out, though, it isn't that the casters are more powerful at all times than the martials. The difference is often, and aptly, summarized as "linear vs. quadratic advancement". In other words, the linear advancement of the fighter-types starts out at a higher point than the caster's power, but it grows much less slowly. Still, at low levels, it can be very true that fighters are the majority of the party's power. Things start to change around levels 5-6, when third level spells enter the picture, and the casters will have most definitely superseded the martials by around level 11.

At high levels, though, if you want an optimized caster you basically need to have 9th-level spells. Not just for raw power, but also for things like save DCs. Even if you like a lower level spell and don't think you'd ever cast anything higher, you still can metamagic it. Even the best martials have trouble competing next to spells beyond level ~5 and are out of their league around spell level ~7.

So, for a fully optimized level 20 character, there's essentially no reason to take martial levels, even for survivability at low levels. Even a straight wizard 20 with single-class optimization (far from the best combo around) would lose 6 high-level spell slots and 15% of successes on CL checks from taking 3 mundane levels earlier in their career, in exchange for...net +1 BAB, unusable armor proficiencies, slightly different saves, and 12 HP on average. None of that can't be replicated with a spell, and a lower-level one than 7th as well. So at level 20, in the most optimized builds, it's almost never worth it to take these levels. The exception is for a few gish builds that can certainly compete if not shine where fighter 1 is an easier choice to gain various weapon/armor proficiencies for prestige class prereqs, but it's a tax more than an advantage.

But--and here's the thing--not all of that is true at lower levels. Then, gaining extra BAB, HP, and proficiencies can mean a lot more, especially if the career won't go beyond ~10. Those boosts are a static benefit, while casting is one that increases over time as an investment. So the balance looks a lot different at lower levels. As an example, I once built for a lvl 3 one-shot a Warlock 2/Barb 1 that was dealing 1d12+1d6+5 damage per attack while raging, had a +9 in diplomacy (my lowest social skill), decent AC, and a lot more HP than I needed. It was awesome. It would have failed to keep pace with anyone else in the party, but that was OK.

So yes, in low-level campaigns, it can be fine to substitute martial for caster levels. The trick is having a good sense for how far the mundane is going to keep you alive, and for what's actually giving you your power. If you have the stats to pull it off, for example (High CHA, decent STR and CON, preferably good WIS), Paladin 5 / Sorcerer 4 is a perfectly fine combo, as is rog2/wiz7, or similar combinations. Are they going to shine over the rest of the party the way a T1 caster does at high levels? No. But the power gap is much lower at those levels, to the point where the "best" class can be hard to see. So, by all means, knock yourself out.

[emeraldstreak]

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://coboard.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) and the 10 Commandments of Optimization (https://ninjadebugger.livejournal.com/90849.html). In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471542-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-a-God-in-D-amp-D-3-5-(Treantmonklvl20-CantripN-Tsuyoshi-Dan2)) a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.


You have to realize all these guides are just talking. Some people had opinions and felt like writing about them. They weren't rigorously tested.

The only places where you can see the truth about the system revealed are the most competitive arena matches there were, and even then, all of them had some limitations from 100% RAW.

On your table, under this DM's inclinations and nudging, that happened. That boss who died in one round to the cohort could have easily countered it, if your DM had wanted. There are tables out there where Monks legitimately eclipse Wizards. So what?

[Quertus]

There are tables out there where Monks legitimately eclipse Wizards.

Quertus has been played at just such a table.

[Aharon]

I've played in campaigns at level 1, 3, 10, 7-10, 13 and 8 (Pathfinder). I mainly played full-casters (or other strong classes, like artificer), and felt that at early levels, I mainly provided utility, while at later levels, I was also very good in combat. So I wouldn't say it is overrated - just stuff like being able to detect magic, silently message people etc. is already useful and fills a nieche lower-tier characters often can't fill.

I have to admit that I usually played at tables where I had the most systems mastery, so I don't know if my contribution would have been lower for different tables.
I also don't know wether lower-tier characters with casting abilities would have been able to fill the same niche.

[mabriss lethe]

What I've found in years of play is that a lot of PO doesn't really matter. It's nice and it can certainly contribute, but games seldom last long enough to get to higher level, so a lot of the truly ridiculous stuff never sees play.

How does it go again? Players>class>build? something like that.

A player's skill and compatibility with the table's play style is significantly more important than PO. A skilled player at the right table can wreck shop regardless of class. I've played things like Monks and Soulknives at certain tables and been the scariest player in the room. I've also built some truly nice PO casters that never really pulled their weight because they weren't really right for the table dynamics, or the game stalled before they came into their own, or the situations where they could have rewrote the path of the game never really arose.

so yeah, High tier characters and full casting are really nice, but rarely become the godlike cheeselords that they're portrayed as. Arena style games are a bit different, but doesn't really fall into the context of everyday play.

[Acanous]

A lot rides on the DM, but full casters, when played well, do dominate the encounter at any level. Bad rolls, house rules and encounter design can pooch you, but they can sink anyone.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The truism is that player > build > class. Of course, the truism is sometimes improperly used to imply that class doesn't matter; it does, just not as much as build and player. The easiest way to hold the more important variables constant is to play with and DM for the same group of optimizers over a long period, which I have done. The low tier characters they/I play generally do a bunch of damage and have a few other neat tricks, similar in nature to the Hood mentioned. The casters, on the other hand, change the entire scope of the game.

Also, an Incantatrix should utterly steamroll RHoD/most modules once they have metamagic effect.

[Anthrowhale]

Taking the limit as levels go to 0, it's clearly true that spellcaster provide no advantage. Furthermore, because of ability opportunity cost, they come in at a disadvantage.

In a level 1-10 campaign a Mystic Ranger is a good tradeoff. Full BAB, Sorcerer spell access, and 6+Int skills/level (including good skills) with good Fort&Refl saves. Take the Sword of the Arcane Order feat for access to wizard spells.

Another approach which can be quite effective is a Persistomancer Cleric. By level 5 persistent mass lesser vigor alone is a significant contribution to a party and they can contribute to combat at an exceptional level around level 3 with persistent Alter Self through the Transformation domain. Alternatively, Divine Defiance for enemy caster suppression is potentially sometimes a big contribution.

A Druid comes online immediately with the animal companion providing significant martial support. A strategy where the Druid gives the animal companion hide barding and otherwise stays out of melee can work pretty well even at level 1.

A low level wizard/sorcerer can be quite dangerous for individual combats but they obviously lack endurance. Hence, they are actually more scary as opponents than as PCs. A single Sorcerer 1 Kobold with Power Word:Pain can significantly challenge a party of 4 3rd level characters. The same is basically true for an Archivist. These can be played as PCs, and they can contribute significantly to the party, but a caster-protective party that values non-combat application of spellcasting provides a very helpful context for survival and success.

Any character can be significantly beefed up at low levels in a martial dimension by taking Wild Cohort (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a), but this makes a greater difference to a sorcerer/wizard/archivist at level 1 by providing exactly what they lack via a Riding Dog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm).

[Goaty14]

Change the title to: "should casters under level 5 just be gishes?" because that's what I feel this is. The argument (pardon if I read it wrong) is to dip some martial class to stay relevant until casters start to pull ahead, to which you either become a competent gish or lag behind other casters 1-2 CL.

Note that divine casters likely face no such problem -- Medium BaB and d8 HP is just enough to let them survive lower levels.

[Karl Aegis]

Are you actually playing a high tier character? Most players don't play high tier characters. They just look at the tier list and just assume because the class is labeled as Tier 1 they're playing a Tier 1 character. Tier 1 characters can destroy cities by themselves. They can destroy cities and be relatively unmolested while they destroy those cities. They are, by definition, Godzilla come to claim your lands. If you aren't fighting a monster like Ghidra, you aren't going to be challenged. If you are fighting actual Ghidra, I hope you brought Kumonga and Mothra with you to slow him down a little because Ghidra will throw down your entire party.

[Cosi]

You can get any number of combos off by 5th to 7th level. With the right domains you can start doing Persistent Spell shenanigans as early as 1st level as a Cleric. You can get Natural Spell at 6th level as a Druid, or Greenbound Summoning at 3rd. A Wizard can get Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster at 6th level. A Beguiler can get substitute domain + a prestige domain at 7th level or earlier. animate dead comes on line at 5th level, and depending on the campaign the monsters it produces may be better than the team's swordsmen.

Even at 1st level, optimized casters are still effective. Eschew Materials + launch bolt is a 4d6 ranged attack that you can use at least four times per day. A Gnome Illusionist gets 0th level silent image which ranges from good to absurd. A Druid's pet wolf is as effect as a low-op Fighter, but totally expendable. Just casting color spray, sleep, or silent image is enough to win many encounters, and certainly enough to cement a caster's place in a low level party.

Certainly, the gap is smaller at low levels, and the number of classes that are largely balanced with casters corresponding larger (and these effects are amplified by the characteristics of most D&D games), but there's never really a point where you're better off playing a non-caster.


Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

Gishing can be effective, but it's still largely a caster build, and the best gishes are Clerics or Druids that don't have to give up casting to do it. In general, multiclassing is not a very big power bump in the short run, but has a very large power cost in the long run. If you're concerned about power at all, you're probably better off taking a Reserve Feat as a Wizard than going for a multiclassed build.

[NeoPhoenix0]

tier does not equal power. tier is closer to an average to somewhat knowledgeable player's ability to be versatile with that class without considering prestige classes and some class variants.

above level 10 and especially above level 15 tier 1 casters can do pretty much anything and be at least good at it. below level 10 and especially below level 5 what a caster can do and what a caster can do well are much more limited. however at those levels they are still tier 1 and the fighter still in the tier 5 maybe tier 4 area. the fighter will win you the encounter cause he is good at his job and his job is what get the thing done at low levels but the wizard can still do more variety of things even at that low level including using spells to skill monkey or replace the need for skill monkying, do damage to groups of enemies, crowd control with spells such as web, glitterdust or entangle, and a litany of other things that might not be overly powerful by themselves but are extremely varied and powerful when applied correctly and generally make a tier 1-2 caster useful in pretty much any situation if he has a decent toolbelt of spells. he just generally isn't as good as a class that is specific and specialized would be until he can get more torque from higher level spells and such.

so to answer the question, full casting classes may be overrated but if that is the case it is cause a people misinterpret that the tier system set out to accomplish in the first place. as evidenced by the myriad of repeated threads that talk about it.

edit: also full casters at low level are often (but not always) best at making others significantly better at the thing they are already good at.

[Tvtyrant]

Greetings, all!

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://coboard.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) and the 10 Commandments of Optimization (https://ninjadebugger.livejournal.com/90849.html). In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471542-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-a-God-in-D-amp-D-3-5-(Treantmonklvl20-CantripN-Tsuyoshi-Dan2)) a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=7200) cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

What say you?

A level 1 wizard has three spells per day of spell level 1, a sorcerer has 4. Assuming they pace the casting to 1/encounter and use sleep/color spray they will be slightly more effective over the course of a day as a fighter.

At higher levels you aren't playing the same game as mundanes. You mention the cohort doing more then the caster, but not whether they do better then the Gargan3tuan animated object the caster is hiding in at level 7 (on the front page right now), or the bound Glabrezu, or their army of dragon zombies, or the crafted contingencies moving them to another plane of existence and them then teleporting back later with said minions.

Tier 1s can be played like a tier 3 and not be broken. They can even be weak. But a fighter can't make a time altered dimension where they full rest between encounters or chain gate solars, tier 1s can.

[Peat]

Overrated by who?

Guide writers? Maybe, if they think their description of how the class is at absolute full power is how the class always is for everyone. Certainly anyone who reads it without distinguishing between the two is probably gonna overrate a class.

Most people here? I think most people here are aware that there's many different players and many different tables; that the potential power level disparities are different between levels; and other such things. Maybe people lose sight of that in theoretical arguments - or seem to - but I don't think they forget how it actually works

The community as a whole? Dunno, never met them, although my best guess is the popularity of E6 as a balanced form of D&D says that a lot of people think like here.


Are Tier 3 and lower characters underrated? I feel like people here, there and everywhere rave about Tier 3 tbh. Tier 4 and below gets a bad name, maybe. Deserved? Tbh, I dislike a lot of Tier 4s as I hate having only one thing to do at a table. Doesn't mean someone else mightn't have a good time with them, or that I can't find Tier 4s that fulfil my need for some sort of flexibility.


As for multiclassing Martials with Full Casters... YMMV but I don't see the point. Either you enjoy playing a lower level caster and there's no dramas, or you don't but are gritting your teeth to go Real Ultimate Power, in which case why waste levels? Personally, I had a lovely time as a level 1 Gnome Sorcerer using Colour Spray, Diplomacy and a few other things. If you want to be a caster with a real back-up activity when the spell slots are gone, you might as well pick Cleric/Druid/Bard and get more spells to use before truncheoning things in the face.

[Epic Legand]

I think your real question is " are teir 1 and 2 classes overrated at lower level games". Clearly we all know casters gain more in the second half then the first. Also, I agree, most games do not run the full course, low level games are more common. However all of your examples were based on arcane, divine classes are pretty bad ass at level 1, and just climb from there. Are arcance classes squishy at low levels, yes, however as it has been pointed out the teir system mostly measures ability to problem solve, not deal damage. If measured with that in mind, I still feel its accurate.

[unseenmage]

Isn't this an already acknowledged issue in the E6 community?

[Aetis]

As someone said, it really depends on the DM.

A DM can easily write a campaign that gives strength to mundanes over casters. (play lower levels, increase encounters each day, etc)

My table for one, balance between the classes has never been an issue.

[RoboEmperor]

No its not.

Druid outperforms every mundane in existence from the get go.
A DMM:Persist Cleric outperforms every mundane in existence by level 3.
Optimized spellcasters can break games even if they're only level 6 and in short of that outperform every mundane in existence.

I don't know about full casting but high tier characters break games at all levels, and they choose not to by going a lesser build, where as low tier characters have no choice and is at the complete mercy of their spellcaster peers.

[NeoPhoenix0]

No its not.

Druid outperforms every mundane in existence from the get go.
A DMM:Persist Cleric outperforms every mundane in existence by level 3.
Optimized spellcasters can break games even if they're only level 6 and in short of that outperform every mundane in existence.

I don't know about full casting but high tier characters break games at all levels, and they choose not to by going a lesser build, where as low tier characters have no choice and is at the complete mercy of their spellcaster peers.
the tier system isn't about full optimization, but average ish optimization, and a not fully optimized druid and even many relatively optimized druids won't outclass a mundane in pure damage from the get go, since their early spells lack power, their early animal companions aren't super optimal though there are decent ones and they don't wild shape till level 6. but the druid is definitely very consistently good, the animal companion alone should keep them up close to the mundane's power level and they do have a boat load of problem solving spells early on in the form of things like entangle and stone shape.

[darkdragoon]

Hood isn't exactly an off the shelf example. Particularly when backed by a buff machine that just happens to be casting Glitterdust and black tentacles which just might happen to leave enemies in position for shenanigans.

But in general, if you can do a sizable chunk of damage you can get through a sizable chunk of things.

[Bucky]

The tier list we normally pull out is averaged over 20 levels. However, the tierings change a lot during the first few levels, and a few classes break the tier 2 barrier only at level 18+. For example...

Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.

Core clerics, without DMM and devotion, start out in the middle of the pack at level 1. They gain potency with spell levels and take their place in T1 by level 5.

Sorcerers fall out T2 at level 3, and only level 3. Without second-level spells, they're only modestly better than bards at utility-casting, and the bards have other class features.

[NeoPhoenix0]

The tier list we normally pull out is averaged over 20 levels. However, the tierings change a lot during the first few levels, and a few classes break the tier 2 barrier only at level 18+. For example...

Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.

Core clerics, without DMM and devotion, start out in the middle of the pack at level 1. They gain potency with spell levels and take their place in T1 by level 5.

Sorcerers fall out T2 at level 3, and only level 3. Without second-level spells, they're only modestly better than bards at utility-casting, and the bards have other class features.
Barbarians aren't near the top ever, they aren't versatile they are very powerful damage dealers early on but that only makes them maybe high tier 4, low tier 3 if being very generous and you decide to make a weird breakdown tier system at each level. Tier isn't a measure of power.

[Gnaeus]

An Abrupt Jaunt Wizard is probably the most powerful character at a level 1 table unless there’s Tome of Battle. He’s almost immune to rocket tag.

A cleric 1 is behind a fighter 1 by 2 hp, 1bab, 1 feat. He is ahead of the fighter by 2 will save and 2 domains or domain feats. With picks like War and Law domain feat, his free weapon focus is equal to the BAB, and his +3 AC or to hit twice a day probably beats any fighter feat. And THEN he gets spells.

I played a Sorcerer in our last PF game. His granted bloodline power gave him trip using his cha bonus at 15 feet, more times per day than he ever managed to use. His long spear did enough average damage to drop most enemies. He could trip foes and then murder them with the same to hit as our Barbarian while they stood up. Or have a 90% chance after spell failure to cast a spell that would drop a higher level enemy with a DC17 will save 5 times a day. Or a 90% chance to trade his action with humanoid enemies via daze. Or a +11 intimidate check to debuff an enemy. And some handy utility cantrips. Yeah, the Barbarian did more damage. But I was better in combat anywhere between 10 and 110 feet, better at skills, with more useful class features. I had 4 reasonable choices (Attack, trip, save or lose, intimidate) to his 1, based on range and what we were fighting.

[Quertus]

. But a fighter can't make a time altered dimension where they full rest between encounters

Make? No. But utilize? Yes. If my Artificer created all the gear that the party uses, then contributes nothing during play, well, creation is overrated.

That having been said, utilizing a full rest between encounters (let alone chain gating solars) breaks the fundamental resource management basis of the game. If you're breaking the game, there's little point in discussing balance.

[King of Nowhere]

Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?

Because, admittedly, I tend to stick around with a small number of players, but I've never seen a DM who would allow to chain-gate solars, persist spells at level 1, or any of the really broken things that tier 1 can do.

So, unless you are playing in a group that is restricted to tier 1-2, with the specific purpose of getting those kinds of power, you are limited to more reasonable powers. And while higher tier still outshine other classes, if nothing else by providing all the out-of-combat utility, it's nowhere near that bad.

So, from a practical point of view, yes, high tier are overrated because 1) the high levels where they really shine are rarely reached, and 2) the DM generally won't let you go for the world-breaking stuff.

Also, people tend to assume casters will always be prepared for the best, which they may actually manage by spending months in their tower casting divinations, but in practice I've never seen anyone at a table try to do that. It would be awfully boring for the rest of the party anyway. And more than once I've seen a wizard trounced because he had the wrong spells for the job, or because he lacked some fundamental piece of information on which protection spells had been cast on its target.

Mind you, they still can dominate the game starting from level 1: at that level a sleep spell with a DC of 16 will drop most enemies in an encounter. But they dominate the game by keeping the monsters down while the martials kill them. So it's all about teamplay, and not bad for the game.

[Aetis]

Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?

Because, admittedly, I tend to stick around with a small number of players, but I've never seen a DM who would allow to chain-gate solars, persist spells at level 1, or any of the really broken things that tier 1 can do.

So, unless you are playing in a group that is restricted to tier 1-2, with the specific purpose of getting those kinds of power, you are limited to more reasonable powers. And while higher tier still outshine other classes, if nothing else by providing all the out-of-combat utility, it's nowhere near that bad.

So, from a practical point of view, yes, high tier are overrated because 1) the high levels where they really shine are rarely reached, and 2) the DM generally won't let you go for the world-breaking stuff.

Also, people tend to assume casters will always be prepared for the best, which they may actually manage by spending months in their tower casting divinations, but in practice I've never seen anyone at a table try to do that. It would be awfully boring for the rest of the party anyway. And more than once I've seen a wizard trounced because he had the wrong spells for the job, or because he lacked some fundamental piece of information on which protection spells had been cast on its target.

Mind you, they still can dominate the game starting from level 1: at that level a sleep spell with a DC of 16 will drop most enemies in an encounter. But they dominate the game by keeping the monsters down while the martials kill them. So it's all about teamplay, and not bad for the game.

This exactly. DMs don't just sit there and let casters break the game.

[Pex]

Yes

Spellcasters do not dominate the game. They do not always have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it. They do not always have the most convenient feat needed to gain a useful benefit the feat provides. Spellcasters do not always get through spell resistance and monsters sometimes make their saving throws such that even on those occasions the spellcaster does have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it it's not a 100% success rate they win the day.

It is true a multiclass character in terms of magic will not be as magically powerful as a single class spellcaster. That is irrelevant. The magic that you do augments your other class. It is the classes combined that give you the stuff you can do for your enjoyment. What another character can do has no relation to what you can do.

You do not need the internet's permission to play whatever character build you want. That is between you and your DM alone.

[Tvtyrant]

Make? No. But utilize? Yes. If my Artificer created all the gear that the party uses, then contributes nothing during play, well, creation is overrated.

That having been said, utilizing a full rest between encounters (let alone chain gating solars) breaks the fundamental resource management basis of the game. If you're breaking the game, there's little point in discussing balance.

Exactly. When discussing casters we have to talk about breaking the resource system, how we limit them in practice, and how they can provide weaker characters with their own abilities.

Any discussion of casters vs. Mundanes starts with "you are going to under utilize the caster."

[Nifft]

Exceptional events tend to stand out in memory.

That one time when a full-caster trivialized an encounter, or even a whole day's worth of encounters? That sticks in the mind.

So, yeah, there's probably a bit of bias -- but it's in an accurate direction, because that one time it really did happen, and it could happen again. Maybe it's not likely to happen with high frequency, but it is likely to happen again.

[RoboEmperor]

Spellcasters do not dominate the game.

I'm not saying that they do because good people don't do that. I'm saying they can if they wanted to while mundanes have no choice in the matter.

[ZamielVanWeber]

At low levels? Generally yes. Full casters can crush encounters but need help from martials to clean up the mess before their magics wear off. The only exception is the druid: it has a strong chassis and a nice all around spell list and two great non casting features that both scale decently. Heck, by RAW the animal companion is expendable with only minor agitation to the player. (The Wis casting only makes the entire package more attractive honestly).

Edit: okay that was typo Inferno...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes and no.

On the one hand, a full T1 caster being played to the hilt by a skilled player is a staggering challenge for a DM. The sheer variety of abilities available to them really does mean they -can- handle just about anything you could throw at them.

At the same time, actually gaining and applying the skill to do that is a tremendous challenge to a player. Most people will fall well short of actually reaching that level. It takes a hell of a lot more than just skimming a few class guides.

Further, low tier classes tend to be dramatically underestimated. It is often argued, seemingly in earnest, that the druid's animal companion is the equal of any T5 or lower class. This is absurd even on the face of it. Indeed, that facile absurdity is -why- it gets brought up as a way to highlight, hyperbolically, how powerful druids are; "gets a better fighter than the fighter class as a class feature."



In a nutshell, most tables aren't going to see the disparity between the high and low tier classes expressing itself in any noticeable, much less problematic way. The idea that it -is- a problem rather than merely a potential problem very much does get overblown. The underlying potential problem is certainly there though.

[ericgrau]

Greetings, all!

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://coboard.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) and the 10 Commandments of Optimization (https://ninjadebugger.livejournal.com/90849.html). In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471542-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-a-God-in-D-amp-D-3-5-(Treantmonklvl20-CantripN-Tsuyoshi-Dan2)) a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=7200) cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

What say you?

Absolutely. The tiers often refer more to forum level optimization than to most gaming groups who don't use forums.

They also often refer to number of options available because that's what helps you pull the crazy game breaking tricks that I've never actually seen or used in practice. And more options often means more fun too. At least for building the character if not also playing it. So then if you cut that out and try to make games tier 3, it hurts fun a great deal.

I can totally see how you can make demiplanes to hide away in and execute a long involved plan. Or call and capture genies for NI wishes. Or arguably stack 97 explosive runes in one place. I just don't do it in practice even when I'm trying to be effective and putting together a strong build. Cuz it's dumb. And likewise any DM I've played with, and if I DMed myself, would instantly say "Lol no" (in the unlikely event that a player even brought it up). There isn't even slight confusion over it, nor a need to house rule it out in advance. Milder, hard to notice power creep from splatbooks is a far greater threat to balance in practice than what "tier" you are. At least in every single game I've ever played in or witnessed. Maybe some of the games being run in the forums are different, I don't know.

[Lans]

Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.
s.

I think the warblade is just better than the barbarian, it can take punishing stance and get +d6 to damage, and then still has a few other maneuvers it can use.




Further, low tier classes tend to be dramatically underestimated. It is often argued, seemingly in earnest, that the druid's animal companion is the equal of any T5 or lower class. This is absurd even on the face of it. Indeed, that facile absurdity is -why- it gets brought up as a way to highlight, hyperbolically, how powerful druids are; "gets a better fighter than the fighter class as a class feature."

.

I think the correct equation is roughly buffed optimized fleshraker>Reach Fighter>Greatsword Fighter=optimized AC>standard animal companion> 1 handed fighter>>dire rat

[Endarire]

ericgrau & Kelb: Well said!

[Peat]

Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?


Yes and no.

I think it is widely agreed that GM and Players make far more of a difference to what happens than Class. I don't think I've ever seen that disputed. In particular, the point that playing a powerful Wizard takes a lot of game knowledge and good predictions of the next day's events is often made.

But when it comes to talking about class power, its far far easier to talk about an assumed average than to talk about how it goes at every single type of table out there. So that's what people do. I tend to assume there's a silent "GM, Players and Group Playstyle not withstanding" at the front of every post talking about balance.

Maybe people assume the average GM is more tolerant of caster shenanigans than they actually are. Or that flexibility is more useful than it is, or that GMs cater less for the party's Martials than they do.

But that's the argument there - not that people are unaware that there are tables where the Monk reigns supreme.

Although I'd add that I don't think the argument for caster supremacy rests solely on chain-gating Solars and the like. A good many of the potential encounter ending/avoiding spells aren't considered that OP as far as I can tell.

[ericgrau]

Although I'd add that I don't think the argument for caster supremacy rests solely on chain-gating Solars and the like. A good many of the potential encounter ending/avoiding spells aren't considered that OP as far as I can tell.
The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

[King of Nowhere]

the whole argument about tier 1 breaking the game reminds me strongly of counting cards at blackjack to beccome rich.

It is possible, by using strategies related to counting cards, to have favorable chances against the casino at blackjack, and in theory you could become rich by doing that. However, most people who try it don't have the required mathematical skill, and end up losing a lot of money. Furthermore, the DM croupiers are trained to recognize those attempting to count cards, and have the autority to kick them out.

[Nifft]

the whole argument about tier 1 breaking the game reminds me strongly of counting cards at blackjack to beccome rich.

It is possible, by using strategies related to counting cards, to have favorable chances against the casino at blackjack, and in theory you could become rich by doing that. However, most people who try it don't have the required mathematical skill, and end up losing a lot of money. Furthermore, the DM croupiers are trained to recognize those attempting to count cards, and have the autority to kick them out.

Where can I find these trained DMs?

[King of Nowhere]

Where can I find these trained DMs?

they are simply the ones that will stop you when you try to chain-gate solars.

Incidentally, now that somebody dropped the fleshraker name, I could figure out finally how can someone claim an animal companion is stronger than a warrior. Yeah, I can agree with that, because they made a ridiculously overpowered animal companion. 3 poison attacks per round? A free trip attempt on a charge, with pounce? A starting AC of 20? And all that for a cost of only -3? Utterly ridiculous.

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized

[Kelb_Panthera]

The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

Everybody's always assuming it's the ridiculous theoretical stuff that shifts the balance. It's not. That stuff is just icing. Take simple forcecage (http://d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) as an example. For 1500 gp, this encounter ends -now- unless the enemy can teleport, planeshift, or disintegrate the cage by spell or rod of cancellation. For most foes it's just a no-save "LOL, nope." At that point, just drop a cloud kill and walk away.

At the lower end, glitterdust is basically a save or lose. It'll last for the remainder of a fight by level 5, if you extend it then level 3. Blinded enemies can't effectively fight or flee so it's just a matter of the melees mopping up. It turns a tough fight into a perfunctory task.

That's just two off the top of my head. The list goes on.

The simple fact is, a caster that knows what he's doing means the DM has to work around him much more than the rest of the party even if he's not outright breaking things.

[zlefin]

re: op
no, I don't think they're overrated (depending on which rating system you're using ofc, not by the general description of the one you seemed to be using; there are some people that overrate the effects at times). There's a clear and substantial difference, which sometimes causes problems, and sometimes doesn't.
if they don't cause problems at your table, for whatever reason; that's great, you don't need to worry about it.

[Anthrowhale]

they are simply the ones that will stop you when you try to chain-gate solars.

Incidentally, now that somebody dropped the fleshraker name, I could figure out finally how can someone claim an animal companion is stronger than a warrior. Yeah, I can agree with that, because they made a ridiculously overpowered animal companion. 3 poison attacks per round? A free trip attempt on a charge, with pounce? A starting AC of 20? And all that for a cost of only -3? Utterly ridiculous.

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized

Traditionally, you use Venomfire (or possibly Maximized Empowered Fiery Blistering Heightened Searing Energy Substitution[Fire] Venomfire) to get around poison immunity. Even a plain Druid 20 can make a Fleshraker that can threaten to one-shot CR20 opponents. This is relevant after level 5 when Venomfire becomes available.

[Cosi]

For 1500 gp, this encounter ends -now- unless the enemy can teleport, planeshift, or disintegrate the cage by spell or rod of cancellation. For most foes it's just a no-save "LOL, nope." At that point, just drop a cloud kill and walk away.

forecage is a 7th level spell, so you'd expect to be fighting CR 13 monsters. There are six non-dragon CR 13 monsters*, not counting the Celestial Charger or Golden Protector, because those are monsters advanced with class levels and I will freely admit the results that system produces are very often stupid. Of those, three have teleport or greater teleport (ghaele, glabrezu, and ice devil), so you're already wrong. The Iron Golem loses, but it's a closet troll that loses to silent image anyway, so whatever (also, technically you need something other than cloudkill to gank it). Simply caging a twelve-headed pyrohydra won't win the fight because it can still breath on you. The Storm Giant gets control weather and rock throwing so you're going to fight it in adverse conditions and/or from way the hell beyond the range of forcecage.

Basically, forecage is not an auto-win against level appropriate opposition. It is an auto-win against equal-level Fighters, but that is only because Fighters are not level-appropriate opposition.

*: I could do the dragons too, but between size, flight, casting, and breath weapon's they do pretty well, and doing all the lookups is annoying.


At the lower end, glitterdust is basically a save or lose. It'll last for the remainder of a fight by level 5, if you extend it then level 3. Blinded enemies can't effectively fight or flee so it's just a matter of the melees mopping up. It turns a tough fight into a perfunctory task.

I'm not sure how you're extending a 2nd level spell at 3rd level, but sure.


The simple fact is, a caster that knows what he's doing means the DM has to work around him much more than the rest of the party even if he's not outright breaking things.

You got that backwards. It's not that the DM has to work around the caster, it's that non-casters are nearly totally incapable of actually doing anything. A Fighter doesn't have any options to change the tactical landscape meaningfully, and he certainly doesn't have any strategic options.

[King of Nowhere]

Basically, forecage is not an auto-win against level appropriate opposition. It is an auto-win against equal-level Fighters, but that is only because Fighters are not level-appropriate opposition.


It's an auto-win against a fighter without any equipment.

Because a fighter of that level that doesn't have any kind of contingency against a forcecage should not be adventuring.

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

[RoboEmperor]

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

That's like saying "It's unfortunate that soldiers need so much technology (guns, rpgs, tanks, jet planes) to be useful."

Of course they need so much magic support. Man is only as good as his equipment.

[NeoPhoenix0]

And the thing about getting magic support from items or minions is you have to assume the wizard has access to just as much due to WBL and then has thier own magic.

[Peat]

The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

Maybe you and I mean different things by encounter ending, but I've used Colour Spray to that effect a few times. Not often, more often there's a bit more than just CdGing unconscious folk, but sometimes it gets them all.

[darkdragoon]

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized


1. It's inherently easier to buff an animal companion.

2. There are ways to bypass immunity, some are not terribly practical, but neither is the friendly Cleric who appears out of the DM's pants to hand out Heroes Feast right before you go after Slithery Sam and his Kobra Kommandos.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And the thing about getting magic support from items or minions is you have to assume the wizard has access to just as much due to WBL and then has thier own magic.

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.
this is very true, because a wizard already has a bunch of magic before wealth they will instead choose to use their wealth to expand their options even further cover flaws that they either can't or it is easier to do with a magic item and generally improve in different directions. while a mundane will often use some of their wealth to gain options that a wizard already has, and improve what it does. Mundanes will improve relatively more than a wizard but a wizard is still improving. an example of something a clever wizard might invest in is items that nullify major weaknesses that they have which may in turn neutralize some of the investment done by a mundane that is opposing them, which in turn brings them closer to their original level.

basically when generalizing you have to assume that WBL naturalizes itself out, even if the gear makes the fighter effectively 4 times better it the wizard can add an amount of power or versatility to itself with it's own WBL that may not multiply it's own power but still probably nullify someone else's WBL gains.

[icefractal]

No and yes.

No, in that full casters legitimately are quite powerful, and at a quite moderate level of optimization can still punch way above their supposed level while still handling a broad range of situations and not being easy to shut down. All classes can do the first with enough optimization, but casters have a much easier time doing the latter two as well. And this doesn't require high-level - casters go from "contributes reasonably well" to "above par" to "could easily be MVP" within the single digits, if you know what you're doing. And even if you have an ubercharger or something in the party that solos combat, casters are guaranteed a role on the strategic level.

Yes, in that many places (such as this forum) assume a ridiculously high level of competence for casters, including that they'll be more optimized than non-casters or enemies in the same campaign. Stuff like "Wizard 1 vs Omni-Gestalt of all Non-Casters 20? Obviously the Wizard 1 wins." A non-optimized caster, Sor/Wiz especially, can be extremely weak. Even at higher levels of optimization, non-casters remain contributing party members in practice, because most groups won't want to follow a "multiple days of divination and preparation for every one day of adventuring" standard. Or people will have casters use NI loops "just a bit" to get the desired level of invincibility - at which point we're not really talking about the strength of casters any more, we're talking about the use of "god mode".

TL;DR - powerful? Yes. The most powerful classes? YMMV, but often yes. Obviates all other classes and wins everything forever? Not so much in practice.

[Peat]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

But as you recently pointed out, Martials are often spending a lot of that gold just to keep their numbers up. How much spare do they have to start selecting items to boost their tier?

[Calthropstu]

My experience is this:

Level 1:
Wiz/sor tends to get 1 shotted. Spend quite a bit of time face down in the dirt whether because an archer out of range of his 1-2 spells shot him in the face or a fighter smacked him in the head or the cleric channeled negative energy... the wiz/sor goes down. Often.
The cleric can take a couple hits and has high ac so stays around but doesn't generally do much in the way of damage. Needs to spend actions to get the wiz/sor back on their feet. Melee types are the primary damage and kill source. Rogues can usually take a hit and can get the team through some tough spots with flanking. The druid is great for a fight, but their animal companion will often flat out get killed taking them completely out of play for some time while they get another.

Level 2-4:
The wizards and sorcerers can now add some survivability to their builds. Protection from arrows or mage armor or shield... they can raise their ac, get some dr vs ranged, go invisible. But if they do that, their usefulness becomes negligible. Either they spend time trying to save their own hides and have few spells available to contribute or they use actions to do decent damage and get targeted by melee and ranged and spend some more time in the dirt. Clerics and druids do very well at these levels as their heals become the mainstay of the group and melee continues to dominate.

5-6: Wiz/sor finally gets some decent stuff. Fireball for mass damage, fly to get the fighter into melee against those pesky flying monsters, dispel for the worse magic effects, haste to group buff. Too bad they can only do this a couple times and then they're out. In a dungeon or other area featuring high numbers of combats that pretty much guarantees the wizard spends rounds saying "I fire my crossbow." Clerics continue their healing sprees, ranged becomes seriously viable as a melee alternative and melee fighters continue to be the primary damage and kill source.

7-8: Now we're getting somewhere. 4th level spell utility is fantastic, and the 3rd level spells now have enough uses to be used more liberally. 2nd lvl spell utility peaks and 1st lvl spells can be spammed liberally. Mobs can now be handled with ease... though melee remains the primary damage source especially against boss types who now begin picking up sr. Clerics/druids start picking up buff spells and the combination of buffs and melee gets fairly devastating. Bards truly come into their own now with them adding buffs with spells as well as their song. They can make a tough boss battle easy.

9-10:
5th lvl spells are no joke. 1st lvl spells for sor/wiz get some serious power behind them. Magic missle, a great damage mainstay for them, maxes out. They can now spam 1st and 2nd lvl spells like candy, 3rd level spells are their primary and 4th get used more too. 5th spells can trivialize entire quest lines (teleport, lesser binding, etc). Clerics/druids gain some great utility and pick up flame strike, a good mass damage spell as well as numerous other abilities. Melee is still important though and your front line now takes a pounding that the cleric spends a lot of time fixing. Now it's the front line often in the dirt.

11-12:
Yeah, 6th lvl spells are the game changer. Instagib spells for both clerics and mages, druids are wrecking things in both melee and spell combat and the noncasters are struggling to contribute. Granted, they can still bring things down but they more contribute with mop-up to save the casters from using too many high level spells.

13-14:
7th level spells are the nail that closes the coffin on melee. 5th lvl spells become spammable and you can buff the hell out of everyone. Few things pose a serious challenge unless they have high dr and sr.

15-16: Wait what do you mean the campaign is over? I wanted to planar bind a planetar!

17+: Yeah, no.

[Gnaeus]

Traditionally, you use Venomfire (or possibly Maximized Empowered Fiery Blistering Heightened Searing Energy Substitution[Fire] Venomfire) to get around poison immunity. Even a plain Druid 20 can make a Fleshraker that can threaten to one-shot CR20 opponents. This is relevant after level 5 when Venomfire becomes available.

Agree. And that’s only at a high optimization level. A wolf isn’t compared with an optimized fighter, he’s compared with an unoptimized monk and he comes out very well. The optimization floor on most animals is pretty decent, getting stuff like pounce or trip for free. The level 1 wolf has 50 move, 2 saves at +5. He’s pretty comparable to a low op monk or ranger, and he also gets to share the Druids spells. The higher op the muggle, the higher op the companion and the better the buffs they are likely to be sharing.

And of course the comparison is between a buffed AC and an unbuffed martial. The AC has his own buffbot who is sharing his buffs.

[King of Nowhere]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.
That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

I am running a high magic campaign where everyone (including npcs) is way above wbl. In my experience, it helps martials a lot. Granted, the party is not very optimized, and the barbarian is the better optimized of all; but the point remains that if I want to kill the wizard I just need someone to cast a destruction/finger of death in the surprise round, or charge and get a good leap attack (common defences against those effects are mostly rendered moot by the easy availability of true sight effects).

I can't do the same to the barbarian. He has over 200 hp, an AC over 40, and his saving throws look something like +22/+17/+18 at level 14: he's buffed enough that even his low saves are nothing to sneeze at. Plus he's immune to most of the nastiest will-targeting effects. A ring of freedom of movement stops a huge monster from grappling it, and he has several single-use effects to teleport, so forcecage is also pointless.

Sure, a prepared wizard still wins a straight-out fight, but it's more like "spend half your spells to keep the distance from this unstoppable behemot and the other half to slowly wear it down" than "effortlessly liquidate the matter with a spell or two". And woe on the caster if he's not prepared, or if it has to fight two opponents at once.


Agree. And that’s only at a high optimization level. A wolf isn’t compared with an optimized fighter, he’s compared with an unoptimized monk and he comes out very well. The optimization floor on most animals is pretty decent, getting stuff like pounce or trip for free. The level 1 wolf has 50 move, 2 saves at +5. He’s pretty comparable to a low op monk or ranger, and he also gets to share the Druids spells. The higher op the muggle, the higher op the companion and the better the buffs they are likely to be sharing.


true enough. It's just that it does not really matter the level of optimization here, only whether the fleshraker is available. Lacking MM3, I looked at the standard list of druid critters and couldn't really do much with it. Seen the fleshraker, it became obvious.
Now, there are no fleshrakers in my campaign world, as there are no dinosaurs in general, so that leaves druids in a tight spot. But even if there were, I'd change its modifier to druid level to -6 at least, maybe -9. It lacks the durability, but it is at least as dangerous as a dire bear on offence, and it scales better with level.



And of course the comparison is between a buffed AC and an unbuffed martial. The AC has his own buffbot who is sharing his buffs.
that's just unfair. if the druid is spending all his buffs for his animal companion and none for the fighter, then the druid is a jerk.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

[Gnaeus]

that's just unfair. if the druid is spending all his buffs for his animal companion and none for the fighter, then the druid is a jerk.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

Of course it’s unfair. Druids are made of win.

The first problem with your argument is that the fighter can’t use most of the Druids buffs. Most fighters use weapons, not natural attacks. Most Druid buffs are for natural attacks. Also, the Druid can use personal range day Long buffs on the pet not the fighter.

The second problem is that an optimized Druid spent a feat for companion spellbond and he isn’t buffing the pet. He is buffing himself with his normal buffs and sharing them with the pet.

[Nifft]

that's just unfair. if the druid is spending all his buffs for his animal companion and none for the fighter, then the druid is a jerk.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

1 - Animal Companion gets Share Spells, much like a Familiar. If you're a Druid riding your dog / tiger / fleshraker into combat, you can use self-only buffs on yourself and your pet beast, but not on your pet Fighter.

2 - Most Fighters don't qualify for some of the better Druid buffs, stuff like Animal Growth or Greater Magic Fang.

[Elkad]

It's an auto-win against a fighter without any equipment.

Because a fighter of that level that doesn't have any kind of contingency against a forcecage should not be adventuring.

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

Yup. A mere 50gp* and a standard action negates a 7th level spell. And a lot of other things, including grapples, webs, etc. The fighter who doesn't have that (or something similar, like an Anklet) by L5, much less L13, probably should have dumped his int lower than 8, because he's an idiot.
Any creature with non-random possessions and a decent intelligence should be similar.

*300 without psionics available, and difficult to use in a grapple - get the Anklet instead.

[King of Nowhere]

1 - Animal Companion gets Share Spells, much like a Familiar. If you're a Druid riding your dog / tiger / fleshraker into combat, you can use self-only buffs on yourself and your pet beast, but not on your pet Fighter.

2 - Most Fighters don't qualify for some of the better Druid buffs, stuff like Animal Growth or Greater Magic Fang.

ok, point taken. I don't know much about druids, as I was never comfortable with the class (guess because it's much weaker without all those stuff, and with all those stuff it becomes so good it feels like cheating).

Still, the fighter has a lot of buffs available from other classes. admittedly, it doesn't have animal growth, and enlarge person only provides a +2 to STR, not a +8. greater magic weapon/vestment is there, however. the point is that the fighter should also be buffed. otherwise, as said before, the fighter without magic support is useless.

There is also the point, when discussing multiple buffs, of the effect of losing said buffs to a dispel. Yes, I am aware there are ways to pump your caster level so high that you become undispellable, but most DM won't allow too much CL-increasing cheese; if they did, it costs resources that are not spent at buffing the animal companion. And a fighter is less buff-dependent than an animal companion.

[NineInchNall]

that's just unfair. if the druid is spending all his buffs for his animal companion and none for the fighter, then the druid is a jerk.


I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric. It's only the Fighter's relative weakness that triggers feelings of moral entitlement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Is the Fighter being a jerk by spending all his class features (i.e., feats) on making himself fight better? No, and the Druid is not being a jerk by spending all her class features (i.e., spells) on making herself fight better.

[Troacctid]

I think Sorcerers and Wizards are probably overrated around here because people put too much value on endgame performance and not enough on early game. In a low-level game, I'll take a Warblade over a Wizard hands down.

I can see the argument that Clerics are overrated. I think they can definitely outperform standard martial characters even at low levels, but I'm willing to concede that it's not necessarily trivial for them to do so. They are definitely overpowered, of course, but the degree to which they are overpowered is perhaps sometimes overstated.

Druids are OP as hell and are definitely not overrated.

[King of Nowhere]

I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric. It's only the Fighter's relative weakness that triggers feelings of moral entitlement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Is the Fighter being a jerk by spending all his class features (i.e., feats) on making himself fight better? No, and the Druid is not being a jerk by spending all her class features (i.e., spells) on making herself fight better.

no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

Plus,
I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

[Anthrowhale]

if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

While I agree with this as typical, via 'Allied Defense' a Fighter 20 can grant AC+20(Dodge) to an adjacent wizard. A Marshal can also grant significant nonmagical bonuses to allies.

[Cosi]

I find the position that I should be expected to use my character's resources to make up for your character's deficiencies somewhere between stupid and insulting. You rolled a Fighter. You could have rolled a Cleric, or a Druid, or a Gish and buffed yourself to your heart's content. Expecting me to make up for your decision not to do so while you offer nothing in return (no, "I can hit people" doesn't count -- we're looking for something my pet can't do, and ideally something another caster wouldn't do better) is being selfish and mooching off the rest of the party. It's already bad enough that the Fighter doesn't contribute outside combat. Expecting him to rely on the rest of the party to contribute in combat is absurd and indefensible.

[NineInchNall]

Plus, that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

No, it was an attempt to bring out some of your suppressed premises. And it looks like I was right about those premises, too, as you show with your attempted rationalization.


no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

You see, this is exactly the wrong move to make here if you want to rebut either the "personal accusation" or my assertion that Druid player is not being more selfish than the Fighter player.

Accepting your premise arguendo that players are obligated to take and use any options that are beneficial to their teammates to the exclusion of those options that benefit themselves, we merely push the problem back a level. Specifically to the act of character creation. By choosing to play a Fighter, a class with--as you say--no ability to support others, the player is choosing selfishly, opting against an option that would allow what you call teamplay. Thus, in order to satisfy your criterion of teamwork, players must not choose classes that cannot be used to support others.

Unfortunately, your criterion is per se untenable. You believe that party members should help each other out, which is fine, but you also seem to believe that the possession of a buff ability entails a particular sort of obligation. How do you intend to cash that out? If someone has a single-target buff that's 1/day, can they use it on themselves? If it is instead 4/day, may they use all those for themselves, or are some earmarked for party members? If some are earmarked, then using the same logic, must the 1/day person alternate who gets the ability across days? If two party members have buffs that would work better if used on themselves than on others, must they use those buffs inefficiently, thus reducing their ultimate efficacy, or are they allowed to buff themselves and optimize their party's win rate?

Your position also supports my suspicion that were the Fighter replaced by a Cleric the problem would go away. The only reason the Fighter is exempted from your putative moral obligation is his paucity of capacity, his inability to bring anything unique to the team. Were it instead a Cleric, the character would be able to provide spells the Druid can't access and vice versa. Benefit flows bidirectionally between the Cleric and Druid, but only unidirectionally between the Fighter and Druid.

[Gnaeus]

Has anyone ever explored the idea of a feat/acf/archetype that let a no-maj act as a casters familiar or companion for purposes of spell sharing? I think that would be helpful to the problem.

[Peat]

no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

Plus, that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

Fighters can take lockdown builds and stand in front of the casters to stop people getting near.

Does that make them selfish if they make an ubercharger that runs off? Or non-selfish because they're killing quicker?

Is a specialised blaster or debuffer caster selfish? Or a druid that uses a ton of personal buffs to extreme damage? Is a poorly optimised healer that's always casting for the party but doing a kinda shabby job of it selfish?

And so on. I'd agree they're meant to be a team, but there's a lot of different ways for most classes to contribute to that team. I'm hesitant to label any of them as intrinsically selfish or bad (although plenty of them do lend to spotlight hogging) - or to say what a reasonable level of expected buff is.

[AnimeTheCat]

In a vacuum of any in-game environmental effects (such as a setting restricting available spells or monsters, or a player w/o wants to actually roleplay a particular type of spellcaster other than a know-it-all wizard, a self-righteous cleric, or a loner druid) then no, full casting progression spellcasters aren't overrated.

In an actual setting where the players don't control their surroundings and there are actual in-game environmental effects, no classes are overrated or underrated. They all have place and purpose.

That's my 2 cp worth.

[Silva Stormrage]

I think people in this thread are focusing too much on combat... Sure most tables find that combat consumes the most time in campaigns, especially in 3.5 with it's lengthy turn timers. But the major problems between the tiers in my campaigns focus on out of combat utility.

If there is every a situation regarding, travel, locating someone, sneaking into a location etc etc. All the non spellcasters can pretty much just suggest one option IF their build is built around it (Mundane stealth, use gather information, etc) but otherwise just twiddle their thumbs while the tier 1 spellcasters discuss their 30 different options to solve the problem.

Lets look at a specific example I had in a previous campaign. The players were hunting for a specific text to discern more information about the divination warded villain they were fighting. The text was halfway across the world in a city. The mundane player suggested a boat but that would of taken too long so the spellcaster rested for a day and teleported to the city and used divinations to find the text as soon as they entered the city.

They were too late however as the BBEG had stolen the text already from the library where it was held (He had a mindlink to one of the player's characters and thus intercepted the text before they could reach it). The mundane player sighed and was about to try to search for a different option but the spellcaster simply used a modify memory spell to allow the librarian (Who had read the text before) perfect memory of the section they wanted allowing them to get the info.

The mundane player had 0 options to solve that puzzle while the spellcaster had numerous different paths and things to think about.

While yes out of the game the mundane players can discuss options regarding the spellcasters I find that players can become bored when discussing things that their character can't influence in anyway.

And yes this was mid levels (10ish I think) but the same thing pops up in anything past level 5-7 though. Some players like the simplicity of options that mundane characters grant them but when all you have is a hammer you are going to run into situations where you can't hammer anything and the guy who has a whole warehouse of tools is going to overshadow you a bit.

[King of Nowhere]

No, it was an attempt to bring out some of your suppressed premises. And it looks like I was right about those premises, too, as you show with your attempted rationalization.

You see, this is exactly the wrong move to make here if you want to rebut either the "personal accusation" or my assertion that Druid player is not being more selfish than the Fighter player.

Accepting your premise arguendo that players are obligated to take and use any options that are beneficial to their teammates to the exclusion of those options that benefit themselves, we merely push the problem back a level. Specifically to the act of character creation. By choosing to play a Fighter, a class with--as you say--no ability to support others, the player is choosing selfishly, opting against an option that would allow what you call teamplay. Thus, in order to satisfy your criterion of teamwork, players must not choose classes that cannot be used to support others.

Please. You are grasping at straws here, AND you keep being rude. You also take what I write in a completely different direction than intended.
For I am merely stating that you have plenty of low level spell slots and no other real use for most of them, so there's no reason not to buff some allies out of combat. It doesn't literally cost you much, you have no reason not to do it.
There are also metagaming considerations there: if you are playing a druid, and buffing your animal companion so that it's stronger than the party fighter, and then you are refusing to buff the fighter, then you are being a jerk to the player, because you are intentionally trying to outshine his character to the point of humiliation.
But mostly, I simply argue that it is a moot point to consider a buffed character against an unbuffed one, because in actual gaming you generally buff the whole party if you have time, or nobody if you don't. You are about to break the door and face the boss? everyone cast all the buff spells available. You get ambushed? nobody has buff spells except the longer duration, and casting them in the heat of the battle is generally an inefficient use of an action (some few exceptions to this). So a situation where you have a fully buffed animal companion and a completely unbuffed fighter, and the druid player is not trying to show off, is extremely unlikely.
It would be like arguing for fighter superiority because the fighter can slit the druid's throat while the druid sleeps - happens all the time, since the fighter has to get guard turns while the casters must enjoy a full night of rest. No, you don't argue power based on a specific set of circumstances; you must argue generally, and that means arguing the most common situation at the table, i.e. everyone is fully buffed, or no one is except for long duration.
Now, if you want to claim that the fighter can only get buffs because he is lucky to have the other party members, then this pretty much proves the whole point of the thread: caster superiority in theory is much greater than it actually is at the table.


Fighters can take lockdown builds and stand in front of the casters to stop people getting near.

Does that make them selfish if they make an ubercharger that runs off? Or non-selfish because they're killing quicker?

Is a specialised blaster or debuffer caster selfish? Or a druid that uses a ton of personal buffs to extreme damage? Is a poorly optimised healer that's always casting for the party but doing a kinda shabby job of it selfish?

And so on. I'd agree they're meant to be a team, but there's a lot of different ways for most classes to contribute to that team. I'm hesitant to label any of them as intrinsically selfish or bad (although plenty of them do lend to spotlight hogging) - or to say what a reasonable level of expected buff is.
Yeah, I got overcarried there. I was just arguing that when you consider buffs, you should assume that both parties are buffed, or none is.

EDIT:

I think people in this thread are focusing too much on combat... Sure most tables find that combat consumes the most time in campaigns, especially in 3.5 with it's lengthy turn timers. But the major problems between the tiers in my campaigns focus on out of combat utility.

If there is every a situation regarding, travel, locating someone, sneaking into a location etc etc. All the non spellcasters can pretty much just suggest one option IF their build is built around it (Mundane stealth, use gather information, etc) but otherwise just twiddle their thumbs while the tier 1 spellcasters discuss their 30 different options to solve the problem.
Yes, we are aware of that. I think somebody mentioned it before, but it wasn't discussed in more details because nobody would ever consider denying it.

Actually there are several incidences where using a skill is better than using magic - for example, mundane hiding works better than invisibility if there is anyone around with a detect magic - but still magic has just a lot of variety. To beat magic, one must be highly skilled in something, and one cannot be skilled at everything. While one can have every relevant spell available.

[NineInchNall]

Please. You are grasping at straws here, AND you keep being rude. You also take what I write in a completely different direction than intended.

I defy you to identify any iota of rudeness in what you quoted.

[King of Nowhere]

I defy you to identify any iota of rudeness in what you quoted.

I did by PM. let's not derail this thread over personal matters.

[Doctor Awkward]

Greetings, all!

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://coboard.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) and the 10 Commandments of Optimization (https://ninjadebugger.livejournal.com/90849.html). In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471542-Treantmonk-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-a-God-in-D-amp-D-3-5-(Treantmonklvl20-CantripN-Tsuyoshi-Dan2)) a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=7200) cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

What say you?

It always starts with the DM.

Literally everything about the performance and viability of any class, build, and player, is totally and completely dependent on the DM, most of the time on decisions they make before anyone even rolls up a character.

It depends on what kind of game the DM is going to run: the central conflict, the setting, the method through which players will most frequently solve their problems.

It depends on the sources the DM will allow in their game: in a core-only game, expertly played Druids will dominate, followed closely by well-played Wizards. If Complete's are added, Clerics, Rangers, and Bards just got a lot of varying degrees of more viable. Once various other arcane sources are added, Sorcerers quickly catch up as well. Tome of Battle makes all melee classes much more viable with the option to dip. The performance of psionics can largely depend on how much of Complete Psionic is treated as gospel.

Lastly, it depends on the particular house rules each DM will enforce: targeted bans of specific spells or feats will knowingly or unknowingly bring down spellcasters. Even forbidding specific uses of spells can streamline them into not working.

Only after all the ground rules are laid down does player skill enter into it.

This is when the skill gap comes into play.

The skill gap, as it pertains to competitive games, is the measure of success that will be enjoyed by someone who has put effort into learning the system. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that most people who engage in tabletop RPG's do not want to "work" for their entertainment. They want to sit down at a table with friends, relax, throw some dice, tell a story, and just have a good time. But for competitive people, that extra work is the entertainment, colloquially known as "the journey". Depending on the game design, the skill gap will reward players who have put more time into learning the nuts and bolts of the game than someone who has not.

Bear in mind when I say "competitive players" I do not mean people who favor tabletop PvP or combat over roleplaying. I mean players who view system mastery itself as the competition.

It should go without saying that there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches to D&D, but I am saying it anyway.

I would also postulate that most people who choose to optimize fall somewhere on the spectrum of competitive players, whether they are competing against the dungeon, the other players, or the campaign world itself. Regardless of their intentions, the goal of optimizing is always the same: to reduce uncertainty in outcome, otherwise known as "luck".

It's hard to judge your own competence at the game if you are constantly getting killed by random NPC's or the dice always seem to turn against you at the crucial moment. On the other hand, luck is great for the non-optimizer because it protects their ego. They can attribute their successes to skill, and blame their losses on chance ("Well sometimes that's just how the dice go"). There's never a need to question your own ability so everyone is happy.

...That is until they start to get bored and make the game more interesting by raising the stakes. Whenever anything besides pure mindless entertainment is at stake, things are likely to be changed to adjust the influence of luck. Optimizers tend to react positively to changes that reduce luck, while non-optimizers favor changes that increase it.

This, in turn, influences the types of house-rules that are likely to be adopted when said optimizer or non-optimizer runs their own games.

The consequence of lowering the skill gap in D&D, through material allowance, critical fumble tables, and whatnot, is that the optimizer is going to fail more often. While games that have targeted enforcement against so-called "munchkinism" are certainly more accessible, they also aren't as interesting to the crowd more adept at working with the system.

So I rambled quite a bit, but the point is how much success a Tier 1 class enjoys will depend firstly on the kind of game the DM is running, and secondly on the ability of the player running it.

In a vacuum, they outperform everyone exactly as advertised. That's why they are Tier 1.

[Aetis]

^This man speaks the truth.

[skaddix]

I don't think its especially hard to hit a good degree of optimization allowing most Full Casters to dust Martials.
Its not that hard to go on the internet and find a guide that will basically tell you have to make a broken Full Caster with little investment.
But it easily achieved usually with little dipping and mostly some archetype abuse.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But as you recently pointed out, Martials are often spending a lot of that gold just to keep their numbers up. How much spare do they have to start selecting items to boost their tier?

It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. :smallyuk: Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

[Peat]

Yeah, I got overcarried there. I was just arguing that when you consider buffs, you should assume that both parties are buffed, or none is.


Its a good argument but maybe not when comparing fighters and spellsharing companions/familiars, who access their buffs in different ways.

I'm still not completely sold on always assuming it with fighters and self-buffing casters either tbh. I know that at a lot of tables Fighters getting buffs is a way of life but its not a universal. Sometimes my 5e Paladin buffs the party - sometimes he buffs himself (usually depending on my assessment of what helps the party more). The full arcane casters mostly blast and the Cleric mainly heals the suicidal Monk that charged off by himself immediately. Well. The Cleric did. Not sure what happens now the Monk got his wish. Not a shining example of an optimized party I'll admit.

The self-buffer always has theirs if they want them. The fighter doesn't. I don't like accounting them like the fighter always doesn't, but I don't like accounting them like the fighter always does either.


Has anyone ever explored the idea of a feat/acf/archetype that let a no-maj act as a casters familiar or companion for purposes of spell sharing? I think that would be helpful to the problem.

I feel that accomplishes something but I'm not sure it does as much for versatility and utility as it does raw power. Could easily be wrong though.


It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I stand educated and enlightened.


I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. :smallyuk: Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

This echoes something I've previously thought but never really been sure enough to put into words - too much attention for things that don't (insofar as I can see) really solve the versatility, particularly OOC versatility, problems.

[unseenmage]

...

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.
The issue I think is that the GM is under no obligation to provide optimizable equipment.
Which isn't true of the bulk of class optimization options.

[Necroticplague]

No. If anything, I usually see them as underrated. The simple fact is, the higher tier characters have abilities that qualitatively change how the game plays in sizable ways as they level, while lower level characters simply lack such. I usually see this factor as relatively sidelined in favor of pointing out how far they exceed the lower characters in their competencies, while I really believe it should be emphasized more strongly. Lower tier characters, by and by large, are doing actions similar actions at higher levels and lower levels, just more competently. However, higher teir characters can pull of things that weren't even remotely possible at lower levels, not just in terms of scale, but in type. I've had to drastically rearrange campaigns on both ends of the scale due to this problem before (i.e, no full-casters meant the parties lacked basic abilities the campaign had planned to include (plane-hopping), and others where the higher-level appropriate abilities of full-casters short-circuited campaigns that, looking back, were really just lower level campaigns with bigger numbers).

[NeoPhoenix0]

It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. :smallyuk: Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.
I don't know about that, we have an entire guide about wisely spending gold. it focuses explaining the different things characters should have and gives a variety of price point that vary on effectiveness depending on what you can afford. The focus is a bit on the defensive side since that is the most universal application of wealth, but it even explains that some items are just too expensive compared to other items to ever buy with no appreciable increase in effectiveness. when you go back through the ages on this site we have looked at optimizing pretty much every aspect of this game.

[Esquire]

Got a link to that guide? I'd read it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Got a link to that guide? I'd read it.

http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items
Ugly link on phone sorry.

[Gazrok]

Personally, if you only play to around 10th level or so, you are probably better off playing a multi-classed Wizard.

Since most of the good spells are 1st through 3rd anyhow. Pairing this up with a class that fills in the weaknesses helps. I personally like doing a Wizard/Rogue, because they both can wear no armor but still have a god AC, and the skill monkey aspect with a high INT is a good party filler.

Use Weapon Finesse to take advantage of that high DEX, and you actually don't suck if you have to mix it up in melee too.

With a multi-class wizard, you have to also think of spell durations. I personally love spells that last for HOURS (like Mage Armor, Protection from Arrows, False Life, Floating Disc). All of these can be cast before even going into a dungeon. So you don't waste precious fight time.

Also, 2nd level spell like Cat's Grace can really boost that Rogue attack ability now. (with the Weapon Finesse). (or do a Sneak Attack from being Invisible). Just so many ways to combine this.

[Esquire]

Thanks! That's really helpful.

[Efrate]

All the things a rogue wizard can do a wizard can just do better. Need info? Divination spells over gather. Need to talk your way into something? Glibness. Sneak attack? Unless yer doing something with totemist for a lot more attacks, just polymorph into a hydra; higher damage per round with no conditions or immunity stopping you. Stealth? Silence and invisibility. Want weapon finesse? Heroics. Don't have those spells? Buy a scroll. Borrow a spell book.

A dip for some skills is fine but unless you are desperate for evasion or uncanny dodge it's likely a one level class. Level 2 is maybe the trough for a wizard. Sleep isn't as good, color spray still is tho, and that will get you through to level 2 where game changers like invisibity, silence, glitterdust reside. Command undead gets you a semi permanent undead minion for a slot every 3 days that is totally expendaple and takes no resources. Even scorching ray for 4d6 damage still is better than a lot of stuff. Ranged touch is much more reliable than flanking or immunity with twf and sneak attack.

I would take warblade over wizard for combat at level 1 or 2, or barbarian, but if there is other stuff to do I'll just stay as wizard. Or druid. Riding dogs are very good early, fleshrakers better even without buffs, and I can still do other stuff.

[Troacctid]

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.
It's true, spending WBL efficiently is always the hardest part of character-building IMO.

[icefractal]

WBL optimization is important, but also extremely fiddly, and not that reliable past the starting point in most campaigns.

So is ... I'm not even sure there's a term for it. "off-screen action optimization"? The usage of in-game actions taken either prior to game start or during downtime. Some examples:
* Being venerable, and getting reincarnated to fix your physical stats.
* Crafting items yourself, and using things like the PF Downtime rules to do so at a lower price (assuming non-rigid WBL, the more common situation IME)
* Use of Simulacrum for utility minions (worth it even if you're paying full price, IMO)

Casters have a lot more access to it, but anyone can get in on the action with enough gold.

[King of Nowhere]

All the things a rogue wizard can do a wizard can just do better. Need info? Divination spells over gather. Need to talk your way into something? Glibness. Sneak attack? Unless yer doing something with totemist for a lot more attacks, just polymorph into a hydra; higher damage per round with no conditions or immunity stopping you. Stealth? Silence and invisibility. Want weapon finesse? Heroics. Don't have those spells? Buy a scroll. Borrow a spell book.


to be fair, most things cannot really be replicated with magic. Stealth? silence and invisibility will only carry you until you don't stumble on detect magic. Even if you can make those spells undetectable, the moment someone notices his own steps aren't making noise anymore he'll realize someone is silencing the area. Not to mention that if someone is using a true sight spell, he still won't see somebody sneaking. There you go, a simple skill check beats a 6th level spell. In general, there are many more ways to screw a wizard trying to go invisible, than there are of screwing a rogue trying to hide mundanely.
Info? divinations only carries you so far, and can be countered in a variety of ways. dominating/charming the guard could be done in a pinch for a quick interrogation, but anyone who can afford to have 9th level casters as enemies will make a periodic sweep of his guards with detect magic to make sure they are not under compulsion. Whereas befriending a guard can get you better info over time, without rasing any suspicion, or being easily detected. "detect magic" is a cantrip, I've never seen a "detect high diplomacy modifier" spell.

This is a general thing about magic, I noticed. Magic is easier to counter. You have a plethora of ways to detect someone invisible, but many less to detect someone sneaking mundanely. There are ways to make yourself completely immune to several spells, to elemental damage, and to virtually anything an enemy caster can do to you (just consider mind blank + freedom of movement + death ward, it covers a large amount of negative effects. Maybe add spell turning to cover anything that has a specific target). Yet there really isn't a reliable way to block a sword; you can buff your AC, but a martial of your level will always have a good chance to hit you. You can get miss chance in many ways, but true sight or dust of apparition counters like 95% of those. You can fly, but so can anyone with a potion. Stoneskin takes away some damage, but it doesn't make much difference against a power attack or sneak attack.

I use this general consideration to explain why powerful casters still keep mundanes around and sometimes even (gasp!) treat them as peers. Magic is flashy, powerful, versatile, but unreliable. Magic can be countered by other magic, or by some good thinking. Of course, even non-magic can be countered in lots of ways; but use powerful magic in combination with somebody who is damn good at what he does, and you can do stuff that you could not do with magic alone.
And I found this consideration so central to establishing that all classes retain a range of usefulness, that I'd mercilessly houserule to ensure things remained that way if confronted with spells that violate this status quo. Which I don't remember happening often, though. I can't think of a single spell that can really replace actual skill without leaving a lot of holes open.


It's true, spending WBL efficiently is always the hardest part of character-building IMO.

Also the least predictable, because it depends entirely on how the DM doles out loot. Some DM give you free shopping for everything you can afford, others have low level items being freely on sale but the most exotic or rare items being a damn nuisance to find and worth a quest by themselves, others just state those specific items aren't available, period. And you can have a high magic campaign where you can expect to have more whealt, a low magic campaign where you can expect less whealt, and some more exotic options.

[ryu]

My general beef with things lower than t3 is that it is often embarrassingly easy to replace their stated role. For example we once played through an early campaign with no melee combatant party member to kill all the people the wizard party was rendering helpless immediately. One of the wizards picked up a scythe and coup de graced things to death easily.

Physical damage in a competently built party isn't a role. It's a cheap purchase.

Healing? Wands of lesser vigor wielded by the familiar of a wizard who took UMD. That also allowed action economy boosts and access to non-wizard spells in combat.

Healing is also not a role. The cleric has better things to do if he exists.

No real roles are more difficult and complex things like battlefield control, action denial, defensive utility, movement and positioning options and so on.

[Cosi]

There are also metagaming considerations there: if you are playing a druid, and buffing your animal companion so that it's stronger than the party fighter, and then you are refusing to buff the fighter, then you are being a jerk to the player, because you are intentionally trying to outshine his character to the point of humiliation.

Why? Suppose that player had rolled a DMM Cleric who could buff himself past the point I could buff my animal companion. Would I be a jerk then for buffing it? If not (and I think I would obviously not), then why am I inherently obligated to play my character less effectively because you made a less powerful character? Why shouldn't I say that you are a jerk by not pulling your weight and expecting me to spend spell slots to bring you up to where I am already?


Yeah, I got overcarried there. I was just arguing that when you consider buffs, you should assume that both parties are buffed, or none is.

Why on earth would that be true? One party by definition has the support of a high level caster (being as it is one of that caster's class features). The other does not. If the assessment does not reflect that difference, it is not an honest assessment.


The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization.

I would be a great deal more convinced by your arguments in this area if you would show (or at least tell) rather than tiredly intimate. Because I'm not at all convinced that "if you have access to this specific splat you can save a couple thousand GP on weapons" is a compelling argument.


Personally, if you only play to around 10th level or so, you are probably better off playing a multi-classed Wizard. Since most of the good spells are 1st through 3rd anyhow.

You're still losing caster levels, delaying access to those spells, giving up on 5th level spells (which are probably the point where casters go from merely "better than non-casters" to "playing a completely different game than non-casters"), and what you're getting for it is ... some 2nd or 3rd level class features. I am not at all convinced that "2d6 Sneak Attack" and "Evasion" is enough to make casting glitterdust at 7th level acceptable.


Pairing this up with a class that fills in the weaknesses helps. I personally like doing a Wizard/Rogue, because they both can wear no armor but still have a god AC, and the skill monkey aspect with a high INT is a good party filler.

All the things a rogue wizard can do a wizard can just do better. Need info? Divination spells over gather. Need to talk your way into something? Glibness. Sneak attack? Unless yer doing something with totemist for a lot more attacks, just polymorph into a hydra; higher damage per round with no conditions or immunity stopping you. Stealth? Silence and invisibility. Want weapon finesse? Heroics. Don't have those spells? Buy a scroll. Borrow a spell book.

If you want a caster-type character that does non-combat stuff, the answer is quite clearly Beguiler. That's literally what the class is for. You get all your Rogue skills (and quite possibly more skill points than a Rogue because of your higher INT priority), trapfinding, all the utility spells, and you have a casting mechanic that in addition to being totally insane in general and having absurd synergy with anything that expands your spell list is very good for the kind of utility spells a caster-Rogue wants because you don't have to commit in advance to having knock instead of glitterdust potentially leaving you either stuck with non-combat magic in a fight or without the ability to unlock doors.


to be fair, most things cannot really be replicated with magic. Stealth? silence and invisibility will only carry you until you don't stumble on detect magic.

detect magic is going to get anyone past ~5th level who doesn't have some kind of counter, because going on an infiltration mission with none of your magical gear is six kinds of stupid.


This is a general thing about magic, I noticed. Magic is easier to counter.

You're confusing "magic has explicit counters" with "magic is easier to counter". Sure, there's no spell that makes you immune to Hide checks. But everyone just passively gets a Spot check against your Hide check, and unless that check is backed up by magic (at which point you're looking at lots of the same counters depending on exactly what you do), you're going to have real trouble with something as simple as "two dozen moderately skilled observers relying on luck".


You have a plethora of ways to detect someone invisible, but many less to detect someone sneaking mundanely.

But all of those counters require you to deploy your own magic, usually expending daily-limited resources. A smart invisible infiltrator can trick you into burning limited uses of see invisibility in situations where they won't help. You can't force mundane guards to expend their mundane watchfulness in the same way, and a fortress probably has a lot more guards who can potentially beat the Rogue's Hide check than who can cast see invisibility, let alone true seeing.


Yet there really isn't a reliable way to block a sword; you can buff your AC, but a martial of your level will always have a good chance to hit you.

Sure there is -- mobility, whether tactical (flight, teleportation, kiting) or strategic (putting your base in a hostile location or on another plane) is a hard counter to mundane characters. You can't sword someone you can't reach, and a Fighter's options for reaching someone who doesn't want to be hit are "ask his Wizard friend" and "cry". Also, there are ways of getting immunity to attacks.


You can get miss chance in many ways, but true sight or dust of apparition counters like 95% of those.

Having true sight on your melee character puts you solidly in the realm of the Gish (or well into epic levels). I would be quite happy to have people trying to use Dust of Appearance on the right patch of territory rather than attacking me.


I use this general consideration to explain why powerful casters still keep mundanes around and sometimes even (gasp!) treat them as peers.

It's a passable explanation for why I might want someone who can do physical damage, but not why I would want that person to be a Warblade (let alone a Fighter) rather than a DMM Cleric or a Wild Shaped Druid. Those guys can fight as well as any martial (better, actually, and they don't demand I buff them), and they still have the ability to see the future, summon angels, raise the dead, command the forces of nature, or create hurricanes. It's not just being good that matters. It's being better than the alternatives.

[ryu]

As previously mentioned you don't even need someone with melee as a listed job. You can literally hand any member of the party a scythe and they can do the job competently. Even a non-proficient commoner child with a highest stat of like eight in strength will be adequate.

[Nifft]

As previously mentioned you don't even need someone with melee as a listed job. You can literally hand any member of the party a scythe and they can do the job competently. Even a non-proficient commoner child with a highest stat of like eight in strength will be adequate.

"Who needs a Big Dumb Fighter? I brought a Little Dumb Farmer instead."

[ryu]

"Who needs a Big Dumb Fighter? I brought a Little Dumb Farmer instead."

Yeah, and he'll work for silver per day rather than demanding a full share of loot. Do you have any idea how sad it is that fighters suck so hard I'd rather have a four man team that is actually competent people paid as if five WHILE FACING THE SAME FIVE MAN BALANCED ENEMIES than an actual five man party with a fighter in it? The fighter is literally a detriment from an in-world perspective because his share of loot could be more efficiently spent if he weren't there.

When you can't get a place in a party by simple action economy argument you suck.

[Cosi]

As previously mentioned you don't even need someone with melee as a listed job. You can literally hand any member of the party a scythe and they can do the job competently. Even a non-proficient commoner child with a highest stat of like eight in strength will be adequate.

Not melee necessarily, but I think having someone who can kill lots of enemies without having to expend daily resources is definitely worthwhile. Not worth an entire character (though frankly, characters shouldn't fill only one role regardless of what it is), and not best filled by mundanes, but having someone who can clear a room full of mooks without having to pop out a spell slot every time is useful.

[icefractal]

As previously mentioned you don't even need someone with melee as a listed job. You can literally hand any member of the party a scythe and they can do the job competently. Even a non-proficient commoner child with a highest stat of like eight in strength will be adequate.So no offense, but this is a great example of how casters do get overhyped here. Leaving aside that a number of creature are immune to sleep/paralysis and/or CdG, what kind of easy-mode game are you assuming where enemies fail all their saves? The fact that some spells /can/ end a fight doesn't mean they always or even usually will.

[ryu]

Not melee necessarily, but I think having someone who can kill lots of enemies without having to expend daily resources is definitely worthwhile. Not worth an entire character (though frankly, characters shouldn't fill only one role regardless of what it is), and not best filled by mundanes, but having someone who can clear a room full of mooks without having to pop out a spell slot every time is useful.

So. A scythe. If your party is casters being liberal with spell slots isn't hard. Also you only need the scythe specifically if none of the casters are clerics or druids who will unilaterally have some method because the game tells them to have a weapon naturally.

Edit: The kind where the party has multiple options to drop people helpless and everyone having abrupt jaunt means I give not the slightest care if one or two of you pass saves? That wasn't a hypothetical. I've DONE THIS.

[icefractal]

Well yeah, if you have Clerics and/or Druids in the party then you most likely do have melee already. I was questioning the viability of a party that's so SoD focused they rely on a hireling to CdG people.

[ryu]

Well yeah, if you have Clerics and/or Druids in the party then you most likely do have melee already. I was questioning the viability of a party that's so SoD focused they rely on a hireling to CdG people.

Actually just one of the wizards carrying the scythe. The hireling comment was just to emphasize how little i respect fighters and how easy it is to buy the role even if you have no hands free. Assuming the same amount of gold regardless of party size there is never a good reason to bring a fighter. Hell you feel you need a strong person who make attacks on enemies standing up? The warrior is still pretty cheap, gains proficiency, and with higher strength can pull the second duty of pack-mule.

Also as you may not have noticed abrupt jaunt means failed saves mean little. Combine with hummingbird familiars, high dex, and if you're real worried a nerve skitter. You go first. You just do. Then you drop a spell or two and clean up.

[RoboEmperor]

The warrior is still pretty cheap, gains proficiency, and with higher strength can pull the second duty of pack-mule.

Yeah just hire 20+ warriors with your starting gold and have them clear the dungeon for you solo so you completely out level the module and just breeze through the campaign as if pressing the i-win button.

[ryu]

Yeah just hire 20+ warriors with your starting gold and have them clear the dungeon for you solo so you completely out level the module and just breeze through the campaign as if pressing the i-win button.

Nope. Just one. The point of the strategy is to not spend much money. Why would I waste MORE money than would be spent on the fighter?

[RoboEmperor]

Nope. Just one. The point of the strategy is to not spend much money. Why would I waste MORE money than would be spent on the fighter?

Because you want the solo xp to have enough spells per day to destroy every encounter and continue receiving solo xp for the entire module. Spending money on only 1 warrior means you're gonna have to actually cast spells and therefore actually rest before clearing the dungeon.

[ryu]

Because you want the solo xp to have enough spells per day to destroy every encounter and continue receiving solo xp for the entire module. Spending money on only 1 warrior means you're gonna have to actually cast spells and therefore actually rest before clearing the dungeon.

Nah. You still have a party. They're just all actually casters. What type they are is negotiable so long as access to all the useful hard to replace stuff is guaranteed. Solo caster is doable but sub-optimal. Action economy matters when party actions are spells.

[RoboEmperor]

Nah. You still have a party. They're just all actually casters. What type they are is negotiable so long as access to all the useful hard to replace stuff is guaranteed. Solo caster is doable but sub-optimal. Action economy matters when party actions are spells.

2 spell levels higher than the module intended > action economy.
Out of combat shenanigans that result in overpowered minionmancy > action economy.

So I disagree, it is optimal not sub-optimal. A level 9 spellcaster is worlds more powerful than four level 5 spellcasters.

My point is hiring warriors is no different than any other TO thing people do to replace melee. Melee is essential to every party until minionmancy becomes a thing. Your earlier claim that a scythe replaces melee is completely inaccurate as undead, one of the most common enemies, are immune to all the CdG inducing spells. Druids have minionmancy at level 1, clerics are melee, so for your claim to work you can only have a party consisting of wizards and sorcerers, and at 25pb so you can't have both amazing casting and 18 str.

[ryu]

And most low level undead are mindless and thus get no-sold by silent image. Also, no, minionmancy is just one of several methods that render melee party members irrelevant. The more direct path is just having enough spells to never need to melee. This can only be done at level one if you're willing to go precocious apprentice fiery burst, but it still requires no melee type.

[RoboEmperor]

And most low level undead are mindless and thus get no-sold by silent image. Also, no, minionmancy is just one of several methods that render melee party members irrelevant. The more direct path is just having enough spells to never need to melee. This can only be done at level one if you're willing to go precocious apprentice fiery burst, but it still requires no melee type.

Again, TO. Precious Apprentice for early entry is TO. And Silent Image may stop the undead like Entangle or Grease does, but it still doesn't let you attack it without consequences, and crossbows do no damage to both zombies and skeletons.

And I forgot to mention if the target succeeds its save on sleep or color spray, you are dead right then and there so relying entirely on going first and landing SoD spells is far from reliable. For damage and meatshields you need melee, be it from an animal companion, clerics, or mundanes.

[Acanous]

That’s not how mindless things work. A mindless undead has no reason to question that a wall just appeared where there was a guy, and will then do a quick check to see if it sees the guy. If no, it goes back to what it was doing. Silent image is god mode against undead

[Lans]

That’s not how mindless things work. A mindless undead has no reason to question that a wall just appeared where there was a guy, and will then do a quick check to see if it sees the guy. If no, it goes back to what it was doing. Silent image is god mode against undead

Is there a blurb in the rules that supports this?

[Aetis]

I've DONE THIS.

Why are bunch of no-magic mooks even trying to fight you in that world? Wouldn't they kinda know that even a lv 1 wizard would slaughter them? or were they too stupid to even know that? It sounds like they didn't get very far in the world, and law of Darwin was served. Also, did DM do anything to challenge you? Maybe throw in his own hummingbird-familiar-backed nerveskittered wizards?

Your described actions sound closer to a power trip than a game, but Grand Theft Auto is also a game and your mileage may vary. I suspect I would have done things differently if I was DMing and (hopefully) you guys wanted a challenge.

[Nifft]

Why are bunch of no-magic mooks even trying to fight you in that world? Wouldn't they kinda know that even a lv 1 wizard would slaughter them? or were they too stupid to even know that?

Presumably the same reason that all those goblins / kobolds / orcs / bandits / murlocks / gibberlings / the Chinese / gnolls / ancient red dragons / bands of kung-fu goons / military combat droids / vampire spawn / etc. try fighting the PCs in general.

That's the game.

[Aetis]

Well, I dunno. In my world, mooks tend to fight fights they think they can win instead of blind suiciding.

[NineInchNall]

Is there a blurb in the rules that supports this?


Nonabilities
Intelligence: Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions.

Mindless things cannot think, learn, or remember.

[NeoPhoenix0]

detect magic is going to get anyone past ~5th level who doesn't have some kind of counter, because going on an infiltration mission with none of your magical gear is six kinds of stupid.
I just have to point out that detect magic is entirely countered by a lead lined cloak, as long as the cloak itself isn't magical the spell cannot detect the magic on you through your lead barrier.

[ryu]

Why are bunch of no-magic mooks even trying to fight you in that world? Wouldn't they kinda know that even a lv 1 wizard would slaughter them? or were they too stupid to even know that? It sounds like they didn't get very far in the world, and law of Darwin was served. Also, did DM do anything to challenge you? Maybe throw in his own hummingbird-familiar-backed nerveskittered wizards?

Your described actions sound closer to a power trip than a game, but Grand Theft Auto is also a game and your mileage may vary. I suspect I would have done things differently if I was DMing and (hopefully) you guys wanted a challenge.

Yes encounters that are actually supposed to mean something involved casters. Not book casters either. Casters with some sort of competent build plan such that they have a threatening combat plan. As if built by player instead of generation.

Mooks are mooks. Fodder monsters were never seriously intended as a threat so much as a risk of having to spend more spells than expected leading to a harder time in real fights. You know like how random encounters in your usual RPG have a threat level comparable to a piece of cheese with bosses or the odd special encounter being where you're meant to have to work for it? I thought that was normal? Since when is scrub bandit camp 43B supposed to be a threat?

Further Precocious apprentice fiery burst is the furthest thing from TO. You're wasting two feats that could be put into something that scales better later to improve your situation in the super low levels. Neither of those feats are things you actually want once you pas roughly level seven or so.

[Anthrowhale]

TO is the wrong description for precocious apprentice fiery burst. The right description is "plausibly not allowed". The FAQ directly addresses this and says "no" so you are relying on a permissive DM.

[ryu]

TO is the wrong description for precocious apprentice fiery burst. The right description is "plausibly not allowed". The FAQ directly addresses this and says "no" so you are relying on a permissive DM.

FAQ is questionable RAW at best. Especially after the attempted stealth nerf of arcane thesis that later got smacked down officially poisoning the well.

[King of Nowhere]

Why on earth would that be true? One party by definition has the support of a high level caster (being as it is one of that caster's class features). The other does not. If the assessment does not reflect that difference, it is not an honest assessment.


Because the argument is about actual game at actual tables. And in actual tables the martial is part of a party and can therefore expect magic support. I did detail it in my previous post, actually.


detect magic is going to get anyone past ~5th level who doesn't have some kind of counter, because going on an infiltration mission with none of your magical gear is six kinds of stupid.


unless you knew the guys you want to infiltrate are specifically looking for magic, and you don't expect to fight in the infiltration. Then it becomes perfectly reasonable. I've done this.



You're confusing "magic has explicit counters" with "magic is easier to counter". Sure, there's no spell that makes you immune to Hide checks. But everyone just passively gets a Spot check against your Hide check, and unless that check is backed up by magic (at which point you're looking at lots of the same counters depending on exactly what you do), you're going to have real trouble with something as simple as "two dozen moderately skilled observers relying on luck".


getting those moderately skilled observers is not as easy as it seems. the scarcity of skill points dictates that the vast majority of common guards will not have ranks in spot. and if you're looking at high level people, then there aren't two dozens of them, and it's only a class skill for a few classes. If you're a halfling rogue, you can easily get a +20 to hide by mid level without magic, and that's enough to enrsure that only someone else who invested signifficantly in spot (be it rogue, ranger, monk or whatever) can reasonably find you if you're trying to be stealthy.



Sure there is -- mobility, whether tactical (flight, teleportation, kiting) or strategic (putting your base in a hostile location or on another plane) is a hard counter to mundane characters. You can't sword someone you can't reach, and a Fighter's options for reaching someone who doesn't want to be hit are "ask his Wizard friend" and "cry". Also, there are ways of getting immunity to attacks.

Having true sight on your melee character puts you solidly in the realm of the Gish (or well into epic levels). I would be quite happy to have people trying to use Dust of Appearance on the right patch of territory rather than attacking me.


I did specify that the mundane character needs magical support. A lot of it. This is not into question. However, if the martial is part of a high level party, it is assumed the martial will get the aforementioned support. If the martial is not working within a party offering magical support, then he is tooo dumb to live



It's a passable explanation for why I might want someone who can do physical damage, but not why I would want that person to be a Warblade (let alone a Fighter) rather than a DMM Cleric or a Wild Shaped Druid. Those guys can fight as well as any martial (better, actually, and they don't demand I buff them), and they still have the ability to see the future, summon angels, raise the dead, command the forces of nature, or create hurricanes. It's not just being good that matters. It's being better than the alternatives.

It's physical damage and skill checks. But as for the claim that those classes fight better than martials, it's one of those claims I've seen thrown around a lot, and it is vastly overrated.
YEs, of course if you assume that your cleric has taken some basic melee feats and has cast on himself all the possible buff spells available while the martial does nothing, then yes, the buffed caster is stronger. This discounts many slight inconveniences, or assumes varying level of cheese

1) it assumes that said buff spells will always be available. Most of them have durations of 1 round per level or 1 minute pe level, so you can only use them for a fight, and only if you know a fight is going to be triggered shortly. A possible fix involve easy persist sheanigans, which is cheese most DM would not allow.
2) it assumes that the martial will not be buffed. So you are assumed to always be able to have all your 1 round/level spells always active in any fight, but it's not even assumed the other guy can get a few 10 minute/level buffs from his allies?
3) it assumes that the party will never be ambushed or find itself in a situation where buff spells are not available. if they are always available via persistent sheanigans, see 1
4) it assumes nobody will spend 1 action to cast dispel magic on the buffed druid or cleric. Else, it assumes CL-increasing sheanigans are available get your caster level to the sky; again, most DM would put a stop to that. If we are looking at really high levels, it also assumes dissjunction is not in use.

Finally, even with most buffs I can't see a real way to equal the fighting proficiency of a dedicated mundane. I have a martial npc boss which (discounting homebrewed/houseruled stuff) has over +45 to hit, deals some 5d6+29 damage per hit (critical 17-20*5) with an AC around 45 and well over 300 hp. Fly speed 15 meters, saving throws +27/+22/+10 (but with immunity to most effects that target will, so it matters little), has several single-use teleportations and a healing or two, permanent see invisibility and a few more utility stuff. All this without a single buff spell being cast on him.
I have never, ever seen a way to even approach that by using a buffed cleric or druid. And I could have done it a bit stronger if I had been willing to use stuff I consider overpowered sheanigans. Now, maybe YOU can make a cleric or druid that is more powerful; you certainly appear to know the system better than I do. But I am fairly sure that, in that case, you'd also be able to build a stronger martial type. If you can buff a caster to the point that it fights better than that (maybe increase your caster level to over 40 and polymorph into a great wyrm dragon?), then I'd surmise we're in the "cheese most DM won't allow" territory


I just have to point out that detect magic is entirely countered by a lead lined cloak, as long as the cloak itself isn't magical the spell cannot detect the magic on you through your lead barrier.

I'd say if you are using invisibility, then your lead cloak is also magic, and will be detected. the cloak covers your gear, except for an headband, so you can mundanely infiltrate without being detected by detect magic.


My general beef with things lower than t3 is that it is often embarrassingly easy to replace their stated role. For example we once played through an early campaign with no melee combatant party member to kill all the people the wizard party was rendering helpless immediately. One of the wizards picked up a scythe and coup de graced things to death easily.

Physical damage in a competently built party isn't a role. It's a cheap purchase.

Healing? Wands of lesser vigor wielded by the familiar of a wizard who took UMD. That also allowed action economy boosts and access to non-wizard spells in combat.

Healing is also not a role. The cleric has better things to do if he exists.

No real roles are more difficult and complex things like battlefield control, action denial, defensive utility, movement and positioning options and so on.
I read stuff like this on forums, and toook it at face value. I tried to apply it. Then I realized the hard way that all those monsters you are disabling, you actually need a way to finish them off. Coup de grace isn't always viable, and many monsters are immune to stuff anyway. So, having someone that is very good at quickly mopping up all the enemies you temporarily disable is still a boon. Heck, just take a golem; immune to magic and summoned creatures will barely scratch its surface, so you either buff yourself with 20 spells to passably face one, or you handle the matter to your fine fighter friend who will dismantle the golem in six seconds.

[King of Nowhere]

But I feel we are talking in circles here. I'll try to do a bit of a summary.

The OP and like-minded individuals claim that high tier characters are overrated from the perspective of actual tabletop gaming for the following reasons

1) most campaigns stop at low levels, where the difference is less pronounced
2) most players/groups have nowhere near the level of skill required to bring the best out of high tier classes
3) low tier classes are assumed to be part of an adventuring group, and can count on support from their allies to overcome their many liabilities and limitations.
4) most DM will ban the more powerful tricks high tier classes can do, either to keep a semblance of balance, or just because a specific spell or creature is not part of the setting.

It is conceded, and not argued about, that high tier classes still have the following advantages
1) more power in the majority of situations if they can pick their spells right and the DM is not tailoring the encounter to screw them specifically
2) more flexibility and adaptability, especially out of combat. Greater problem solving capacity, if nothing else because you have many different ways to solve a problem than "I beat at it until it stops being a problem"
3) mundane classes require a lot of magical support, and they become exceedingly weak/limited if they can't get it from gear and other party members.

All those claims seem extremely reasonable to me, not something that should be divisive

[ryu]

Golems are mindless and thus also go down to silent image. Or instantaneous conjurations. All of the stuff that's supposed to counter magic doesn't really. It just requires a person realize that the stuff exists and prepare for it. Hell the best counter to Anti-Magic fields is actually the good old fabricate shrink item permanency hat, a wizard staple.

[Cosi]

So. A scythe. If your party is casters being liberal with spell slots isn't hard. Also you only need the scythe specifically if none of the casters are clerics or druids who will unilaterally have some method because the game tells them to have a weapon naturally.

Sure, at low levels you can make due with a guy using a scythe. But if your only option for winning a fight is blowing spell slots, it becomes very easier to wear down the party over a series of encounters. But melee capability comes from a Cleric or a Druid, who you want in the party already for restoration, raise dead, and other non-Wizard spells (also, I'm probably talking about a slightly lower level of optimization than you are).


I just have to point out that detect magic is entirely countered by a lead lined cloak, as long as the cloak itself isn't magical the spell cannot detect the magic on you through your lead barrier.

Well, sure, but that works just as well for the invisible caster as the sneaking mundane.


Because the argument is about actual game at actual tables. And in actual tables the martial is part of a party and can therefore expect magic support. I did detail it in my previous post, actually.

So then so does the animal companion. And it seems to me that the buffs that apply only to animal companions (shared Druid buffs, animal-only buffs, venomfire) are better than the buffs that apply only Fighters (uh, ... enlarge person?). Of course, its also possible that you could have a party of Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Samurai. At least, its possible to have a party of Druid/Beguiler/Wizard/Archivist, so if you can't have the corresponding mundane-only party that seems like proof positive that mundanes are in fact worse.


unless you knew the guys you want to infiltrate are specifically looking for magic, and you don't expect to fight in the infiltration. Then it becomes perfectly reasonable. I've done this.

Going in without your gear is stupid because it means if you get caught you just die. But sure, it worked for you one time so clearly it isn't a dumb plan at all.


getting those moderately skilled observers is not as easy as it seems. the scarcity of skill points dictates that the vast majority of common guards will not have ranks in spot.

They're guards. Of course they have ranks in the skill they use for detecting people sneaking into the area they're guarding. What the hell else are they spending skill points on? Craft?


and if you're looking at high level people, then there aren't two dozens of them, and it's only a class skill for a few classes. If you're a halfling rogue, you can easily get a +20 to hide by mid level without magic, and that's enough to enrsure that only someone else who invested signifficantly in spot (be it rogue, ranger, monk or whatever) can reasonably find you if you're trying to be stealthy.

I would expect a 10th level adventure to be able to field essentially arbitrary numbers of 4th level guards. Assuming you roll 11s for simplicity, you get caught when someone with +11 modifier (7 Ranks +2 modifier +2 for having Marshals with Motivate Wisdom as patrol leaders) rolls a 20, which happens more than 75% of the time after the 28th guard (1 - .95^28 ~ .24). You're caught half the time at around 15 guards. That's somewhere around 5 patrols, or just one room with a lot of guards.


I did specify that the mundane character needs magical support.

Which is exactly the problem. Because magical characters don't need mundane support. A Beguiler does a Rogue's job as well as a Rogue and doesn't demand that the party lay some buffs on her in order to be effective. And she provides magical utility in various forms. So why have a Rogue?


1) it assumes that said buff spells will always be available. Most of them have durations of 1 round per level or 1 minute pe level, so you can only use them for a fight, and only if you know a fight is going to be triggered shortly. A possible fix involve easy persist sheanigans, which is cheese most DM would not allow.

So we're supposed to assume the Fighter (who has no buff spells of his own) is always buffed but that the Cleric (whose class list is filled with buffs spells) doesn't? That seems like a reasonable assumption that is in no way a bad faith attempt to make bad classes look good. Assuming that Persistent Spell wouldn't be allowed seems basically like saying "they get DM pity, so they aren't bad", just in reverse. If you can only contribute in an environment where other people can't use all their toys, putting up with you is making the party worse.


2) it assumes that the martial will not be buffed. So you are assumed to always be able to have all your 1 round/level spells always active in any fight, but it's not even assumed the other guy can get a few 10 minute/level buffs from his allies?

The Fighter can have every buff his Rogue, Barbarian, or Saumrai allies can cast on him. If you say "but he needs casters" then you are admitting you are wrong and there is a fundamental asymmetry between casters and mundanes, because casters don't need mundanes.


3) it assumes that the party will never be ambushed or find itself in a situation where buff spells are not available. if they are always available via persistent sheanigans, see 1

Casters provide a variety of tools (rope trick, teleport, magnificent mansion) to ensure that they aren't in a position to be ambushed. What exactly do Fighters have? Oh, right, the same thing Fighters always have -- nothing.


4) it assumes nobody will spend 1 action to cast dispel magic on the buffed druid or cleric. Else, it assumes CL-increasing sheanigans are available get your caster level to the sky; again, most DM would put a stop to that. If we are looking at really high levels, it also assumes dissjunction is not in use.

dispel magic takes away the Fighter's buffs too. It also costs the enemy an action, and leaves a buffed Cleric or Druid with "just" their spell slots, which are still better in combat than the Fighter. Also, there are counters beyond just "CL cheese". Also, if you assume the party is eating disjunction with regularity, you're an idiot if you bring in any gear-dependent (i.e. mundane) characters. A caster who eats a disjunction is fighting fit tomorrow. A mundane who eats one is out millions of GP that they desperately need to be effective.


If you can buff a caster to the point that it fights better than that (maybe increase your caster level to over 40 and polymorph into a great wyrm dragon?), then I'd surmise we're in the "cheese most DM won't allow" territory

Well, yes, if "anything better than what I can do with mundanes" is "cheese" then obviously you can't be better than mundanes. I submit that such a standard is stupid because it makes it impossible for you to be wrong. But, yes, those numbers aren't terribly tough to beat. Something using Octopus Fu + either wraithstrike or sadism with a couple of damage buffs does more damage more accurately, greater dimension jumper gets you better mobility, and the defenses are fairly easy (though tedious) to beat.

[ryu]

It is preferable to have a cleric or a druid mixed in yes. I also want a psion to more or less complete the spell list. Just making the point that a scythe is perfectly capable of meeting your desired melee damage at low levels and at high levels you stop caring about it at all. Also the answer to spell slot scarcity could be having options when you run out, but I've found it's generally more effective to make them STOP being scarce. Would you like a primer on the various ways you can get significantly more spells per day? Not limitless at low levels but certainly not scarce?

[Aetis]

Tonymistu, or whatever his name was, already answered this thread to satisfaction. The DM controls everything including which material is legal and it hasn't even been established which house rules/material are in place. All of you guys' arguments are pointless because your house rules are going to be different from the other guy's. It's simply going to depend on the DM before anything else.

You might try to argue that "in absence of house rules..." but I'll tell you right now I've never met a 3.5/PF DM without a house rule or two, or three dozen. I've also never met two DMs that had the exact same house rules, either. Everyone has a different idea of what works because everyone literally plays a different game.

If you guys really want to argue, you should set which house rules/material are in place first. I suspect that people whose ideas deviate from the general consensus have very different house rules/materials allowed than the "norm".

[King of Nowhere]

They're guards. Of course they have ranks in the skill they use for detecting people sneaking into the area they're guarding. What the hell else are they spending skill points on? Craft?


Spot is not a class skill for warriors (which make the average guard). No, I do not expect an npc to keep a cross-class skill maxxed.




Which is exactly the problem. Because magical characters don't need mundane support. A Beguiler does a Rogue's job as well as a Rogue and doesn't demand that the party lay some buffs on her in order to be effective. And she provides magical utility in various forms. So why have a Rogue?

I thought I already answered those kind of questions: because a rogue with buffs and skill can do more than a caster with buffs but not skill.




So we're supposed to assume the Fighter (who has no buff spells of his own) is always buffed but that the Cleric (whose class list is filled with buffs spells) doesn't?

dispel magic takes away the Fighter's buffs too.

When did I ever give that impression? No, I am assuming that either both are filled with buffs to the brim, or both only have long duration ones. I am even admitting that the cleric has a few extra buffs on the martial. And in both cases the martial trounces the cleric. The fighter can fight reasonably well with just his equipment, while the cleric cannot. I am merely rebutting your claim that a buffed cleric can fight in melee better than a martial. This only happens if the cleric cast on himself every single buff spell on the list, including many with a duration of 1round/level, while the martial has nothing. I am not making any asymetrical assumption. I am merely looking at common conditions of a dungeon run, or a scry and die encounter.




The Fighter can have every buff his Rogue, Barbarian, or Saumrai allies can cast on him. If you say "but he needs casters" then you are admitting you are wrong and there is a fundamental asymmetry between casters and mundanes, because casters don't need mundanes.


Are we even reading the same thread? I absolutely admit there is a fundamental asymmetry between the classes. I did such an admission on practically every single post I made here. What I am actually claiming is that all the common boasts - that the only use a caster has for a martial is as pack animal, or that a cleric fights better than a fighter, or that a single 7th level spell can utterly dispose of any martial type - are utterly inflated.

There is a vast gulf between claiming "martial are not useless and they can get their spot to shine" and claiming "martials are equal to tier 1 casters".



Casters provide a variety of tools (rope trick, teleport, magnificent mansion) to ensure that they aren't in a position to be ambushed. What exactly do Fighters have? Oh, right, the same thing Fighters always have -- nothing.


Has that ever stopped a party from being ganked at a gaming session? If you are fighting opponents that are as powerful as you are (which should be the standard assumption here), assume that they have the same resources you do, and are as smart as you are. This means that for every time you ambush your enemies, you can expect to also be ambushed. Ambush scenarios happen in practical tabletop gaming.



But, yes, those numbers aren't terribly tough to beat. Something using Octopus Fu + either wraithstrike or sadism with a couple of damage buffs does more damage more accurately, greater dimension jumper gets you better mobility, and the defenses are fairly easy (though tedious) to beat.
As I said, you clearly have better system mastery than I have, so I am sure you can do better; but you also can make a better warrior. I don't know, maybe something about grafts to also have many limbs, coupled with some of the "near-infinite reach and attacks of opportunity" builds, or some ubercharger for 1000+ damage per round? i have no idea how that works.


Well, yes, if "anything better than what I can do with mundanes" is "cheese" then obviously you can't be better than mundanes. I submit that such a standard is stupid because it makes it impossible for you to be wrong.
Meh. That's not my standard at all, and I do nerf several things on mundanes too. I'm not going to discuss my definition of cheese, because that would take too long and would be pointless (although I can generally state that it is the level of both power at complexity at which me and my players are comfortable playing; I consider chees what goes vastly outside this level. And you may notice how I also consider the reach build or many martial sheanigans also cheese); but if you do not ban something for being overpowered, then you start chain-gating solars or getting infinite wishes. So you, the DM, should ban something for being overpowered. Where do you stop? that's an individual question, and there is no right answer to it.

[ryu]

Except you've done a good job of describing fighters as buff leeches who only do anything not related to pack mule status when given stuff by people who are actually useful. That's a DRAIN on resources, not useful.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I'd say if you are using invisibility, then your lead cloak is also magic, and will be detected. the cloak covers your gear, except for an headband, so you can mundanely infiltrate without being detected by detect magic.
exactly, which is why i love hide and move silently on any character.


Well, sure, but that works just as well for the invisible caster as the sneaking mundane.
small issue is if the cloak is invisible how does it not have a magic aura? i prefer items that boost my ability to sneak and then mundanely sneak around.

[MeimuHakurei]

Tonymistu, or whatever his name was, already answered this thread to satisfaction. The DM controls everything including which material is legal and it hasn't even been established which house rules/material are in place. All of you guys' arguments are pointless because your house rules are going to be different from the other guy's. It's simply going to depend on the DM before anything else.

You might try to argue that "in absence of house rules..." but I'll tell you right now I've never met a 3.5/PF DM without a house rule or two, or three dozen. I've also never met two DMs that had the exact same house rules, either. Everyone has a different idea of what works because everyone literally plays a different game.

If you guys really want to argue, you should set which house rules/material are in place first. I suspect that people whose ideas deviate from the general consensus have very different house rules/materials allowed than the "norm".

I'm seeing another Oberoni Fallacy here - it is true that a DM can address imbalances, but it doesn't make the casters having a vastly more powerful kit that can accomplish a lot more a lot easier less of a reality. It is important to realize the fact that those classes are in a completely different league from the mundanes and as such it is important for the DM to realize how casters overpower martials and what they should do to address the power gap (balancing the classes is one option, but so is restricting class choice, changing the level range of the campaign, manipulate item drops to favor the weaker characters etc.).

It is however legitimate to state that purely stating what a caster/mundane could potentially do may not be sufficient as proof for the disparity, so one could try a playtest where a group of non-casters and a group of full casters try the same challenges (I recommend a 1st Level, an 8th Level and a 15th Level challenge; three levels which span the width of RPGA adventures which cap at 16). Here's the rules by which the characters should abide:

-Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum are banned - those books add a layer of options that could make evaluating the disparity between mundanes and casters too difficult. Tome of Battle can be considered for mundanes, but it could also be run as a seperate team to see how much Martial Adepts approach the casters, or it could be banned also.
-Team Mundane may not have any spellcasting or manifesting classes whatsoever. Team Caster may only use classes that gain 9th level spells/powers. Gish-type classes with 4th/6th level casting are typically a blend between the two that could cause arguments which aspect of the class is getting the job done. If there's any ACFs that rid Paladins/Rangers off of their spellcasting, they can be run in the mundane team.
-25 Point buy and wealth as normal per level (including average starting gold for the Level 1 challenge). Unlike RPGA, Evil-aligned characters are permitted.
-Team Caster should not rely on infinite loops that are already known problems for the game. Nonmagical exploits that are well-known should not be used either by any team (like gaming the item prices with ladders/poles).
-While not strictly forbidden, Team Mundane should not attempt to get caster features onto them, mostly trying to play true to their class' kit.
-The DM may adjudicate stuff where the rules are muddy or undefined, but should try to stick with RAW/RAI when possible. Additionally, the hostiles and environments etc. should be the same for both teams.

[AnimeTheCat]

-Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum are banned - those books add a layer of options that could make evaluating the disparity between mundanes and casters too difficult. Tome of Battle can be considered for mundanes, but it could also be run as a seperate team to see how much Martial Adepts approach the casters, or it could be banned also.

Wait wait wait wait wait... so, you're saying that because options exist that a mundane character could take to cover a known weakness, the sources of those options should be banned? That makes little to no sense. Either the playing field is equally open to all involved or it's equally restricted to all parties involved.



-Team Mundane may not have any spellcasting or manifesting classes whatsoever. Team Caster may only use classes that gain 9th level spells/powers. Gish-type classes with 4th/6th level casting are typically a blend between the two that could cause arguments which aspect of the class is getting the job done. If there's any ACFs that rid Paladins/Rangers off of their spellcasting, they can be run in the mundane team.

How are you going to factor role-playing into this? Some facets of the game are simply not accounted for by simple I/O, pass/fail outcomes. Sure, coercing information from an unwilling target is one thing and would require a skill check, but introducing yourself to a church and offering to assist them with their problems in exchange for information is not something that should require a roll, unless you're trying to get more than what is offered out of the situation.


-25 Point buy and wealth as normal per level (including average starting gold for the Level 1 challenge). Unlike RPGA, Evil-aligned characters are permitted.
-Team Caster should not rely on infinite loops that are already known problems for the game. Nonmagical exploits that are well-known should not be used either by any team (like gaming the item prices with ladders/poles).

I appreciate you going with 25 PB. Nothing to say on infinite loops other than the fact that the lack of their inclusion should be a no brainer.


-While not strictly forbidden, Team Mundane should not attempt to get caster features onto them, mostly trying to play true to their class' kit.

Now, does this prohibit specific alternate class features like the rogue's reflect spell? How about spelltouched feats? You're severely limiting fair options without likewise doing the same for spellcasters, which is the opposite of your proposed playtest experiment.


-The DM may adjudicate stuff where the rules are muddy or undefined, but should try to stick with RAW/RAI when possible. Additionally, the hostiles and environments etc. should be the same for both teams.

Personally, I'm not interested in this silly game of attempting to play who's quarterstaff is stronger, because it seriously doesn't matter. What matters are the real people at real tables playing real games and sharing real friendship. If all of that is working, whether the wizard is stronger than the fighter is irrelevant.

[Acanous]

Is there a blurb in the rules that supports this?

Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)

Silent image is a Figment. Mindless creatures are not immune to it, and completely lack intelligence.

From Ability Scores:
Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information
-snip-
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons
-snip-

So to summarize, a mindless creature cannot reason out that a spellcaster just put an illusion of a wall in front of it, like an intelligent creature may suspect (especially if it dealt with casters before). If it has multiple senses like tremorsense, it cannot analyze the conflicting information. (It knows the creature is behind that wall, but also that there’s a wall in the way.)

Unless your mindless critters bang into walls on the regular, they have no basis for banging into this one, and they cannot reason out that there’s something off here.


Silent image is super good vs mindless things

[Nifft]

Wait wait wait wait wait... so, you're saying that because options exist that a mundane character could take to cover a known weakness, the sources of those options should be banned?

I think the post was saying that a mundane taking a Spell-Like Ability or Supernatural power as a feat would no longer be mundane.

But I might be wrong about that.

[Aetis]

Okay. WotC didn't know what balance was when they wrote 3.5, and melees as written are worth less than the dirt casters as written tread on. Maybe even less. I'm just saying what the DM does matters more.

I limit players to something like Core + PHB2 + Completes minus Divine/Psionic, every race with mental stat bonus banned, with entirety of Polymorph school banned, abrupt jaunt nerfed to swift action, Metamagic Persist banned, DMM legal but no nightsticks or any other trick to expand your turning pool except stuff like extra turning, Glibness banned, Glitterdust nerfed, bunch of other caster tricks and spells -I can't remember off top of my head- nerfed/banned, limit campaign to lv 1~10, and throw something like dozen or two combat encounters a day to thin out the spell slots to the breaking point. Everyone optimizes to hell and back, casters and melee contribute about the same to the campaign, and everyone has a lot of fun.

Casters might or might not be broken on your table. I don't know, because I don't know how you run your games. As written they are insanely strong, but I assure you they are quite balanced in my games.

[RoboEmperor]

Okay. WotC didn't know what balance was when they wrote 3.5, and melees as written are worth less than the dirt casters as written tread on. Maybe even less. I'm just saying what the DM does matters more.

I limit players to something like Core + PHB2 + Completes minus Divine/Psionic, every race with mental stat bonus banned, with entirety of Polymorph school banned, abrupt jaunt nerfed to swift action, Metamagic Persist banned, DMM legal but no nightsticks or any other trick to expand your turning pool except stuff like extra turning, Glibness banned, Glitterdust nerfed, bunch of other caster tricks and spells -I can't remember off top of my head- nerfed/banned, limit campaign to lv 1~10, and throw something like dozen or two combat encounters a day to thin out the spell slots to the breaking point. Everyone optimizes to hell and back, casters and melee contribute about the same to the campaign, and everyone has a lot of fun.

Casters might or might not be broken on your table. I don't know, because I don't know how you run your games. As written they are insanely strong, but I assure you they are quite balanced in my games.

No offense but I wouldn't play in your game. You turned 3.5 into 5e. Games run fine with the gentleman's agreement and everything allowed, and this results in very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles, but by removing everything unique about 3.5 you turned 3.5 into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e.

People who know what they're doing (especially with their wealth) create mundanes that excel in combat even at level 20. So with all your banning all you've done is stunt your game mastery of the game. You will never get better now.

Anyways to each his own, no judgment.

[ryu]

That and taking away a bunch of fun tricks from casters doesn't solve the imbalance. Even if mundanes could match casters in combat, they can't but lets pretend, they're still incapable of doing much of anything out of combat. The casters never stop being relevant while mundanes very much do.

[Aetis]

No offense but I wouldn't play in your game. You turned 3.5 into 5e. Games run fine with the gentleman's agreement and everything allowed, and this results in very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles, but by removing everything unique about 3.5 you turned 3.5 into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e.

People who know what they're doing (especially with their wealth) create mundanes that excel in combat even at level 20. So with all your banning all you've done is stunt your game mastery of the game. You will never get better now.

Anyways to each his own, no judgment.

Sorry, but I detest 5e. Every build is same to the second approximation, build ceilings were brought down, and bounded accuracy was one of the worst things I've seen in D&D. My game contains very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles. As for system mastery, I've already played the high levels of 3.5 repeatedly. Played for years and years and years and ran into all kinds of weird tricks and optimizations from books all over. Eventually, I got tired. I sat down and thought about it. Tried a bunch of different things. This is the best solution I've found, and if you disagree with me, then you disagree.

But I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of "removing everything unique about 3.5 and turned it into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e". Thanks.

[Aetis]

That and taking away a bunch of fun tricks from casters doesn't solve the imbalance. Even if mundanes could match casters in combat, they can't but lets pretend, they're still incapable of doing much of anything out of combat. The casters never stop being relevant while mundanes very much do.

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

[ryu]

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

[AnimeTheCat]

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment, but wands, staffs, scrolls, and other restorative magic items kind of take that bit of resource management off the table for all spellcasters.


So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

I wouldn't agree with hundreds, but what you're saying is true. It's very difficult to exhaust a spellcaster's resources.

[Aetis]

So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

Go ahead and name your hundreds of methods. I will let you know if they are banned or not.

[ryu]

Go ahead and name your hundreds of methods. I will let you know if they are banned or not.

No need to bother. Anything capable of doing it is almost assuredly banned. This is because you haven't turned the game into 5th. You've turned it into 4TH.

[Aetis]

No need to bother. Anything capable of doing it is almost assuredly banned. This is because you haven't turned the game into 5th. You've turned it into 4TH.

Ugh, I hate 4th even more than 5th. Everything is basically a warblade there.

Why would you want unlimited resources anyway? Don't you want a challenge of resource management?

[ryu]

Ugh, I hate 4th even more than 5th. Everything is basically a warblade there.

Why would you want unlimited resources anyway? Don't you want a challenge of resource management?

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

[eggynack]

When did I ever give that impression? No, I am assuming that either both are filled with buffs to the brim, or both only have long duration ones. I am even admitting that the cleric has a few extra buffs on the martial. And in both cases the martial trounces the cleric. The fighter can fight reasonably well with just his equipment, while the cleric cannot. I am merely rebutting your claim that a buffed cleric can fight in melee better than a martial. This only happens if the cleric cast on himself every single buff spell on the list, including many with a duration of 1round/level, while the martial has nothing. I am not making any asymetrical assumption. I am merely looking at common conditions of a dungeon run, or a scry and die encounter.

How is the fighter getting these buffs, precisely? You're saying they're short duration, so they're being cast in combat. Presumably the fighter's party and the cleric's party are the same, apart from themselves, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that the parties are literally just the character in question and a friendly wizard. In order to give the fighter buffs, the wizard needs to, y'know, cast them. At the same time, we can assume that the cleric is casting buffs on themselves. What is the cleric's wizard doing while this is going on?

Wizard stuff, I assert. Cause, y'know, they're a wizard. So, instead of tossing out some spell to get the cleric up to the competence level that they're attempting to acquire on their own, the they're casting, I dunno, black tentacles. If the fighter's wizard casts a second buff spell, the cleric's wizard also uses, say, stinking cloud. So, here's the question. Who is better at killing a group of monsters? A buffed fighter, or a buffed cleric facing down enemies that are being destroyed by crowd control spells?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. In order to not make asymmetrical assumptions here, the cleric party is necessarily putting out more spells, and spells are good. Maybe in a vacuum the buffed fighter is better than the self buffed cleric, but it makes no sense for the situation to be a vacuum in this sense. The end result is that the cleric party can kill the enemies significantly more efficiently. And, if the situation calls for something besides face hitting, they can do that as well.

[Aetis]

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

Well, if you hate resource management that much, maybe you should give 4th edition a try.

I think resource management is an interesting puzzle to solve, and one that the WotC, in all their glorious incompetence, wanted us to try and figure out.

(You have the wizard who can do 100% 3 times a day, 75% 5 times a day, 50% 7 times a day, and 25% 9 times a day, and then you have the fighter who can do 50% all the time. Devote your resources correctly and solve the X encounters and try to make it to next day, but you don't know many or how difficult the encounters are going to be.)

~~

ryu, I'm not trying to fight with you or whatever. I just have my way of doing things. If you think that's bad and that you'll never play in one, that's fine, but please don't bash. Or compare me to 4th or 5th ed.

[AnimeTheCat]

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

I think that resource management adds a very fun mechanic to most games, be they TTRPG or video game or family board game. Ensuring the game does not suffer from "Magalixir Syndrome" is the aim. Having limits on powerful abilities, especially when they are game altering, is necessary for continued play in most cases.

In the case of video games vs 3.5 specifically is that you have far more encounters in a standard video game day than in a d&d 3.5 day. Where in d&d you can expect 3-6 encounters at least, in a standard video game, you can expect 2-3 times as many, and that's a minimum.

That's just my opinion though, I enjoy a more strict resource management aspect to my games. Something like XCOM does it well by having restricted special resources per encounter, like abilities and grenades, while balancing that with unlimited use resources per encounter like ammunition and secondary attacks, all while being restricted by action point costs. In that instance, the playing field is leveled by resource management, not upheaved by it.

[ryu]

Well, if you hate resource management that much, maybe you should give 4th edition a try.

I think resource management is an interesting puzzle to solve, and one that the WotC, in all their glorious incompetence, wanted us to try and figure out.

(You have the wizard who can do 100% 3 times a day, 75% 5 times a day, 50% 7 times a day, and 25% 9 times a day, and then you have the fighter who can do 50% all the time. Devote your resources correctly and solve the X encounters and try to make it to next day, but you don't know many or how difficult the encounters are going to be.)

~~

ryu, I'm not trying to fight with you or whatever. I just have my way of doing things. If you think that's bad and that you'll never play in one, that's fine, but please don't bash. Or compare me to 4th or 5th ed.

4th is full of resource management. It's just that it's less noticeable because everyone's options are melee attack, move, or use one of your actually relevant limited resource actions. It has resource management and no meaningful decisions to make that are non-obvious. Possibly because they cut out all the fun spells. You may feel the comparison is unfair, but the reasons I hate the system are for having done exactly what you're describing.

[Aetis]

4th is full of resource management. It's just that it's less noticeable because everyone's options are melee attack, move, or use one of your actually relevant limited resource actions. It has resource management and no meaningful decisions to make that are non-obvious. Possibly because they cut out all the fun spells. You may feel the comparison is unfair, but the reasons I hate the system are for having done exactly what you're describing.

Really!? My experience with 4th goes: Fight Start - Per-Encounter - At-will - At-will - At-will, etc.

Unless Boss Fight Start, then Per-Daily - Per-Encounter - At-will - At-will - At-will, etc.

[ryu]

The fact your resource limited relevant actions are, in fact, sharply limited doesn't change the fact you're managing a resource.

[MeimuHakurei]

Well, the above was just me trying to set a baseline field in which mundane/caster performance can be balanced against one another. I just thought the wierd magic classes, the martial adepts and meldshapers would be too much of a distraction from the things we actually want to test. If you think that my means of testing are insufficient/lacking, by all means suggest a better method.

Maybe it would help if we post actual builds to demonstrate a competent martial/mundane or what kind of power level casters can achieve - I don't claim to be the best optimizer, but I think I can throw out a baseline 8th level wizard that should be a modest level of optimization. Not gonna bother with consumable items (leaving a bit money over for that) and gonna keep the spellbook to the level-up spells to save time.

8th Level Elf Wizard
8 STR, 16 DEX, 12 CON, 20 INT, 13 WIS, 8 CHA
29 HP (8d4+8)
15 AC, 14 Touch, 12 Flat-Footed (+3 Dex, +1 Deflection, +1 Natural)
+7 Init
+7 Fort, +7 Ref, +9 Will

Immune to Sleep
+2 saves vs. enchantment
Low-Light Vision
Weapon Familiarity (Elf)
+2 Listen, Search, Spot

School Focus (Conjuration)
Barred Schools (Illusion, Enchantment)
Familiar (Rat)
L1 Bonus Feat (Scribe Scroll)
L5 Bonus Feat (Craft Wondrous Item)

Level 1 feat: Improved Initiative
Level 3 feat: Extend Spell
Level 6 feat: Spell Focus (Conjuration)

Attribute Score Improvements: INT x2

Equipment:
-Spellbook + Robes (free)
-Lesser Metamagic Silent Rod (3000 gp)
-Headband of Intellect +2 (4000 gp)
-Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4000 gp)
-Cloak of Resistance +2 (4000 gp)
-Ring of Protection +1 (2000 gp)
-Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2000 gp)
-Quarterstaff (free)
-+1 Light Crossbow (2335 gp)
-Handy Haversack (2000 gp)
-3665 gp worth of scrolls, wands and bolts

Spellbook (all 0th level, 9 1st level, 4 2nd level, 4 3rd level, 4 4th level spells):
1st: Enlarge Person, Grease, Magic Missile, Summon Monster I, Shield, Ray of Enfeeblement, Reduce Person, Mage Armor, Obscuring Mist
2nd: Glitterdust, Web, Alter Self, Rope Trick
3rd: Dispel Magic, Phantom Steed, Stinking Cloud, Haste
4th: Dimension Door, Summon Monster IV, Wall of Ice, Polymorph

Spells per day:
0th: 4
1st: 7 (4 +2 from Int +1 Conj)
2nd: 5 (3 +1 from Int +1 Conj)
3rd: 5 (3 +1 from Int +1 Conj)
4th: 4 (2 +1 from Int +1 Conj)

Save DCs:
0th: 15 (16 Conj)
1st: 16 (17 Conj)
2nd: 17 (18 Conj)
3rd: 18 (19 Conj)
4th: 19 (20 Conj)


Edit: Altered one feat and added spells per day and Save DCs.

[Aetis]

The fact your resource limited relevant actions are, in fact, sharply limited doesn't change the fact you're managing a resource.

So your argument is that 4e has resource management, but 3.5e doesn't. Resource management is stupid, therefore 3.5 is awesome and 4e sucks.

I don't think I have ever met a person who has argued that 4e has more resource management than 3.5. I believe you are the first to do so.

I'm quite flabbergasted.

[ryu]

So your argument is that 4e has resource management, but 3.5e doesn't. Resource management is stupid, therefore 3.5 is awesome and 4e sucks.

I don't think I have ever met a person who has argued that 4e has more resource management than 3.5. I believe you are the first to do so.

I'm quite flabbergasted.

You can bring resource management into 3.5 if you decided not to take options that give you more resources than you'll ever feasibly spend. You cannot, to my knowledge, take the resource management out of 4E. You can argue that because you have only one or two things to manage that there isn't that much management. This is a sign of a deeper problem. You don't have OPTIONS. Believe it or not a system can suck for more than one reason.

[Nifft]

I'm quite flabbergasted.

Psst, someone's trying to troll you into either an edition-war derail, or a theory-craft derail.

[Aetis]

Damn it.

I should have seen it from "hundreds of ways to get infinite resources".

[ryu]

Damn it.

I should have seen it from "hundreds of ways to get infinite resources".

Nah. He's just another person from another thread who proceeded to doubt everything from my motives to my capability to defend items. He then decided to come into this discussion to snipe at me because he wants a way to get at me after going on the ignore list. Unbeknownst to him accusing someone of trolling is against the rules. I even got a warning for it once.

[Nifft]

Nah. He's just another person from another thread who proceeded to doubt everything from my motives to my capability to defend items. He then decided to come into this discussion to snipe at me because he wants a way to get at me after going on the ignore list. Unbeknownst to him accusing someone of trolling is against the rules. I even got a warning for it once.

Son, I've been here since page one. Go fact-check that and report back.

You've been trying to pick a fight in several other threads, but those threads are other topics, and that's not at all why I'm here.

[ryu]

I said discussion. Not thread.

[Acanous]

Thread’s gonna get put down before I ever get a reply about illusions at this rate. Can we maybe not snipe at each other for a page or two?

[ryu]

Thread’s gonna get put down before I ever get a reply about illusions at this rate. Can we maybe not snipe at each other for a page or two?

Sadly I can't really respond in a conversational manner to you if i remember properly. We were in full agreement about silent image defeating all mindless right? I'm not mistaking you for the guy who went on to explain that? Or were you the guy who asked for an explanation and didn't notice when it was given by someone else?

[Elkad]

Telling your skeletons "Destroy any creature in the room. If there are no creatures, walk the perimeter, ignoring any obstacle." defeats Silent Image.

Sure, they may not see you behind that fake wall, but then they return to their default programming and walk right through it.

[ryu]

Assuming they understand an instruction that complex. Wasn't there a rule that all commands to mindless had to be simple?

[Elkad]

Assuming they understand an instruction that complex. Wasn't there a rule that all commands to mindless had to be simple?

That seems pretty simple to me. As simple as "destroy any creature that doesn't repeat the password every round", or "destroy every creature not wearing an amulet like this", both of which are common instructions.

[ryu]

That seems pretty simple to me. As simple as "destroy any creature that doesn't repeat the password every round", or "destroy every creature not wearing an amulet like this", both of which are common instructions.

That instruction requires complex memory and spacial reasoning. It has to understand the concept of what a perimeter is, and it has to remember measurements. For that matter the kill instruction either leaves your room open to undead infiltration by enemy undead or has your undead kill each each other depending on adjudication.

Edit: No wait destroy. They kill each other.

[RoboEmperor]

I was looking in the rules to support Ryu's claim because mindless creatures are usually limited to simple commands, and simple commands are always "attack this, defend that, go there" etc. so conditional commands (if this, then that, else that) are arguably too complicated, BUT, I could not find anything for animate dead, only Giant Vermin.

[ryu]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm

Animate dead lists a very specific list of things you can make them do, and doesn't include language allowing instructions beyond that. You have follow, attack, stay, and attack specific creature type. That is the limit unless you find something with more generous instructions.

[Acanous]

Specific orders could trump certain uses of SI, sure, but “ignore any obstacle” means your undead are in some pretty serious trouble from grease, marbles, caltrops, or a closed door. Seems like a lot of mundane and spell related hazards you’re telling them to just eat in order to beat one lv 1 illusion. Even still, that’s only when you’ve got a necromancer with some illusion paranoia giving the instructions. Most of the time, mindless undead/constructs/vermin/oozes in the dungeon aren’t going to have any counter for Figments.

The game changes somewhat if there’s a wizard there directing the mindless thing.

[ryu]

Specific orders could trump certain uses of SI, sure, but “ignore any obstacle” means your undead are in some pretty serious trouble from grease, marbles, caltrops, or a closed door. Seems like a lot of mundane and spell related hazards you’re telling them to just eat in order to beat one lv 1 illusion. Even still, that’s only when you’ve got a necromancer with some illusion paranoia giving the instructions. Most of the time, mindless undead/constructs/vermin/oozes in the dungeon aren’t going to have any counter for Figments.

The game changes somewhat if there’s a wizard there directing the mindless thing.

That's assuming you even can give orders like that. Did you find some spell or item with a control clause more generous than the base animate? Oh is command undead more generous?

Edit: Ah it says "and so on" certainly doesn't suggest anything complex though.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm

[icefractal]

The thing is, if you're talking about a campaign where NI loops to get unlimited spells / day are allowed, why wouldn't a bag of unlimited consumables be allowed too? They're both technically possible RAW, if IMO not desirable. So in that case, non-casters have unlimited buffs as well.

[ryu]

The thing is, if you're talking about a campaign where NI loops to get unlimited spells / day are allowed, why wouldn't a bag of unlimited consumables be allowed too? They're both technically possible RAW, if IMO not desirable. So in that case, non-casters have unlimited buffs as well.

Not technically ni. Just way more than you'd likely use. All based on finite resources, tradeoffs, and emergency items. I mean if you count fortifying bedroll plus rope trick plus find a quiet spot and keep a watch rotation then technically no limit as long as that works, but if not no infinite. Just much more efficient spell getting than mundanes have access to.

It's like the simple tricks for learning every wizard spell. Even paying for them, with properly optimized transactions, it technically costs less than level 20 WBL. Much much less if you leave out spells that are obviously crap.

[Acanous]

Unicorn arrow is *amazing*, why did you leave it out??

[ryu]

Unicorn arrow is *amazing*, why did you leave it out??

That spell was so bad I nearly contracted a minor form of cancer. That's why. Like... At level one it would be a fun positioning tool with a moderate damage effect. Consistent. Not cream of the crop but usable. Two it's bad. Three... Why? Just... Why?!

[icefractal]

Not technically ni. Just way more than you'd likely use. All based on finite resources, tradeoffs, and emergency items. I mean if you count fortifying bedroll plus rope trick plus find a quiet spot and keep a watch rotation then technically no limit as long as that works, but if not no infinite. Just much more efficient spell getting than mundanes have access to.That wouldn't be, no. Although whether that gives you "more than you'd use" depends on the situation. Multi-day dungeon crawl? Yes. Storming a location to raid it before reinforcements can be alerted and teleport in? Not so much.

I was talking about things like "I use my hyper-fast time demiplane to recover spells in a single round" or "I use free wishes to recover my full set of Crafted Contingencies within a Time Stop if any get used", which I've seen mentioned here before.

Edit: Got curious about Unicorn Arrow, so I looked it up. Um, wow - I have to agree with ryu here, that is not good at ... probably any character level. Looks especially sad when compared to Kelpstrand and Telekinetic Thrust.

[Lans]

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

I disagree, there is long term buffs, minions, equipment, controlling undead, and the whole druid thing. A cleric with the right feats might be able to lay down some damage.


How is the fighter getting these buffs, precisely? You're saying they're short duration, so they're being cast in combat. Presumably the fighter's party and the cleric's party are the same, apart from themselves, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that the parties are literally just the character in question and a friendly wizard. In order to give the fighter buffs, the wizard needs to, y'know, cast them. At the same time, we can assume that the cleric is casting buffs on themselves. What is the cleric's wizard doing while this is going on?

Wizard stuff, I assert. Cause, y'know, they're a wizard. So, instead of tossing out some spell to get the cleric up to the competence level that they're attempting to acquire on their own, the they're casting, I dunno, black tentacles. If the fighter's wizard casts a second buff spell, the cleric's wizard also uses, say, stinking cloud. So, here's the question. Who is better at killing a group of monsters? A buffed fighter, or a buffed cleric facing down enemies that are being destroyed by crowd control spells?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. In order to not make asymmetrical assumptions here, the cleric party is necessarily putting out more spells, and spells are good. Maybe in a vacuum the buffed fighter is better than the self buffed cleric, but it makes no sense for the situation to be a vacuum in this sense. The end result is that the cleric party can kill the enemies significantly more efficiently. And, if the situation calls for something besides face hitting, they can do that as well.

If the buff lets the fighter get into position with a spike chain+ mage slayer+trip/lockdown stuff it might be okay

[ryu]

That wouldn't be, no. Although whether that gives you "more than you'd use" depends on the situation. Multi-day dungeon crawl? Yes. Storming a location to raid it before reinforcements can be alerted and teleport in? Not so much.

I was talking about things like "I use my hyper-fast time demiplane to recover spells in a single round" or "I use free wishes to recover my full set of Crafted Contingencies within a Time Stop if any get used", which I've seen mentioned here before.

Edit: Got curious about Unicorn Arrow, so I looked it up. Um, wow - I have to agree with ryu here, that is not good at ... probably any character level. Looks especially sad when compared to Kelpstrand and Telekinetic Thrust.

Nah. That's high level stuff at the point where you don't need to optimize to have all the spells you'd realistically need. I was talking about the gradual escalation of tricks that make a career. Why? Can't have people thinking wizards are only superior at high levels. They're plenty scary at level one and just get scarier from there. Even without fiery burst strats, a wizard built to focus on level one is second only to druids. The ability to singlehandedly end common encounters and one of the best level one defenses in the game are a hard act to top. That you can have both of these while almost assuredly going first in combat? Nasty.

[RoboEmperor]

I disagree, there is long term buffs, minions, equipment, controlling undead, and the whole druid thing. A cleric with the right feats might be able to lay down some damage.

Well... he banned anything remotely fun from his game and never goes past level 10 so... arguably most if not all the things you're thinking of is probably banned.

[Aetis]

Well... he banned anything remotely fun from his game and never goes past level 10 so... arguably most if not all the things you're thinking of is probably banned.

Bro, you need to chill.

[Aetis]

I disagree, there is long term buffs, minions, equipment, controlling undead, and the whole druid thing. A cleric with the right feats might be able to lay down some damage

You're right. They are not not relevant. They can do all that and a lot more probably.

[Acanous]

Edit: Got curious about Unicorn Arrow, so I looked it up. Um, wow - I have to agree with ryu here, that is not good at ... probably any character level. Looks especially sad when compared to Kelpstrand and Telekinetic Thrust.
That’s the joke. I have no idea what spells he meant when he said he’d leave out the obviously bad ones- except I was sure he’d leave out Unicorn Arrow.

In all fairness it’s a hilarious spell to have on NPCs, especially if you want to hit the party with a bit of a softer encounter without feeling like they deserve less XP.

Or on like a kobold sorcerer who enjoys a higher than usual caster level and pit traps.

[Troacctid]

FAQ is questionable RAW at best. Especially after the attempted stealth nerf of arcane thesis that later got smacked down officially poisoning the well.
I don't think you can take the high ground on questionable RAW if you're arguing that you can use Precocious Apprentice to qualify for Fiery Burst.


Unless your mindless critters bang into walls on the regular, they have no basis for banging into this one, and they cannot reason out that there’s something off here.
Zombies will totally try to break through walls if they sense prey on the other side. It's like a whole trope. Like every zombie movie has a scene where the protagonists board up the doors and windows and zombies are pounding at the walls trying to get in, and then someone is standing too close and an arm bursts through to grab them. It's classic.

As for golems, if they're programmed to follow a certain route with a certain dungeon layout, why would they change that route just because a new wall appeared? It's perfectly plausible that their pathfinding algorithm might not know about the new obstacle until they bump into it and are forced to recalibrate.

Really in either case it seems like it would be very easy for it to vary based on the specific way the creator programmed the creature.


Sorry, but I detest 5e. Every build is same to the second approximation, build ceilings were brought down, and bounded accuracy was one of the worst things I've seen in D&D.
Bounded accuracy is fine but the rest of this is pretty fair.

[ryu]

I don't think you can take the high ground on questionable RAW if you're arguing that you can use Precocious Apprentice to qualify for Fiery Burst.


Zombies will totally try to break through walls if they sense prey on the other side. It's like a whole trope. Like every zombie movie has a scene where the protagonists board up the doors and windows and zombies are pounding at the walls trying to get in, and then someone is standing too close and an arm bursts through to grab them. It's classic.

As for golems, if they're programmed to follow a certain route with a certain dungeon layout, why would they change that route just because a new wall appeared? It's perfectly plausible that their pathfinding algorithm might not know about the new obstacle until they bump into it and are forced to recalibrate.

Really in either case it seems like it would be very easy for it to vary based on the specific way the creator programmed the creature.


Bounded accuracy is fine but the rest of this is pretty fair.

Literally the only position I hold that is in any way RAW contentious and the main source of contention is the source I was throwing shade at. I will high-ground all I want.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In all fairness it’s a hilarious spell to have on NPCs, especially if you want to hit the party with a bit of a softer encounter without feeling like they deserve less XP.

Yep. Melf's unicorn arrow may be suboptimal compared to other shove-your-enemies-around spells, but there's nothing quite like a fabulously flamboyant mailman sorcerer slaying enemies with volleys of flying unicorns from his eyes with maximized empowered twinned ocular Melf's unicorn arrows--while summoning unicorns, riding a winged unicorn, wearing a robe of scintillating colors, and supplementing the arrows with quickened prismatic sprays, of course. Not the strongest NPC I've ever thrown against my party, but definitely one of the more memorable ones. :smallbiggrin:

[RoboEmperor]

Zombies will totally try to break through walls if they sense prey on the other side. It's like a whole trope. Like every zombie movie has a scene where the protagonists board up the doors and windows and zombies are pounding at the walls trying to get in, and then someone is standing too close and an arm bursts through to grab them. It's classic.

That's a fair point. So either...
1. Zombies will stand still doing nothing because they are at a loss at what to do (they don't know how to get to their targets)
Or
2. Zombies will attack the wall because they know something is on the other side.

I think 2. is actually more likely because that's what a violent mindless beast would do.

Now the question is, lets say you create an image of a human. Would the zombie endlessly swipe at the image trying to kill it? Or would it be able to recognize it's not a creature and move on? On one hand they are incapable of figuring out whether something is real or not, on the other hand... arguably zombies can differentiate between dead creatures and alive creatures so perhaps the image won't work at all.

[ryu]

On the other hand the zombie doesn't KNOW anything. It's mindless. The term know literally never applies to them. It's an automation whose only native functions are walk, wait, and kill. Every spell involving them is very clear and unambiguous about this.

[Acanous]

Sure if you make an illusion of a flimsy wall where it can still see you... but why not a stone wall, or a pile of rubble, or a sheet of solid metal? Zombies lack any special senses beyond dark vision, so they’d just see an impassable barricade, with no tasty meats behind it.

As for the golem, I could see painting a path on the floor or something and saying “follow this line, kill anyone you find” to be able to go right through an illusion, but recall the silent image can be of anything. You can huddle in a corner off its route and look like rubble, or a pillar, or a tapestry. Mindless things lack skill ranks and have incredibly poor search checks.

Once you’re hidden, plink away, or just wait for it to leave and bypass the encounter.

Also, spell thematics on that ocular melf’s unicorn arrow. Every time.

Edit: in the case where a mindless thing would directly interact with a figment, it gets a will save. So basically if you’re trying to crash through the illusions, you get a save or end up believing it’s too solid to plow through.

[Troacctid]

Now the question is, lets say you create an image of a human. Would the zombie endlessly swipe at the image trying to kill it? Or would it be able to recognize it's not a creature and move on? On one hand they are incapable of figuring out whether something is real or not, on the other hand... arguably zombies can differentiate between dead creatures and alive creatures so perhaps the image won't work at all.
Zombies have senses other than sight. I think it's highly likely they'd be able to smell the difference. You'd probably want at least a major image in order for it to be convincing.


On the other hand the zombie doesn't KNOW anything. It's mindless. The term know literally never applies to them. It's an automation whose only native functions are walk, wait, and kill. Every spell involving them is very clear and unambiguous about this.
So how do they "know" how walls work in the first place?


Sure if you make an illusion of a flimsy wall where it can still see you... but why not a stone wall, or a pile of rubble, or a sheet of solid metal? Zombies lack any special senses beyond dark vision, so they’d just see an impassable barricade, with no tasty meats behind it.
If a zombie would try to claw through a wooden wall, you have to figure it would try to bang on a metal wall. It doesn't know about hardness.


As for the golem, I could see painting a path on the floor or something and saying “follow this line, kill anyone you find” to be able to go right through an illusion, but recall the silent image can be of anything. You can huddle in a corner off its route and look like rubble, or a pillar, or a tapestry. Mindless things lack skill ranks and have incredibly poor search checks.

Once you’re hidden, plink away, or just wait for it to leave and bypass the encounter.
Honestly, it seems unlikely that the golem's creator wouldn't think of that and create a protocol for it.

[Acanous]

Most golems are used as a single layer of security, not as the whole department. It’s wandering the halls to keep pests out and discourage plundering adventurers. Being that it’s immune to spells, it’s less likely the creator will care to tell it to “try to move through any obstructions you find” and would much more likely have an alarm spell after the first layer of security. If they get that golems have a ****ty spot/search, they’ll know wizards and rogues will sneak by, and will set up the alarm so they can teleport in and direct the golem.
Further, instructions you can give golems have to be pretty simple. “Patrol that hall” works, but you can’t build a gambit system for the golem to engage in different behaviours.

Golems that are guarding shops haven’t been told “catch anyone who tries to steal”, they’ve been told “stand there” and the shopkeeper gives them new orders as appropriate. That’s how mindless stuff works in dnd

[Cosi]

Spot is not a class skill for warriors (which make the average guard). No, I do not expect an npc to keep a cross-class skill maxxed.

But clearly every patrol will have both see invisibility and detect magic. Because casting is less effective at stealth, so people will invest more of their resources in counters to stealthy casters. Another position that is definitely 100% logical and 0% bad faith attempts to make classes you like look good.


I thought I already answered those kind of questions: because a rogue with buffs and skill can do more than a caster with buffs but not skill.

Do you not know what the Beguiler is? The Beguiler has every Rogue class skill except Craft and Use Rope, and all the Rogue-ish utility spells, and access to Spellcraft, and the best casting mechanic in the entire game. The Beguiler isn't "buffs but not skills" it's buffs and skills without having to beg the rest of the party to give it buffs. It does exactly what the mundane does, except it is a net positive in terms of spell slots.


When did I ever give that impression? No, I am assuming that either both are filled with buffs to the brim, or both only have long duration ones. I am even admitting that the cleric has a few extra buffs on the martial. And in both cases the martial trounces the cleric. The fighter can fight reasonably well with just his equipment, while the cleric cannot. I am merely rebutting your claim that a buffed cleric can fight in melee better than a martial. This only happens if the cleric cast on himself every single buff spell on the list, including many with a duration of 1round/level, while the martial has nothing. I am not making any asymetrical assumption. I am merely looking at common conditions of a dungeon run, or a scry and die encounter.

Again, you don't get to assume the martial has buffs. He can't cast any buffs. I'm not assuming the Cleric has Fighter Bonus Feats of Rage (well, actually, you can get both of those with spells so he could, but still). You get your class features, because this is a question about the class.


Are we even reading the same thread? I absolutely admit there is a fundamental asymmetry between the classes. I did such an admission on practically every single post I made here. What I am actually claiming is that all the common boasts - that the only use a caster has for a martial is as pack animal, or that a cleric fights better than a fighter, or that a single 7th level spell can utterly dispose of any martial type - are utterly inflated.

And you've done nothing to disprove those, because your entire argument has been "if the Fighter convinces casters to use him as their dress up doll he might be marginally more effective than a Cleric in a sufficiently contrived situation". A Cleric can fight as well as a Fighter (the Fighters only class features are feats and BAB, and the Cleric gets both of those from spells below 5th level).


There is a vast gulf between claiming "martial are not useless and they can get their spot to shine" and claiming "martials are equal to tier 1 casters".

Any PC class (frankly, quite likely any class) can "get their spot to shine" in a sufficiently contrived situation. That standard is obviously stupid because it leads us to reject the notion that imbalance exists at all. What matters is the marginal value, and the Fighter's marginal value is negative. Because the Cleric can fight as well as the Fighter (or certainly "well enough") and also see the future and summon angels. So by playing a Fighter, you are denying the party your divination and summoning and telling them they have to spend their spell slots on you. It's like going to a restaurant without the money to pay for your meal then telling your friends they're being antisocial when they get upset.


Has that ever stopped a party from being ganked at a gaming session? If you are fighting opponents that are as powerful as you are (which should be the standard assumption here), assume that they have the same resources you do, and are as smart as you are. This means that for every time you ambush your enemies, you can expect to also be ambushed. Ambush scenarios happen in practical tabletop gaming.

Again, while reasonable at first glance this argument leads to conclusions that are absurd. If we assume that opposition will always rubber band to the same level of relative challenge, then yes it is utterly meaningless to have (or not have) any possible ability. Following this logic to its natural conclusion, playing a Commoner is a perfectly acceptable choice because the game will simply ratchet down the difficulty until you only lose as much as you would have playing an Incantatrix.


As I said, you clearly have better system mastery than I have, so I am sure you can do better; but you also can make a better warrior. I don't know, maybe something about grafts to also have many limbs, coupled with some of the "near-infinite reach and attacks of opportunity" builds, or some ubercharger for 1000+ damage per round? i have no idea how that works.

Yes, "get a bunch of grafts", a plan which definitely relies on any property of being a martial. In any case, "deal more damage" is not impressive scaling. Casters can already deal plenty of damage (Octopus Fu + Arcane Strike, for example), and also do other things. What does a 20th level martial have on evard's black tentacles?


If you guys really want to argue, you should set which house rules/material are in place first. I suspect that people whose ideas deviate from the general consensus have very different house rules/materials allowed than the "norm".

Nowhere is making arguments that are simply bad, regardless of houserules "mundanes are worthwhile because you can buff them to be worthwhile" is obviously and laughably false barring all but the most absurd houserules.


Wait wait wait wait wait... so, you're saying that because options exist that a mundane character could take to cover a known weakness, the sources of those options should be banned? That makes little to no sense. Either the playing field is equally open to all involved or it's equally restricted to all parties involved.

The goal of the contest as I understood it was to resolve whether casters were better than mundanes or not. While it is true that a Binder or an Incarnate is not a caster in the typical sense of getting spells, they seem pretty caster-ish in a conceptual sense. If you read a book where some group of people had the same basic powers as Truenamers, would you expect those people to be described as "mundane"?


Zombies have senses other than sight. I think it's highly likely they'd be able to smell the difference. You'd probably want at least a major image in order for it to be convincing.

Zombies do not have scent. A zombie smelling you at all is DM fiat. That zombie deciding to attempt to walk into an apparently solid wall because it thinks you are there rather than <any other action> is further DM fiat. Mindless creatures are a kind of puzzle monster. The design intention is very much that you use tricks like "illusion of a wall" or "wear the cultists robes" to defeat them.


Honestly, it seems unlikely that the golem's creator wouldn't think of that and create a protocol for it.

Golems aren't robots. They don't have a "protocol" at all, let alone more than one. They follow simple instructions, not complex, multi-layered paradigms for outfoxing illusions.

[Aetis]

Nowhere is making arguments that are simply bad, regardless of houserules "mundanes are worthwhile because you can buff them to be worthwhile" is obviously and laughably false barring all but the most absurd houserules.

Are you... going to throw a fit if I told you abrupt jaunt is swift action now? Flip a table if I told you polymorph is banned?

Everyone agrees casters are unimaginably stronger than martials, so I'm not sure why you start huffing and puffing when I say I nerf the casters when I play.

[Cosi]

Are you... going to throw a fit if I told you abrupt jaunt is swift action now? Flip a table if I told you polymorph is banned?

What part of my claim about the specific arguments a different poster was making looked to you like a claim that your particular houserules are dumb?

As it happens, my problem with your houserules is mostly that I think the level cap and the focus on combat are bad, not any of the particular changes you made. I do kind of agree with Ryu that if your goal is to play "a dozen or two dozen" combat encounters per day in an E10 environment, you might well be better served with 4e as a base.

[Aetis]

My apologies. I've been dealing with too many angry people.

Your criticisms are fair. I just think high-level stuff is kinda out of control and I don't want to deal with that stuff any more, you know?

Also, it turns out I find 3.5 combat interesting. 4e combat, not so much.

[MeimuHakurei]

Aetis, I personally think your houserules could be interesting to read and I think you should open a topic in which you present them to have a better platform to discuss them. I have a few thoughts on it myself (Swift Abrupt Jaunt is still useful, Polymorph may have been replaced by Pathfinder's shapeshift spells etc.) but I think that someone's house rules and balance changes aren't part of the topic (nor is whether 3.5 or 4e has better combat).

Also, casters doing melee damage is as easy as "Greater Enlarge into Draconic Polymorph to become a twelve-headed hydra and see how the enemies like 36d8+132 damage from one attack salvo", so yeah, even a Wizard isn't short on melee damage if it is necessary. And this is just casting two spells and requires no other prepwork whatsoever.

[Aetis]

I'm sorry. I'll stop derailing the thread.

[Calthropstu]

I honestly don't see any "high tier casters" doing overly well at low levels. Yeah, they can blow through all their spells per day in a single encounter, but they still tend to suck even then against anyone with marginally decent tactical acumen.
That third level wizard casts web... and the ogre rips right through it. Seen that happen more than once. The wizard casts an illusion, an orc with spellcraft correctly identifies the spell an tells his compatriots to ignore it. A wizard with color spray gets a single combatant with his spell... and then gets instagibbed by the archer. The wizard with mage armor + shield at 3rd level has just used 1/3 of his class abilities to mimic 250 gold worth of equipment. Yay? And only has the shield for a few minutes.
People claiming "wizards are powerhouses at first level" are talking out of their ass. Even those touting druids are just flat wrong. Animal companions are easily a terrible class feature that can be massively abused by an enemy. "Give my enemy a fairly weak companion feature that will pretty much eliminate them for an entire day if I manage to kill it... which is MUCH easier to eliminate than anyone else in the party? Yes please."
Hell, if I were a bbeg, I'd scry and die the animal companion just to hold the party in place for a day. Animal companions are weak sauce, more a liability in my experience than a help.
Great way to force a party split too as a gm. Kill the animal companion, set a trap outside town for the party. When the druid goes alone or with a single party member, splat. And druid spells leave much to be desired. Sure wildshape is kinda nifty, but a dedicated martial is usually better armored than anything you could change into. So yay? You have low ac and are scary... which means you draw focus fire and get to spend some time in the dirt.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I honestly don't see any "high tier casters" doing overly well at low levels. Yeah, they can blow through all their spells per day in a single encounter, but they still tend to suck even then against anyone with marginally decent tactical acumen.
That third level wizard casts web... and the ogre rips right through it. Seen that happen more than once. The wizard casts an illusion, an orc with spellcraft correctly identifies the spell an tells his compatriots to ignore it. A wizard with color spray gets a single combatant with his spell... and then gets instagibbed by the archer. The wizard with mage armor + shield at 3rd level has just used 1/3 of his class abilities to mimic 250 gold worth of equipment. Yay? And only has the shield for a few minutes.
People claiming "wizards are powerhouses at first level" are talking out of their ass. Even those touting druids are just flat wrong. Animal companions are easily a terrible class feature that can be massively abused by an enemy. "Give my enemy a fairly weak companion feature that will pretty much eliminate them for an entire day if I manage to kill it... which is MUCH easier to eliminate than anyone else in the party? Yes please."
Hell, if I were a bbeg, I'd scry and die the animal companion just to hold the party in place for a day. Animal companions are weak sauce, more a liability in my experience than a help.
Great way to force a party split too as a gm. Kill the animal companion, set a trap outside town for the party. When the druid goes alone or with a single party member, splat. And druid spells leave much to be desired. Sure wildshape is kinda nifty, but a dedicated martial is usually better armored than anything you could change into. So yay? You have low ac and are scary... which means you draw focus fire and get to spend some time in the dirt.

Hey, I'm the first to the party for saying animal companions get overrated (I think I was the first to bring it up in this thread, actually) but this seems even to me to be too far in the other direction. At low levels the critter is pretty tough, if slightly less so than a proper melee character. At mid- and higher levels, you gear it up if you care about it at all. If you don't, you don't take a day to replace it. You replace it when you have a spare day.

What I'm getting at is that the capitalized "much" there is probably not accurate most of the time.

[NineInchNall]

Any PC class (frankly, quite likely any class) can "get their spot to shine" in a sufficiently contrived situation. That standard is obviously stupid because it leads us to reject the notion that imbalance exists at all. What matters is the marginal value, and the Fighter's marginal value is negative. Because the Cleric can fight as well as the Fighter (or certainly "well enough") and also see the future and summon angels. So by playing a Fighter, you are denying the party your divination and summoning and telling them they have to spend their spell slots on you. It's like going to a restaurant without the money to pay for your meal then telling your friends they're being antisocial when they get upset.

Yep, this is really the fundamental truth of the Wizard/Fighter divide, which often gets lost in hyperbole. In real-world sports we have actual, formal statistics that represent players' marginal utility in just this way. Baseball uses Value Over Replacement Player (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player) and Wins Above Replacement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement); basketball uses Estimated Wins Added, which is basically like VORP/30.

At low levels, most decent classes have a low-positive VORP. The full-casters' VORP grows faster than anyone else's with levels, while things like Barbarian end up with negative VORP by the middle levels. (And things like the Dragonlance classes Mariner or Noble start in the negatives.)

[Acanous]

Honestly feel that 2e had the best caster/mundane balance. Took more Xp for a caster to level, all spells could be disrupted, and your spell slots were limited to the point where you’d rather take a rogue and prepare more combat stuff than skip the rogue and prep roguelike spells.

4e had a balance of sorts but that entire game was supposed to be played on a battle mat. Going off the mat brought the issues back.

5e does some good in giving fighters nice things that casters can’t get, but you’re still better off with a party of clerics. (Seriously, Spirit Guardians x4 and just walk through the dungeon. At any level above 3)

The problem was getting addressed in 3.5 near the end there. Make every fighter a Warblade. It at least keeps their VoR at par.

[ryu]

To be fair, setting your floor to T3 would make most reasonable people in 3.5 happy. No more being blatantly disappointed by classes incapable of doing what they're supposed to do. I'd never play a T3 mind, but I also wouldn't be thinking up essays across threads about the many interesting ways they're awful either. T3 is functional baseline. They never impress, but they consistently come in at nine and do exactly what you expected until five.

[AnimeTheCat]

The goal of the contest as I understood it was to resolve whether casters were better than mundanes or not. While it is true that a Binder or an Incarnate is not a caster in the typical sense of getting spells, they seem pretty caster-ish in a conceptual sense. If you read a book where some group of people had the same basic powers as Truenamers, would you expect those people to be described as "mundane"?


I don't think that exclusion of Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum was to prevent someone from using those classes though... The Shape Soulmeld feat is available for any character, not just meldshapers. It's a good feat to cover the weaknesses of the classes and are fesible for many classes to pick up. If Use Magic Device isn't banned for martial characters to use, why would Shape Soulmed or other feats available to literally any character be banned? That was my primary concern, and it just seemed arbitrary to restrict those two sources, but not dragon/dungeon magazine content. At least the books went through a marginal editing process wheras I feel that the magazines were mostly just neat ideas quickly thrown on paper every month. Just my opinion, nothing official from me.

[ryu]

I mean if you want to ban dragon too I'm pretty sure the mundanes hurt more relatively in the deal. The caster isn't gonna have trouble with most any reasonable challenge regardless. The mundanes might.

[Acanous]

Ban the magazine but allow the compendium, it went through more editing. Dragon mag is what I like to think of as official homebrew. Neat ideas, sure. But best used with care by a savvy DM, not tossed in whenever a player wants.

[Troacctid]

Zombies do not have scent. A zombie smelling you at all is DM fiat. That zombie deciding to attempt to walk into an apparently solid wall because it thinks you are there rather than <any other action> is further DM fiat. Mindless creatures are a kind of puzzle monster. The design intention is very much that you use tricks like "illusion of a wall" or "wear the cultists robes" to defeat them.
I'm not saying it wouldn't distract them, I'm just saying they wouldn't continue to swipe mindlessly at a silent image of a human.


Golems aren't robots. They don't have a "protocol" at all, let alone more than one. They follow simple instructions, not complex, multi-layered paradigms for outfoxing illusions.
They're totally robots.


But clearly every patrol will have both see invisibility and detect magic. Because casting is less effective at stealth, so people will invest more of their resources in counters to stealthy casters. Another position that is definitely 100% logical and 0% bad faith attempts to make classes you like look good.
Guard dogs do have scent! I'd consider a guard dog to be the standard mundane line of defense against invisibility. And incidentally does a great job against nonmagical stealth, too. That's part of why the Darkstalker feat—or at least a pair of trackless boots—is so important for stealthy characters.


Ban the magazine but allow the compendium, it went through more editing. Dragon mag is what I like to think of as official homebrew. Neat ideas, sure. But best used with care by a savvy DM, not tossed in whenever a player wants.
I don't think the magazine's problem is the lack of editing. It's more the lack of consolidation. Digging through all those issues is really annoying.

[eggynack]

Even those touting druids are just flat wrong. Animal companions are easily a terrible class feature that can be massively abused by an enemy. "Give my enemy a fairly weak companion feature that will pretty much eliminate them for an entire day if I manage to kill it... which is MUCH easier to eliminate than anyone else in the party? Yes please."
First of all, how does killing the animal companion eliminate the druid for an entire day? Yeah, the druid might want to bring the companion back at some point, but it's not like they have to. There is no sense in which this is a liability. Second, the animal companion isn't necessarily much easier to eliminate than anyone else in the party. At the early levels where it's most pertinent to power level discussions, it can be pretty beefy.

A riding dog at first level has 13 HP and 16 AC. Add leather barding and it becomes 18 AC, and, if you want to go the half-orc route, the HP jumps to 16. A frigging barbarian is probably less survivable (probably 14 HP, maybe 15 or 16 AC, and worse saves too for what it's worth at this point). At level two the martial dude jumps ahead, at level three the animal gets to probably a bit behind the martial, and then at level four the riding dog becomes a fleshraker. Probably a bit behind on HP, maybe a bit ahead on AC, and obviously a good amount of offensive capacity. If you want to go a bit deep, you can even toss on natural bond, which is liable to make the companion even more survivable than martial dudes.

After this point, I'd say the companion begins to lose its survivability edge relative to a standard martial character. But not by that much, and we're already at level five. Magic is relatively plentiful and quite powerful, wild shape is coming online, and, broadly speaking, the druid is no longer super reliant on the companion. It's great to have around, sure, acting as a friendly damage source when the fight is locked down,


Hell, if I were a bbeg, I'd scry and die the animal companion just to hold the party in place for a day. Animal companions are weak sauce, more a liability in my experience than a help.
Again, just to be clear on this, druids don't need an animal companion. There is no sense in which it is a liability. If the party has time, then it's a good thing to have around, but the druid is still tier one without it. Especially at the levels where scry and die tactics would be a possibility.


And druid spells leave much to be desired.
I think you're going to have to put a bit more work into justifying this. Bold claim for a single sentence.


Sure wildshape is kinda nifty, but a dedicated martial is usually better armored than anything you could change into. So yay? You have low ac and are scary... which means you draw focus fire and get to spend some time in the dirt.
If the druid is optimized, I'm not all that convinced the martial is better armored. Luminous armor with desmodu bat form alone gets you to between 25 and 29 AC, depending on whether the attack is melee or not, and that's with basically no cost. Also, you're flying around all the time, which is its own layer of defense. Also also, a wide variety of spells can operate as strong defenses, some of them even against things that aren't direct physical attacks. I'm doubtful that a dedicated martial could pull together a better defense than a reasonably optimized druid.

Finally, why is the druid scary? I mean, I think they're scary, but you think their spells leave a lot to be desired, that they have a liability animal friend (who's liable to keep attacking if the druid dies), and that their wild shape is just kinda nifty. Also, they're a bat. A glowy bat, granted, but I'm not all that sure a glowy bat is scarier than an armored dude within the argument you've constructed. It seems contradictory to claim that druids are simultaneously weak and a target.

[NineInchNall]

The problem was getting addressed in 3.5 near the end there. Make every fighter a Warblade. It at least keeps their VoR at par.

Going by eggynack's Retiering the Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base) threads, the average tier across 53 classes is 3.38, so yeah, tier 3 is about as close as you can get to the average replacement player.

[Acanous]

We could probably put together a revised 3.5 player’s handbook you know. Make it right here on the boards, put in T3 classes and remove all the trap feats. (That’s a whole nother conversation)

[Troacctid]

Going by eggynack's Retiering the Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base) threads, the average tier across 53 classes is 3.38, so yeah, tier 3 is about as close as you can get to the average replacement player.
Man, that project really needs to be finished.


We could probably put together a revised 3.5 player’s handbook you know. Make it right here on the boards, put in T3 classes and remove all the trap feats. (That’s a whole nother conversation)
Actually, a group of people already did that (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/rpg), and released it publicly, and it was even super popular. Right now there are more people playing it than 3.5.

[Acanous]

Pathfinder has *more* trap feats than 3.5. Like a lot more. And getting feats is, weirdly enough, harder despite the higher number of base feats.

[Vertharrad]

The truth is the problem is the system itself. To try and bridge the gap between casters and martials you would have to take a look back and use 2e's tact - ditch concentration like it's gone out of style, bring back segment casting, redo the spell lists, ditch the hit point bloat, rejigger the save system, and maybe even bring back class specific xp tables; too much would have to be changed to make it more viable. The other truth is that a number of tables won't even notice much disparity because people's natural inclination is to make a concept and take stuff to match it(no I didn't say "refluff" stuff to make it viable...show me where in the system that the term's crunch and fluff exist.), and they wan't to play with a team paradigm. Starfinder has tried it's own solution to casters...and due to many caster players bit**ing I think it worked.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The truth is the problem is the system itself. To try and bridge the gap between casters and martials you would have to take a look back and use 2e's tact - ditch concentration like it's gone out of style, bring back segment casting, redo the spell lists, ditch the hit point bloat, rejigger the save system, and maybe even bring back class specific xp tables; too much would have to be changed to make it more viable.

Honestly, it wouldn't even take that much, and this is coming from someone whose first instinct to fix an issue in 3e is to look back and borrow something from AD&D. Segment casting and different XP tables are pretty fiddly and really are more trouble than they're worth, and I dislike removing Concentration because (A) just like pretty much all harmful effects allow a save to avoid, losing a spell should allow some kind of roll to avoid it and (B) the idea of an experienced adventuring wizard automatically losing a spell to a few HP of damage is kinda silly. The spell lists are where the problem is, definitely, but you can count the number of spells you actually need to rewrite on one hand and the ones you need to ban on two (maybe three, if you're picky).

You really just need the spell interruption, saving throw, and HP bloat changes. Having all damage dealt between turns add up to provoke a Concentration check when a caster tries to cast, not just damage dealt on the same initiative count, would allow interrupting spellcasters much more easily without making it trivial to do. Improving save progressions so that Poor and Good progressions top out at +10 and +20 like half and full BAB instead of +6 and +12 would help with the DC 19+stat save DCs for top-level spells at that level (as an example; numbers can be fine-tuned to taste). Hit point bloat could be addressed in many ways--some combination of dropping Con bonuses to HP for each HD, changing what Con adds to, reducing monster HD, increasing weapon damage dice with level, making spells deal d6+X per CL, and more--depending on what exact issue you have with it.

This, of course, only affects balance in combat, and doesn't address noncombat contributions, but fixing that is less a rules issue and more getting people to stop wanting to play a class that "just hits things" and allow fighters to be cool and superhuman.

[Calthropstu]

First of all, how does killing the animal companion eliminate the druid for an entire day? Yeah, the druid might want to bring the companion back at some point, but it's not like they have to. There is no sense in which this is a liability. Second, the animal companion isn't necessarily much easier to eliminate than anyone else in the party. At the early levels where it's most pertinent to power level discussions, it can be pretty beefy.

A riding dog at first level has 13 HP and 16 AC. Add leather barding and it becomes 18 AC, and, if you want to go the half-orc route, the HP jumps to 16. A frigging barbarian is probably less survivable (probably 14 HP, maybe 15 or 16 AC, and worse saves too for what it's worth at this point). At level two the martial dude jumps ahead, at level three the animal gets to probably a bit behind the martial, and then at level four the riding dog becomes a fleshraker. Probably a bit behind on HP, maybe a bit ahead on AC, and obviously a good amount of offensive capacity. If you want to go a bit deep, you can even toss on natural bond, which is liable to make the companion even more survivable than martial dudes.

After this point, I'd say the companion begins to lose its survivability edge relative to a standard martial character. But not by that much, and we're already at level five. Magic is relatively plentiful and quite powerful, wild shape is coming online, and, broadly speaking, the druid is no longer super reliant on the companion. It's great to have around, sure, acting as a friendly damage source when the fight is locked down,

Again, just to be clear on this, druids don't need an animal companion. There is no sense in which it is a liability. If the party has time, then it's a good thing to have around, but the druid is still tier one without it. Especially at the levels where scry and die tactics would be a possibility.

I think you're going to have to put a bit more work into justifying this. Bold claim for a single sentence.

If the druid is optimized, I'm not all that convinced the martial is better armored. Luminous armor with desmodu bat form alone gets you to between 25 and 29 AC, depending on whether the attack is melee or not, and that's with basically no cost. Also, you're flying around all the time, which is its own layer of defense. Also also, a wide variety of spells can operate as strong defenses, some of them even against things that aren't direct physical attacks. I'm doubtful that a dedicated martial could pull together a better defense than a reasonably optimized druid.

Finally, why is the druid scary? I mean, I think they're scary, but you think their spells leave a lot to be desired, that they have a liability animal friend (who's liable to keep attacking if the druid dies), and that their wild shape is just kinda nifty. Also, they're a bat. A glowy bat, granted, but I'm not all that sure a glowy bat is scarier than an armored dude within the argument you've constructed. It seems contradictory to claim that druids are simultaneously weak and a target.

Really?
Ok, I'll bite. Let's take a look at the druid spells.

They have ac boosts, all of which are less useful than their cleric or arcane counterparts.
They have entangle, which can be easily defeated by either strength or dex builds (which encompasses most characters).
They have summons which take a full round to cast, easily interrupted.
They have the crappiest of crap for damage spells, most of their damage spells being outperformed by a single swing of a sword.
The best of their best for optimizing gets them an ac on par with a lower middle optimized martial (I have seen that 29 ac you mentioned on a lvl 1 monk)
But for fear factor? What's going to worry you more? The guy in plate mail squaring off against your ally also in platemail or the giant freaking bat over your head?
Myself, I would trust my allies to handle the warrior guy while I worked on picking off his support with my bow. After all, the guy in light armor with a bow can move faster than the guy in plate mail, but that bat? Hell no. So focus fire on the shapeshift druid so that if things go south and we need to fall back or retreat, we can.

Also, I have NEVER EVER seen a druid put off getting an animal companion for long. My argument stands. Kill the druids companion and you buy yourself a day. You also buy yourself an opportunity to set up an ambush when the druid wanders off to get it.

The stats on an animal companion are enough, barely, to be a nuisance... generally an easily eliminated nuisance. Take a hawk for example. Its hp is such that it can be 1 shotted by almost anything. A wolf? 1 shot. Camel or horse has a chance to take 2 shots but guess what? You just have a class feature that mimics having a few gold pieces. Congrats?
As you advance, it gets better... and so too do the monsters. So at 5th lvl, you have an eagle with 15hp and an ac of 17. Which is toppled from the sky in a single round from a cr5 ranged attacker... pretty much pick any. And congrats, you are once again spending a day getting another.
But you can BECOME an eagle now so big whoop right? Except you are generally stuck with forms that have wings so are making numerous fly checks. Hell, you're far more likely to be shot from the sky and eating fall damage than actually contributing meaningfully in combat.
And if you ARE built to contribute meaningfully in combat? Let's see... str for damage, dex for flying or else you're toast, con for hp, wis for spells... looks like you are second only to monks in the MAD department. Hope you're not on point buy.
Oh yeah, and you can't access any magic items in animal shape. You have no magic item slots. Zero. The ones with passive boosts merged into your form give those passive boosts, but you can't activate anything.
So you're pretty much a watered down fighter with no bonus feats and low ac who looks scarier than he actually is that provides a tactical bonus of being able to chase down fleeing weak enemies. Yay?
Meanwhile that 5th level wizard throws a fireball and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level martial whips out his bow and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level rogue snuck behind them before combat and set traps ending the enemies as they try to flee.
The 5th level bard throws an illusionary fire in their tracks halting them as they are convinced tjeir escape is cut off.
Get the gist? Yeah, you can be passable in a lot of things, but a druid NEVER excels in anything. I class druids as t2 at best, maybe t3 because their abilities are so sub par to everyone else.

[Troacctid]

You picked a hawk as your example? Really? That's not even a companion, that's a familiar. And even if for some reason you chose a hawk, that hawk would be:

Granting you +5 to Spot and +2 to Listen
Sharing all your skill ranks
Sharing your BAB, base saves, and 3/4 of your HP
Granting you the ability to speak with birds at will

...on top of its normal abilities. And even with those buffs, it's still not a combat pet, it's a utility pet (and a damn good utility pet at that), so it shouldn't be surprising that it's not a combat powerhouse.

And there's nothing stopping a druid from picking up a weapon. They have medium BAB and a d8 hit die. That's basically -1 to hit and -1 HP/level compared to a martial character. So the martial dork's advantages boil down to the equivalent of...Weapon Focus and Improved Toughness? Which are well known to be extremely powerful feats, I guess?

[RoboEmperor]

I forget but wasn't there like a trick where you got a flying animal companion with some str boosters to carry you so you have flight at level 1?

[MeimuHakurei]

5th Level does provide slight awkwardness for the druid because that's the point where you have Wild Shape but not Natural Spell (and you really should pick up Natural Spell as your 6th level feat). At least you retain your own HP when you shift into a medium/small animal with 5 or less HD. And your preferred combat form should be a Deinonychus, which comes with a good amount of Strength and Constitution (which means your 8 or 6 strength turn into 19 now), brings 5 natural attacks and Pounce on top of that. If you pre-buffed yourself with Bull's Strength, we're looking at 1d8+2d3+4d4+18 damage worth of attacks (~35 damage average) and you can get another +6 to hit if you have a wolf companion who moves into a flanking position to trip your target (+2 flanking, +4 for meleeing a prone target). This is ignoring the fact that you're more likely going to let a Lion with +4 Strength and +4 Constitution rip apart the enemies.

Also, how on earth are you going to guerilla strike a full party that consistently and why would you do this to try and kill the animal companion instead of, say, the druid themself?

[Cosi]

Honestly feel that 2e had the best caster/mundane balance. Took more Xp for a caster to level, all spells could be disrupted, and your spell slots were limited to the point where you’d rather take a rogue and prepare more combat stuff than skip the rogue and prep roguelike spells.

The truth is the problem is the system itself. To try and bridge the gap between casters and martials you would have to take a look back and use 2e's tact - ditch concentration like it's gone out of style, bring back segment casting, redo the spell lists, ditch the hit point bloat, rejigger the save system, and maybe even bring back class specific xp tables;

You notice how literally none of the things either of you suggested was a direct buff to martials? Why is that? Shouldn't we at least consider that we could close the balance gap by making sword guy better rather than by making spell guy worse?

Also, separate XP tables is stupid and bad for the game. Going back to that makes the game more complicated for no reason.


To be fair, setting your floor to T3 would make most reasonable people in 3.5 happy. No more being blatantly disappointed by classes incapable of doing what they're supposed to do. I'd never play a T3 mind, but I also wouldn't be thinking up essays across threads about the many interesting ways they're awful either. T3 is functional baseline. They never impress, but they consistently come in at nine and do exactly what you expected until five.

This is one of those places where the Tier System being stupid leads to people making bad arguments. The majority of classes in Tier Three have little to no non-combat utility. That, IMHO, is a much bigger problem than their weakness in combat. Even weaker classes can at least do something in a fight. An Ubercharger is not making a contribution on par with a Wizard or Cleric, but he is making some contribution. But he can't do anything at all outside a fight, and that's way more unhealthy because it means that games tend to minimize non-combat encounters to avoid leaving some PCs with nothing to do. The real problem you need to solve is what the hell the Fighter does in a situation where the problem is something like "the enemy has a fortress on another plane". Effectively, having a Fighter in the party either means no non-combat encounters (which means all the cool non-combat abilities I built my character to have are worthless) or the Fighter doesn't get to contribute for however long we spend resolving non-combat stuff (which sucks for the Fighter's player). At least with a Fighter in the party I can still use evard's black tentacles.


I'm not saying it wouldn't distract them, I'm just saying they wouldn't continue to swipe mindlessly at a silent image of a human.

Well, yeah, they'd eventually make their Will save because they were interacting with an illusion.


They're totally robots.

This seems very definitely responsive to the argument I made.


We could probably put together a revised 3.5 player’s handbook you know. Make it right here on the boards, put in T3 classes and remove all the trap feats. (That’s a whole nother conversation)

It's really not worth the additional marginal effort to do that over writing some damn houserules. It's going to be just as much work to convince people to use it, but way more effort to write it, and the gain in level of balance is going to be much smaller.


Actually, a group of people already did that (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/rpg), and released it publicly, and it was even super popular. Right now there are more people playing it than 3.5.

Pathfinder contains the Monk and Toughness (though technically they buffed it to be mostly Improved Toughness, it's still a trap feat).


Also, I have NEVER EVER seen a druid put off getting an animal companion for long. My argument stands. Kill the druids companion and you buy yourself a day. You also buy yourself an opportunity to set up an ambush when the druid wanders off to get it.

And you have seen the Druid respond to an ambush targeting their animal companion by wandering off to get ambushed in turn?

[Calthropstu]

You picked a hawk as your example? Really? That's not even a companion, that's a familiar. And even if for some reason you chose a hawk, that hawk would be:

Granting you +5 to Spot and +2 to Listen
Sharing all your skill ranks
Sharing your BAB, base saves, and 3/4 of your HP
Granting you the ability to speak with birds at will

...on top of its normal abilities. And even with those buffs, it's still not a combat pet, it's a utility pet (and a damn good utility pet at that), so it shouldn't be surprising that it's not a combat powerhouse.

And there's nothing stopping a druid from picking up a weapon. They have medium BAB and a d8 hit die. That's basically -1 to hit and -1 HP/level compared to a martial character. So the martial dork's advantages boil down to the equivalent of...Weapon Focus and Improved Toughness? Which are well known to be extremely powerful feats, I guess?

Ummm...

Animal Companion (Ex)

A druid may begin play with an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the following creatures are also available: porpoise, Medium shark, and squid. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures as appropriate for its kind.

That's why I chose a hawk. None of it grants you familiar traits so yeah... it's just a regular run of the mill hawk.

Now for the deinonychus, a few things:
1: it has to exist in your gm's universe. Played in more than one campaign where gms just ruled dinosaurs were a flat no, even from summons.
2: If you can transform into one, you have a whopping ac 17. Maybe 24 after several buffs. Meanwhile, the sword and board fighter has about 28 with those same buffs. If you only take what you yourself can buff, the fighter is sitting at 24 ac while the druid is sitting at 21.
So, the druid has +7 as a deinonychus with 3 extra attacks at +2... so needs a 17 with primary and nat 20s with secondary or +5 once with his weapon needing a 19. Meanwhile the fighter, sitting on 20 str, at least masterwork weapon, an extra +2-4 from feats and other bonuses needs an 11-13 to hit you. You will lose that fight almost EVERY TIME.
Sure you can pick up a weapon. But you will lise because you're not as invested in it. Martials heavily invest in their weapons. Druids don't.

As to the deinonychus comment, at every possible level what you can change into will be just flat out outmatched by the martial's capabilities. That includes the best, even this case. Run the numbers, and you will quickly find that.
In fact, as those numbers continue to increase, martials leave them further and further behind. Take the trex for example. You can't shift into that until 18th lvl. It can easily be crushed by an 18th lvl martial, even buffed.

Of course, there are feats that let you shift into more supernatural beings but that's another argument altogether.

[Calthropstu]

And you have seen the Druid respond to an ambush targeting their animal companion by wandering off to get ambushed in turn?

Actually... yes. Twice actually.

First time, a mage and two fighters assaulted the party at night. They killed the animal companion because it noticed them, but not before it alerted the person on watch that something was wrong. They retreated with dimension door.
The wizard had knowledge nature and knew druids would perform a 24 hour ritual to get a new companion, waited for the druid to go do tje ritual (which he did ALONE) using his imp familiar to watch the party and bam... dead druid.

Second time I was running. Druid's companion gets offed in a combat where multiple aoe attacks just flat kill it. Goes off with one other companion into a frozen wasteland rampant with undead. Yeah... a yuki ona murdered one of them.

Not to mention the innumerable times I have had to sit my character for a day doing nothing while animal companions were replaced.

[Gnaeus]

Really?
Ok, I'll bite. Let's take a look at the druid spells.

They have ac boosts, all of which are less useful than their cleric or arcane counterparts.
They have entangle, which can be easily defeated by either strength or dex builds (which encompasses most characters).
They have summons which take a full round to cast, easily interrupted.
They have the crappiest of crap for damage spells, most of their damage spells being outperformed by a single swing of a sword.
The best of their best for optimizing gets them an ac on par with a lower middle optimized martial (I have seen that 29 ac you mentioned on a lvl 1 monk)
But for fear factor? What's going to worry you more? The guy in plate mail squaring off against your ally also in platemail or the giant freaking bat over your head?
Myself, I would trust my allies to handle the warrior guy while I worked on picking off his support with my bow. After all, the guy in light armor with a bow can move faster than the guy in plate mail, but that bat? Hell no. So focus fire on the shapeshift druid so that if things go south and we need to fall back or retreat, we can.

Also, I have NEVER EVER seen a druid put off getting an animal companion for long. My argument stands. Kill the druids companion and you buy yourself a day. You also buy yourself an opportunity to set up an ambush when the druid wanders off to get it.

The stats on an animal companion are enough, barely, to be a nuisance... generally an easily eliminated nuisance. Take a hawk for example. Its hp is such that it can be 1 shotted by almost anything. A wolf? 1 shot. Camel or horse has a chance to take 2 shots but guess what? You just have a class feature that mimics having a few gold pieces. Congrats?
As you advance, it gets better... and so too do the monsters. So at 5th lvl, you have an eagle with 15hp and an ac of 17. Which is toppled from the sky in a single round from a cr5 ranged attacker... pretty much pick any. And congrats, you are once again spending a day getting another.
But you can BECOME an eagle now so big whoop right? Except you are generally stuck with forms that have wings so are making numerous fly checks. Hell, you're far more likely to be shot from the sky and eating fall damage than actually contributing meaningfully in combat.
And if you ARE built to contribute meaningfully in combat? Let's see... str for damage, dex for flying or else you're toast, con for hp, wis for spells... looks like you are second only to monks in the MAD department. Hope you're not on point buy.
Oh yeah, and you can't access any magic items in animal shape. You have no magic item slots. Zero. The ones with passive boosts merged into your form give those passive boosts, but you can't activate anything.
So you're pretty much a watered down fighter with no bonus feats and low ac who looks scarier than he actually is that provides a tactical bonus of being able to chase down fleeing weak enemies. Yay?
Meanwhile that 5th level wizard throws a fireball and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level martial whips out his bow and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level rogue snuck behind them before combat and set traps ending the enemies as they try to flee.
The 5th level bard throws an illusionary fire in their tracks halting them as they are convinced tjeir escape is cut off.
Get the gist? Yeah, you can be passable in a lot of things, but a druid NEVER excels in anything. I class druids as t2 at best, maybe t3 because their abilities are so sub par to everyone else.

Gods I hope every Druid is in a low point buy game. Your Str and dex get replaced in wild shape, which usually seems to be more or less constant after level 6. Cha is a dump stat unless you plan on handle animal abuse. Don’t need much Int with 4 skills per level. All Druids need is good wisdom and passable con. It is in the top few least attribute dependent classes in the game.

Eggy didn’t say that 29 was the best of the best for optimizing. It’s what you get with the best scout in the game +1 spell. Best of the best would be more like that freaking aberration that has an effectively infinite AC because it’s casting spells from another plane while it’s tentacles reach into the prime. It’s not completely unkillable by tier 1s but most monsters have no way to not just die.

I was once in a party playing a mid op Druid with 3 muggles. The DM responded by making most fights have 2 monsters. My pet and I would grapple/murder 1, the other 3 pcs would engage the other. I could usually kill mine faster, always with less damage.

There are lots of ways to use items while wildshaped. Dragons can clearly use most items, so draconic wildshape gets you there. Frozen wildshape gives you urskan form, which is basically wildshaping into a large humanoid with great stats. PF makes it even easier, with things like Goliath Druid archetype, or primate forms with a 600 gp item or wild speech feat.

The hawk argument is foolish. A Druid with a hawk is best compared with 0 optimization muggles. A monk with toughness. A fighter who is mixing TWF and crossbow feats. Well optimized muggles get compared with venomfire fleshrakers. Moderately optimized ones with buffed bears and great cats. There is no point in 3.5 in which a muggle beats a Druid and pet at equivalent optimization.

And you know that all those spells can be cranked up with all the same tricks any other caster uses, right, plus some fancy Druid only ones? Problems with full round summons? Rapid spell is a whopping +1 metamagic, so a cheap rod, or a good target for metamagic reducers, or a nice combination with ring of the beast (I cast rapid summon monster 4 out of a level 5 slot and ring of the beast pushes it back up to 5).

[MeimuHakurei]

Fair enough, Wild Shape doesn't really give an outline in what the druid is familiar with. And right now, we're comparing a character with strong martial abilities by investing into gear, feats and ability scores to be competent at the frontline with a character who has decent martial abilities without spending a penny, whose feats are all meant to help spellcasting and who completely tanked their physical stats (except maintaining a decent constitution). And if we assume that the fighter is getting buffed by teammates, we'd have to assume the druid is recieving teammate buffs as well - which is why I only mentioned what a druid gets on their own.

And Wild Shape isn't even limited to beating up stuff up close (in fact, it's more of an emergency solution than a standard battle plan) - you get flight and aquatic movement, you can sneak around, you can innocously blend in, you can carry your party and if all else fails, you can shift into something quick to escape.

I will concede however that I don't really know much about how to optimize Druids highly (just that their base performance is fairly impressive), so I'd ask the others to build a 5th Level Druid who can perform better than what I've suggested so far.

[Calthropstu]

Fair enough, Wild Shape doesn't really give an outline in what the druid is familiar with. And right now, we're comparing a character with strong martial abilities by investing into gear, feats and ability scores to be competent at the frontline with a character who has decent martial abilities without spending a penny, whose feats are all meant to help spellcasting and who completely tanked their physical stats (except maintaining a decent constitution). And if we assume that the fighter is getting buffed by teammates, we'd have to assume the druid is recieving teammate buffs as well - which is why I only mentioned what a druid gets on their own.

And Wild Shape isn't even limited to beating up stuff up close (in fact, it's more of an emergency solution than a standard battle plan) - you get flight and aquatic movement, you can sneak around, you can innocously blend in, you can carry your party and if all else fails, you can shift into something quick to escape.

I will concede however that I don't really know much about how to optimize Druids highly (just that their base performance is fairly impressive), so I'd ask the others to build a 5th Level Druid who can perform better than what I've suggested so far.

I'll be fair as well, most of my experience has been low op play with druids. But I can say, with reasonable surety:
They are less adept at healing than any other class that has healing as a general ability.
They aren't very adept at weapon use.
They have very few items that will drop for them, especially if using random treasure.

In my personal experience:
They have underperformed compared to every other character.
Their animal companions die, frequently.
Their animal empathy is generally useless.
Their spells tend to be very lackluster, except summons which can roc. Of all full casters, their list is easily the worst.

Don't get me wrong, I love druids. They make great rp characters and one of my favorite characters was a druid. But people here like to go on and on about trap options, and druids are pretty much 90% trap options.

@Gnaeus:
The hawk argument was for lvl 1. Your options for animal companions are... slim.
For 4th lvl, sure you can take a bear. Which, against a mid op sword and board fighter's ac of 24 needs an 18 to hit(20 with bite). With you as a deinonychus needing a 17 to hit (20 with all but talons) against a fighter needing an 11 to hit you and a 3 to hit your bear.
Your bear goes down in 1-2 rounds depending on whether a crit is rolled pretty much guaranteed. You get 14 attacks in that time, maybe connecting with 2 for about 8 points, a quarter of the fighters 35ish hp.

Now it's 4 attacks at 20%/5%/5%/5% vs 1 attack at 50%. (All of this assuming you have buffed your ac)
So you're now eating 5-6 damage a round while the fighter is eating... 2. This does not take into account flanking, buffs on the fighter or other outside help.

This assumes:
Fighter lvl 5 with tower shield, platemail, masterwork weapon, 20 str, 14 dex, and feats or gold spent to up ac to 24 (easily doable with +1 to both shield and armor) Grand total: about 5k.

Where the fighter has +5 bab, the druid has +3. He also has, in deinonychus form, a 19 str for a total of +7. This needs a 17 to hit. The druid's ac can easily be buffed with a ring of protection +1, bracers of armor +2 and an amulet of natural armor +1 bringing his ac to 21. These items are expensive for a 5th lvl char, but that amount spent buffing ac seems appropriate for a druid. Grand total: 7k

Buffs are tricky to calculate. Does the fighter and druid know this fight is coming? Does the druid even have bulls strength prepared? How many spells has the druid used today?

Let's say he adds bulls strength, bears endurance and cat's grace as well as magic fang beforehand.

Well, the fighter still has 4k gold to play with. Let's give him shield of faith, bulls strength, bear's endurance and expeditious retreat as potion buffs.

Let's also add a ring of protection +1 to the fighter, he has more than enough left over.

So buffs net the druid... a flat 0 to hit, +3 damage and the bear -3 to hit and the fighter gets +30 move, +2 to hit the bear +0 to hit druid and +2 damage and he still has more cash left than the druid.

So now with buffs the fighter is now eating 4 damage per round before he drops the bear, 3 after and the druid is eating 6 per round... assuming no other tactics come into play.

Flanking can be easily countered by movement or fighting defensively. In fact, fighting defensively reduces the damage taken by 1 per round regardless because it pushes the 17 required to a 19 for the druid, while the fighter now needs a 13 instwad of 11. A good trade off actually. Now the fighter is doing more than double the damage to the druid double team that they do to him. The druid drops in about 10-12 rounds... 2 to drop the animal companion, 8-10 to kill the druid and the fighter is at half health at the end.

[ryu]

I didn't say stopping at making the floor T3 was optimal. I said it would dramatically decrease problems because a class that can at least consistently do what it says it can never feels like a drain on the party. I personally take more drastic measures, but supporting an immediately helpful move that's quick, easy, and immediately understandable is perfectly viable.

[Gnaeus]

I'll be fair as well, most of my experience has been low op play with druids. But I can say, with reasonable surety:
They are less adept at healing than any other class that has healing as a general ability.
They aren't very adept at weapon use.
They have very few items that will drop for them, especially if using random treasure.

In my personal experience:
They have underperformed compared to every other character.
Their animal companions die, frequently.
Their animal empathy is generally useless.
Their spells tend to be very lackluster, except summons which can roc. Of all full casters, their list is easily the worst.

@Gnaeus:
The hawk argument was for lvl 1. Your options for animal companions are... slim.
For 4th lvl, sure you can take a bear. Which, against a mid op sword and board fighter's ac of 24 needs an 18 to hit(20 with bite). With you as a deinonychus needing a 17 to hit (20 with all but talons) against a fighter needing an 11 to hit you and a 3 to hit your bear.
Your bear goes down in 1-2 rounds depending on whether a crit is rolled pretty much guaranteed. You get 14 attacks in that time, maybe connecting with 2 for about 8 points, a quarter of the fighters 35ish hp.

Now it's 4 attacks at 20%/5%/5%/5% vs 1 attack at 50%. (All of this assuming you have buffed your ac)
So you're now eating 5-6 damage a round while the fighter is eating... 2. This does not take into account flanking, buffs on the fighter or other outside help.

This assumes:
Fighter lvl 5 with tower shield, platemail, masterwork weapon, 20 str, 14 dex, and feats or gold spent to up ac to 24 (easily doable with +1 to both shield and armor) Grand total: about 5k.

Where the fighter has +5 bab, the druid has +3. He also has, in deinonychus form, a 19 str for a total of +7. This needs a 17 to hit. The druid's ac can easily be buffed with a ring of protection +1, bracers of armor +2 and an amulet of natural armor +1 bringing his ac to 21. These items are expensive for a 5th lvl char, but that amount spent buffing ac seems appropriate for a druid. Grand total: 7k

Buffs are tricky to calculate. Does the fighter and druid know this fight is coming? Does the druid even have bulls strength prepared? How many spells has the druid used today?

Let's say he adds bulls strength, bears endurance and cat's grace as well as magic fang beforehand.

Well, the fighter still has 4k gold to play with. Let's give him shield of faith, bulls strength, bear's endurance and expeditious retreat as potion buffs.

Let's also add a ring of protection +1 to the fighter, he has more than enough left over.

So buffs net the druid... a flat 0 to hit, +3 damage and the bear -3 to hit and the fighter gets +30 move, +2 to hit the bear +0 to hit druid and +2 damage and he still has more cash left than the druid.

So now with buffs the fighter is now eating 4 damage per round before he drops the bear, 3 after and the druid is eating 6 per round... assuming no other tactics come into play.

Flanking can be easily countered by movement or fighting defensively. In fact, fighting defensively reduces the damage taken by 1 per round regardless because it pushes the 17 required to a 19 for the druid, while the fighter now needs a 13 instwad of 11. A good trade off actually. Now the fighter is doing more than double the damage to the druid double team that they do to him. The druid drops in about 10-12 rounds... 2 to drop the animal companion, 8-10 to kill the druid and the fighter is at half health at the end.

You are healing with Druids wrong. They are an excellent healing class. A Druid 7 can summon a unicorn out of a third level slot with a ring of the beast. That’s 3 CLWs and a CMW for a level 3 slot. That’s better than most clerics can do with a cure critical. It takes longer, but it comes with a free magic circle v evil and attacks and you can cast it before combat if you are lucky.

For level 1 I usually assume the wolf. It’s 13 hp, 14 AC (16 with barding) and free trip mean it can likely outfight the weaker T5s unsupported. The Riding dog is better in every way but I don’t assume that a low system mastery player will realize that.

Your fighter versus bear example is rather absurd for a number of reasons. First, you are looking at it from a PVP standpoint versus a PVE one. An average CR 5 enemy is AC 18, and at THAT AC the bear and Druid outdamage the S&B fighter considerably. The bear should be walking around in combat situations with leather armor and bark skin, for a respectable AC17. Our saves are better. We control more space in a fight. The fighter is using costly buffs while the Druid is using free ones. The bear has scent

And the black bear isn’t the best core pick. Let’s look at the Ape. Higher AC. Higher to hit. Better HP. Likely to be able to use most gear. But most importantly reach. When the Druid orders the pet to grapple the fighter from 10 feet away (pin is a handle animal trick) he’s aiming at your touch AC of 12. If the fighter loses his grapple check he’s basically screwed. If you escape the ape just grapples you again while the Druid mauls you.

Why am I meleeing you anyway. I could blast you to death with call lightning while I run away since I likely have double your movement? I can blind you with blinding spittle while my pet attacks you. Heck, the Druid can throw tanglefoot bags that are cheaper than your buffs and just one of which is sufficient to debuff you sufficiently to win. Or I can share touch attack spells with my pet.

And yes, in a random treasure game the Druid likely won’t get many drops. But as a full caster he can take craft wondrous items and make the gear he needs, selling the vendor trash at 50% and making new gear at the same discount. As such he is infinitely better than the fighter, who is unlikely to get the exact right weapons/armor he wants, let alone the tricks he needs to fight fliers, incorporeals, invisible stuff etc and who has exactly 0 options to make the gear he needs.

[AnimeTheCat]

For level 1 I usually assume the wolf. It’s 13 hp, 14 AC (16 with barding) and free trip mean it can likely outfight the weaker T5s unsupported. The Riding dog is better in every way but I don’t assume that a low system mastery player will realize that.

Fighter is T5 right? How exactly does:



HP - 13
Init - +2
Spd - 50 ft


AC - 14
TAC - 12
FFAC - 12


BAB/Grp - +1/+2
Attack - Bite +3 (1d6+1)
F. Attack - Bite +3 (1d6+1)


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Trip (+1 check bonus)
Special Qualities: Scent, Low-Light Vision


Fort - +5
Ref - +5
Will - +1


Str - 13
Dex - 15
Con - 15


Int - 2
Wis - 12
Cha - 6


TrackB
Weapon Focus (Bite)




handle typical combat situations better than this:

Human - Fighter 1 - Elite Array Ability Scores


HP - 12
Init - +1
Spd - 20 ft


AC - 15
TAC - 11
FFAC - 14


BAB/Grp - +1/+3
Attack - Greatsword +4 (2d6+3)
Attack - Longbow +2 (1d8)


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Trip (+7 check bonus)
Special Qualities:


Fort - +4
Ref - +1
Will - +0


Str - 15
Dex - 12
Con - 14


Int - 13
Wis - 10
Cha - 8


Weapon Focus (Greatsword)Human Bonus
Combat Expertise 1st lvl
Improved Trip Fighter Bonus



The wolf can close more distance, but can't outcharge an arrow. A wolf's bite deals the same damage as an arrow from a longbow, 4.5 damage on average, except the arrow has a higher damage potential and a lower damage floor. Distance of engagement goes to the fighter, especially thanks to range incriments allowing for shorts fired up to 500 feet away. Also, the wolf has literally no ranged capability and is entirely useless against flying enemies. The fighter can take their time moving 20 ft at a time and shooting arrows until they are in charging distance at which point, the fighter definitely wins at damage dealing a minimum damage of more than the wolf is even capable of. Further, the trip attack that a wolf gets relies on hitting FIRST, which with a +3 to hit, isn't the best, and certainly worse than the fighter's chance to hit. A fighter can Charge in to the enemy and initiate a trip attempt as a touch attack, typically meaning an easier target to hit. The fighter then will typically succeed at the trip and THEN get an attack against a now PRONE enemy, granting an effective +4 to hit via their -4 penalty to AC. This means the fighter effectively has a +10 to hit thanks to the +2 charge bonus and -4 AC penalty of the enemy.

In a raw combat encounter with CR appropriate foes at first level, the fighter is better than the wolf. Now, remember I'm comparing the fighter to the wolf, not the druid. The "Fighter is worse at fighting than the Druid's Animal Companion" argument seems, to me, flawed as a fighter can actually just do more in combat without being behind the wolf in any realistic way. (-1 HP, -1 Initiative, -30 ft movement*, -1 Touch AC, -1 Con)

*This movement difference is mitigated by the simple application of a longbow, which makes the movement difference negligable at level 1

At level 2, the wolf is completely left behind. Upgrades in Armor improve AC. Additional HD (now actually the same number of HD as the wolf) bring in a minimum of 3 HP, bringing the fighter to 2 ahead. Fighter bonus feat allows the fighter to pick up Improved Initiative, if desired, mitigating the Initiative bonus. The only differences in favor of the wolf are 1 Touch AC and 1 point of Con. Yet, the wolf is considered better?

FYI, no buffs were taken in to consideration. In the event that you took buffs into consideration for the wolf, from the druid, I assume there would be Magic Fang, so The wolf has equal chance to hit but deals less damage on average in melee still (and still has no ranged option... and never will). In addition to only equaling the fighter at level 1, the wolf has now taken away something that could benefit the whole party, like an entangle or Faerie Fire spell that are unique to the Druid. That's not what I would consider an efficient use of spells, but that's just me.


Your fighter versus bear example is rather absurd for a number of reasons. First, you are looking at it from a PVP standpoint versus a PVE one. An average CR 5 enemy is AC 18, and at THAT AC the bear and Druid outdamage the S&B fighter considerably. The bear should be walking around in combat situations with leather armor and bark skin, for a respectable AC17. Our saves are better. We control more space in a fight. The fighter is using costly buffs while the Druid is using free ones. The bear has scent

And the black bear isn’t the best core pick. Let’s look at the Ape. Higher AC. Higher to hit. Better HP. But most importantly reach. When the Druid orders the pet to grapple the fighter from 10 feet away (pin is a handle animal trick) he’s aiming at your touch AC of 12. If the fighter loses his grapple check he’s basically screwed. If you escape the ape just grapples you again while the Druid mauls you.

Why am I meleeing you anyway. I could blast you to death with call lightning while I run away since I likely have double your movement? I can blind you with blinding spittle while my pet attacks you. Heck, the Druid can throw tanglefoot bags that are cheaper than your buffs and just one of which is sufficient to debuff you sufficiently to win. Or I can share touch attack spells with my pet.

Most of this is irrelevant to me, as I know that when you have 2 characters to one player, that player is going to do more than most other players at the table, and I don't really feel that I care about that... I personally disagree that the actual animal companion IS a better fighter than a fighter. The above example is for level 1 and isn't highly customized. It uses a subpar, predetermined stat array and only uses material from the PHB. Essentially, It's a premade character you could expect to find in any adventure module.

While Animal Companions are really cool, I just don't think they are as awesome sauce as a lot of people tend to think, and I don't think they can fully replace a fighter. If for no other reason, they would essentially need to be outfitted as another PC, which would mean that both it and the druid would be 50% behind the rest of the party in WBL, if you're outfitting it like the fighter with Magic Items. If you're not, I don't have any doubt that a fighter could do better than an animal companion at all levels of play. That's even with the odds stacked against the fighter in the sense that Animal Companions develop in HD, Ability Scores, and Natural Armor faster and beyond what a Fighter normally does.

FWIW, I know this is just my opinion. I know that there are a bunch of people on this forum that don't share that opinion. Therefore, again in my opinion, I think that there are a lot of people on these forums that make Full Casting/T1 Characters, particularly druids, sound better than they usually are in games which leads them to seem overrated.

That being said, I think that there are some PHENOMENAL resources made by those very people who make Full Castin/T1 Characters sound better than they usually are. For the most part and as far as I can tell, those resources are simply a congolmerate of all the best, coolest options. In practice, I've found that most DMs don't allow the various campaign settings to intermingle, limiting a lot of those options from the get-go. Also, what i've experience is that DM's know themselves and know what they are capable of handling and rather than allow something that can upset what they know, they tell me "not right now, I need to learn it first, then maybe if it fits the game I'll allow it". This further limits resources that are available for Full Casting/T1 Characters. Then there are some options that DMs I know (and myself included) that we just say no to, simply because they leave no room for weakness, and no room to challenge Full Casting/T1 Characters without singling them out or ignoring the rest of the party. We do it to be more Inclusive rather than Exclusive. I've personally found that I play more games when I limit resources and let that be known than when I allow resources, get in to session 0 and have an abrupt jaunt conjuration focused specialist hummingbird familiar wizard with bergeldook the orc barbarian who thinks he's the king of the dwarves (or something...), and then have both players quit because they can't stand each other. I've even tried running Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Beguiler/TOB/etc. only, no barbarians, fighters, etc. before. I had two people interested. Turned around, started a new game with a list of approved resources and listed houserules, 9 people interested. Nobody questioned it and everyone had a great time.

As I said before, which was then echoed by Tonymitsu and others, if your game exists in a vacuum with everything in perfect favor of spellcasters, then they're unerringly the best. In a real game, with real people, with real setting limitations, they will not perform exactly as planned under most circumstances.

[Gnaeus]

Fighter isn’t “one of the weaker T5s”. Fighter is the strongest T5, right on the border with T4. 2h is the strongest fighter build. It could be a soulknife. Or a swashbuckler. Or a TWF ranger. Or a monk. Or a TWF fighter. Or a Samurai

And it gets 2 more ac from leather, and the riding dog is still better than the wolf.

Aww. I have to equip my companion? Then it’s a good thing that I can craft wondrous items and get every piece of gear my companion needs and more than half of what my Druid needs at 50% cost.

[Bucky]

Yeah, the problem with level 1 animal companion isn't that they're arguably superior to the fighter, it's that they're definitely superior to the monk.

[MeimuHakurei]

And it's just the animal companion - there's a whole PC coming along with that!

[AnimeTheCat]

Fighter isn’t “one of the weaker T5s”. Fighter is the strongest T5, right on the border with T4. 2h is the strongest fighter build. It could be a soulknife. Or a swashbuckler. Or a TWF ranger. Or a monk. Or a TWF fighter. Or a Samurai


Yeah, the problem with level 1 animal companion isn't that they're arguably superior to the fighter, it's that they're definitely superior to the monk.

Elan - Soulknife 1 - Elite Array


HP - 10
Init - +2
Spd - 30 ft


AC - 15
TAC - 12
FFAC - 13


BAB/Grp - +0/+1
Attack - Mindblade +2 (1d6+1) 19-20/x2
Attack - Light Crossbow +2 (1d8) 19-20/x2


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks:
Special Qualities: Resiliance*, Resistance*, Repletion*


Fort - +2
Ref - +4
Will - +3


Str - 12
Dex - 15
Con - 14


Int - 10
Wis - 13
Cha - 6


Weapon Focus (Mindblade)Soulknife Bonus
Up the Walls 1st lvl
Wild Talent Soulknife Bonus


The soulknife still has the upper hand in combat due to ranged weapons and the ability to literally run up walls. A wolf would be helpless to creatures in trees, not the soulknife. An alternative route is to take Speed of thought and Psionic Charge to circumvent some of the challenges presented by difficult terrain. Thanks to an intelligent racial choice, the soulknife has the equivalent of a ring of sustenance for free (should they need it) and a limited use cloak of resistance +4, and can reduce incoming damage limit times per day. This would be enough for the soulknife to handle toe-to-toe combat equally well as the wolf, despite having a -1 to hit compared to the wolf, again due in part to having a ranged option that the wolf simply does not have.

[Space Reserved for Monk]

[Space Reserved for Swashbucker]

[Space Reserved for TWF Ranger*]

[Space Reserved for TWF Fighter*]

*While I could do a Greatsword and armor spike build, I will not as I'm guessing that's not the concept you were talking about


And it gets 2 more ac from leather, and the riding dog is still better than the wolf.

Aww. I have to equip my companion? Then it’s a good thing that I can craft wondrous items and get every piece of gear my companion needs and more than half of what my Druid needs at 50% cost.

Craft Wonderous Item required time, xp, and money. More importantly, that's a feat that you're spending to compensate for your class feature. Now, you can certainly also use it to benefit the party as well, so it's not necessarily a negative, but still a feat tax none the less if you're trying to stay on-par with the party. That also doesn't cover magical arms and armor or rings so those are full price as well unless you want to take those feats too which means you're probably not taking Natural Spell, which means you're overall less effective as a druid than is commonly touted. Or, you're still behind of WBL because you're trying so hard to make your AC something it's not. YMMV, but I just don't see the worth.


And it's just the animal companion - there's a whole PC coming along with that!

I will remind you. I'm not arguing Druid vs Fighter. I'm Arguing the really bad claim of "Druid Animal Companion being better at fighting than a Fighter" which I feel confident I disproved above and how now moved on to other classes, which I reserved room for. I may get to them, I may not. It all depends on how busy I get.

[Gnaeus]

Elan - Soulknife 1 - Elite Array


HP - 10
Init - +2
Spd - 30 ft


AC - 15
TAC - 12
FFAC - 13


BAB/Grp - +0/+1
Attack - Mindblade +2 (1d6+1) 19-20/x2
Attack - Light Crossbow +2 (1d8) 19-20/x2


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks:
Special Qualities: Resiliance*, Resistance*, Repletion*


Fort - +2
Ref - +4
Will - +3


Str - 12
Dex - 15
Con - 14


Int - 10
Wis - 13
Cha - 6


Weapon Focus (Mindblade)Soulknife Bonus
Up the Walls 1st lvl
Wild Talent Soulknife Bonus


The soulknife still has the upper hand in combat due to ranged weapons and the ability to literally run up walls. A wolf would be helpless to creatures in trees, not the soulknife. An alternative route is to take Speed of thought and Psionic Charge to circumvent some of the challenges presented by difficult terrain. Thanks to an intelligent racial choice, the soulknife has the equivalent of a ring of sustenance for free (should they need it) and a limited use cloak of resistance +4, and can reduce incoming damage limit times per day. This would be enough for the soulknife to handle toe-to-toe combat equally well as the wolf, despite having a -1 to hit compared to the wolf, again due in part to having a ranged option that the wolf simply does not have.

[Space Reserved for Monk]

[Space Reserved for Swashbucker]

[Space Reserved for TWF Ranger*]

[Space Reserved for TWF Fighter*]

*While I could do a Greatsword and armor spike build, I will not as I'm guessing that's not the concept you were talking about



Craft Wonderous Item required time, xp, and money. More importantly, that's a feat that you're spending to compensate for your class feature. Now, you can certainly also use it to benefit the party as well, so it's not necessarily a negative, but still a feat tax none the less if you're trying to stay on-par with the party. That also doesn't cover magical arms and armor or rings so those are full price as well unless you want to take those feats too which means you're probably not taking Natural Spell, which means you're overall less effective as a druid than is commonly touted. Or, you're still behind of WBL because you're trying so hard to make your AC something it's not. YMMV, but I just don't see the worth.



I will remind you. I'm not arguing Druid vs Fighter. I'm Arguing the really bad claim of "Druid Animal Companion being better at fighting than a Fighter" which I feel confident I disproved above and how now moved on to other classes, which I reserved room for. I may get to them, I may not. It all depends on how busy I get.

I’m confident you did not prove that for fighter. You proved that a specific fighter is better than the second best AC if he has no armor and you ignore shared heals and better saves and scent and you ignore the fact that he is totally replaceable.

That soulknife example was embarrassing. It basically said “please ignore my lower AC, lower Hp, lower saves, lower AB and your free trip attacks and scent and calll it a win because I can go up trees.” Please by all means continue dismantling your argument in such an effective fashion. So when your job is “stand here and block the enemies from coming through a door and murdering your Mage your response will be to run up a tree and pull out a light crossbow.

How could it possibly be more embarrassing for you? Well I guess you could try to write off the second strongest core feat (after leadership), which the fighter can’t get, as a “feat tax”. That would be flat out funny.

[Calthropstu]

Elan - Soulknife 1 - Elite Array


HP - 10
Init - +2
Spd - 30 ft


AC - 15
TAC - 12
FFAC - 13


BAB/Grp - +0/+1
Attack - Mindblade +2 (1d6+1) 19-20/x2
Attack - Light Crossbow +2 (1d8) 19-20/x2


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks:
Special Qualities: Resiliance*, Resistance*, Repletion*


Fort - +2
Ref - +4
Will - +3


Str - 12
Dex - 15
Con - 14


Int - 10
Wis - 13
Cha - 6


Weapon Focus (Mindblade)Soulknife Bonus
Up the Walls 1st lvl
Wild Talent Soulknife Bonus


The soulknife still has the upper hand in combat due to ranged weapons and the ability to literally run up walls. A wolf would be helpless to creatures in trees, not the soulknife. An alternative route is to take Speed of thought and Psionic Charge to circumvent some of the challenges presented by difficult terrain. Thanks to an intelligent racial choice, the soulknife has the equivalent of a ring of sustenance for free (should they need it) and a limited use cloak of resistance +4, and can reduce incoming damage limit times per day. This would be enough for the soulknife to handle toe-to-toe combat equally well as the wolf, despite having a -1 to hit compared to the wolf, again due in part to having a ranged option that the wolf simply does not have.

[Space Reserved for Monk]

[Space Reserved for Swashbucker]

[Space Reserved for TWF Ranger*]

[Space Reserved for TWF Fighter*]

*While I could do a Greatsword and armor spike build, I will not as I'm guessing that's not the concept you were talking about



Craft Wonderous Item required time, xp, and money. More importantly, that's a feat that you're spending to compensate for your class feature. Now, you can certainly also use it to benefit the party as well, so it's not necessarily a negative, but still a feat tax none the less if you're trying to stay on-par with the party. That also doesn't cover magical arms and armor or rings so those are full price as well unless you want to take those feats too which means you're probably not taking Natural Spell, which means you're overall less effective as a druid than is commonly touted. Or, you're still behind of WBL because you're trying so hard to make your AC something it's not. YMMV, but I just don't see the worth.



I will remind you. I'm not arguing Druid vs Fighter. I'm Arguing the really bad claim of "Druid Animal Companion being better at fighting than a Fighter" which I feel confident I disproved above and how now moved on to other classes, which I reserved room for. I may get to them, I may not. It all depends on how busy I get.

I will agree that at high level system mastery, a druid will ultimately beat a fighter having more options. But my experience has been the opposite. Bear, for example, is actually a VERY common choice for animal companion. 4 out of the 10-12 druids I've played with have used bears as companions.

But I have successfully argued my points. They are worse at hand to hand combat than a fighter.
They lose in healing to a cleric (in fact, heal... the best healing spell available, is actually a higher level spell for them)
They lose in spell combat to any other full caster.
Their animal companion is more a liability than a help.
Their buffs are mostly self only or meant for animals, and are weaker than same level arcane/cleric buffs.

Why do people consider them t1?

[Gnaeus]

I will agree that at high level system mastery, a druid will ultimately beat a fighter having more options. But my experience has been the opposite. Bear, for example, is actually a VERY common choice for animal companion. 4 out of the 10-12 druids I've played with have used bears as companions.

But I have successfully argued my points. They are worse at hand to hand combat than a fighter.
They lose in healing to a cleric (in fact, heal... the best healing spell available, is actually a higher level spell for them)
They lose in spell combat to any other full caster.
Their animal companion is more a liability than a help.

Why do people consider them t1?

I already pointed out that at levels 7-10 they can outheal clerics via summons. Even Heal is only arguably better than 2-5 unicorns which can heal 5d8+20 each.

Brown Bears are solid, black bears aren’t great.

More than 4 of the 10-12 fighters I have played with have taken toughness as a feat. So I expect future comparison fighters to be built with toughness.

Your animal companion as a liability argument required the druid to wander off on his own for NO GOOD REASON. I once watched a gestalt ranger//swordsage TPK the Party by wandering off by himself. That doesn’t mean that ranger//swordsages are a liability. Only that foolish P.C. actions end badly.

[Troacctid]

Ummm...

That's why I chose a hawk. None of it grants you familiar traits so yeah... it's just a regular run of the mill hawk.
Druids can use an ACF to get a beefed-up familiar instead of an animal companion. If you're using a hawk, you're probably using that ACF.

[Calthropstu]

I already pointed out that at levels 7-10 they can outheal clerics via summons. Even Heal is only arguably better than 2-5 unicorns which can heal 5d8+20 each.

Brown Bears are solid, black bears aren’t great.

More than 4 of the 10-12 fighters I have played with have taken toughness as a feat. So I expect future comparison fighters to be built with toughness.

Your animal companion as a liability argument required the druid to wander off on his own for NO GOOD REASON. I once watched a gestalt ranger//swordsage TPK the Party by wandering off by himself. That doesn’t mean that ranger//swordsages are a liability. Only that foolish P.C. actions end badly.

No, my companion as a liability simply requires the companion to die causing an entire day to be lost. A day which can be used by the opponents however they like... including interrupting the ritual and buying another day, ambushing silly druids who wander off, shoring up defenses, setting extra traps, even relocating their base.

Companions are much easier to kill than typical pcs and doesn't even have to be planned... it just happens often.

[Gnaeus]

No, my companion as a liability simply requires the companion to die causing an entire day to be lost. A day which can be used by the opponents however they like... including interrupting the ritual and buying another day, ambushing silly druids who wander off, shoring up defenses, setting extra traps, even relocating their base.

Companions are much easier to kill than typical pcs and doesn't even have to be planned... it just happens often.

Fighters are much easier to kill than typical PCs. It doesn’t even have to be planned .... it just happens often. Did you know they don’t even come with a free healer buddy? If you got a free fighter replacement the next day they would be closer to beating the AC.

Any P.C. who wanders off alone is likely to be ganked. That is not an argument against Druids or companions. Nothing makes you do that.

[zlefin]

No, my companion as a liability simply requires the companion to die causing an entire day to be lost. A day which can be used by the opponents however they like... including interrupting the ritual and buying another day, ambushing silly druids who wander off, shoring up defenses, setting extra traps, even relocating their base.

Companions are much easier to kill than typical pcs and doesn't even have to be planned... it just happens often.

overall, it sounds more like you just have a lot of bad druid players at your table. or one bad player who plays druids a lot.
one person's experience, while useful and interesting, is far less accurate than the aggregate of lots of people at many tables.

[Quertus]

I find the position that I should be expected to use my character's resources to make up for your character's deficiencies somewhere between stupid and insulting. You rolled a Fighter. You could have rolled a Cleric, or a Druid, or a Gish and buffed yourself to your heart's content. Expecting me to make up for your decision not to do so while you offer nothing in return (no, "I can hit people" doesn't count -- we're looking for something my pet can't do, and ideally something another caster wouldn't do better) is being selfish and mooching off the rest of the party. It's already bad enough that the Fighter doesn't contribute outside combat. Expecting him to rely on the rest of the party to contribute in combat is absurd and indefensible.


Druid player is not being more selfish than the Fighter player.

we merely push the problem back a level. Specifically to the act of character creation. By choosing to play a Fighter, a class with--as you say--no ability to support others, the player is choosing selfishly, opting against an option that would allow what you call teamplay. Thus, in order to satisfy your criterion of teamwork, players must not choose classes that cannot be used to support others.

You know, I've half-jokingly stated in several threads how selfish Fighters are, design-wise, and that they really ought to be forced to spend their turns buffing the party (the fighter shouts some battle cry ("Avengers, assemble!", "Spoon!", whatever), and the party gets a +2 morale bonus to attacks for 5 rounds, and a free rerool), and spend their feats and XP improving the party (training the party, most likely), etc.

Cool part is, this might actually make them valuable to include in a party.


(although I can generally state that it is the level of both power at complexity at which me and my players are comfortable playing; I consider chees what goes vastly outside this level. And you may notice how I also consider the reach build or many martial sheanigans also cheese); but if you do not ban something for being overpowered, then you start chain-gating solars or getting infinite wishes. So you, the DM, should ban something for being overpowered. Where do you stop? that's an individual question, and there is no right answer to it.

And this is yet another reason why letting GMs touch balance is generally a bad idea. If the party cares about balance, leave every option open, and let them create balanced characters. What could be easier?


Except you've done a good job of describing fighters as buff leeches who only do anything not related to pack mule status when given stuff by people who are actually useful. That's a DRAIN on resources, not useful.

A Rogue is a better chassis for buffs than a Fighter - or any caster - likely every will be.


Sorry, but I detest 5e. Every build is same to the second approximation, build ceilings were brought down, and bounded accuracy was one of the worst things I've seen in D&D. My game contains very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles. As for system mastery, I've already played the high levels of 3.5 repeatedly. Played for years and years and years and ran into all kinds of weird tricks and optimizations from books all over. Eventually, I got tired. I sat down and thought about it. Tried a bunch of different things. This is the best solution I've found, and if you disagree with me, then you disagree.

But I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of "removing everything unique about 3.5 and turned it into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e". Thanks.

"Core only" + "lots of unique characters" does not compute. Removing the vast array of cool options + upset when others claim you have removed 3e's unique advantage of breath of content does not compute. Would you care to explain your style in a way that doesn't sound so much like 5e? Perhaps some examples of how cool characters can be even with your imposed limitations?

It sounds like you've gone through a great deal of effort to produce a cool tactical game for your group, and if y'all're having fun, great! But, I agree, your description has parts reminiscent of both 4e and 5e. More interestingly, however, I'm curious whether these changes only work for your group, or whether they'd be balanced for the community at large.


Eggy didn’t say that 29 was the best of the best for optimizing. It’s what you get with the best scout in the game +1 spell. Best of the best would be more like that freaking aberration that has an effectively infinite AC because it’s casting spells from another plane while it’s tentacles reach into the prime. It’s not completely unkillable by tier 1s but most monsters have no way to not just die.

Wait, someone other than me created a multi-planar monster like that?! Someone, please, point me at this thing!

[eggynack]

They have ac boosts, all of which are less useful than their cleric or arcane counterparts.
As I've noted, luminous armor is accessible to all three, and wild shape makes such an effect not all that important.


They have summons which take a full round to cast, easily interrupted.
Unless you have decent distance/defense from the situation. Druids are pretty good at getting both, and spontaneous summoning means that any real opportunity can become bears.

They have entangle, which can be easily defeated by either strength or dex builds (which encompasses most characters).
Is there any particular reason you've decided to evaluate a single first level BFC spell? They have so many BFC and debuff effects. Kelpstrand, wall of thorns, blinding spittle, just so frigging many effects like this.

They have the crappiest of crap for damage spells, most of their damage spells being outperformed by a single swing of a sword.
Really not an issue, given both how mediocre damage spells are on the whole, and that they have summons, the animal companion, and maybe wild shape to deal damage. Also, they have some decent damage options. Boreal wind, righteous hammer, and splinterbolt come to mind.

So, that's it for the spell evaluation then? AC boosts, summons, entangle, and damage spells? Do you have any idea how far you have to go through the list of spells in my handbook before you hit a single one of those? Skipping 0th's (which have no spells of any of these categories, so it'd work in my favor rather than against it), you have aquatic escape, aspect of the wolf, blockade, camouflage, charm animal, cloudburst, darsson's cooling breeze, endure elements, and enrage animal. The next one is entangle. Druids have a lot of spells.



The best of their best for optimizing gets them an ac on par with a lower middle optimized martial (I have seen that 29 ac you mentioned on a lvl 1 monk)
The best of their best for optimizing? Are you joking? That was a wild shape form you're going to want to be in anyway combined with an hours/level 2nd level spell.


But for fear factor? What's going to worry you more? The guy in plate mail squaring off against your ally also in platemail or the giant freaking bat over your head?
Why is the bat over your head? Druids have spells. They can engage from a distance. This giant bat could be 50 feet away.


Myself, I would trust my allies to handle the warrior guy while I worked on picking off his support with my bow. After all, the guy in light armor with a bow can move faster than the guy in plate mail, but that bat? Hell no. So focus fire on the shapeshift druid so that if things go south and we need to fall back or retreat, we can.
Decent plan until the druid casts wind wall or friendly fire.


Also, I have NEVER EVER seen a druid put off getting an animal companion for long. My argument stands. Kill the druids companion and you buy yourself a day. You also buy yourself an opportunity to set up an ambush when the druid wanders off to get it.
Your experience doesn't really mean too much to the capacities of a druid. The animal companion is logically incapable of being anything but strict upside.

The stats on an animal companion are enough, barely, to be a nuisance... generally an easily eliminated nuisance. Take a hawk for example. Its hp is such that it can be 1 shotted by almost anything. A wolf? 1 shot. Camel or horse has a chance to take 2 shots but guess what? You just have a class feature that mimics having a few gold pieces. Congrats?
Are you going to actually evaluate the example I provided? I literally laid out how an animal companion can easily acquire the durability of a melee character. I don't know why, given this, you're just saying they can be easily eliminated. Of course a first level riding dog can be easily eliminated. Anything can be easily eliminated at first level. A riding dog, however, isn't particularly easier to eliminate than anything else, and they're going to be the only party member with the ability to be raised from the dead.



As you advance, it gets better... and so too do the monsters. So at 5th lvl, you have an eagle with 15hp and an ac of 17. Which is toppled from the sky in a single round from a cr5 ranged attacker... pretty much pick any. And congrats, you are once again spending a day getting another.
Eagle? Seriously?


But you can BECOME an eagle now so big whoop right? Except you are generally stuck with forms that have wings so are making numerous fly checks. Hell, you're far more likely to be shot from the sky and eating fall damage than actually contributing meaningfully in combat.
Eagle. Why are you becoming or having an eagle? I get that these are legal options, but that doesn't mean you have to pick them. I... don't think fly checks are a thing in 3.5. Are fly checks a thing in 3.5?


And if you ARE built to contribute meaningfully in combat? Let's see... str for damage, dex for flying or else you're toast, con for hp, wis for spells... looks like you are second only to monks in the MAD department. Hope you're not on point buy.
This is a ludicrous claim. Druids are one of the least ability dependent classes in the entire game. Make a game where everyone gets nothing but 3's and you still have a riding dog and wild shape forms. Make a game where everyone just gets 11's and you can almost always cast your highest level spells and still have all of that combat capacity. Make a totally normal game and the druid can invest in literally nothing but wisdom and constitution, because the other two get replaced whenever you need it. I have literally no idea what "dex for flying" means.



Oh yeah, and you can't access any magic items in animal shape. You have no magic item slots. Zero. The ones with passive boosts merged into your form give those passive boosts, but you can't activate anything.
Wilding clasps are a thing, and plenty of great items can be used without them. Ring of the beast, for example.


So you're pretty much a watered down fighter with no bonus feats and low ac who looks scarier than he actually is that provides a tactical bonus of being able to chase down fleeing weak enemies. Yay?
That's a really really bad characterization. What level are we even talking about here? At first, a druid is more or less a straight up fighter that happens to have a druid friend around who can launch sling bolts and entangles to back it up. At 6th, a druid is a straight up spell platform with a wide variety of strong options, mostly BFC based. And they have venomfire now if you want cheese. At any point past that, they're even more of a spell platform.


Meanwhile that 5th level wizard throws a fireball and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level martial whips out his bow and ends those fleeing enemies.
The 5th level rogue snuck behind them before combat and set traps ending the enemies as they try to flee.
The 5th level bard throws an illusionary fire in their tracks halting them as they are convinced tjeir escape is cut off.
Get the gist? Yeah, you can be passable in a lot of things, but a druid NEVER excels in anything. I class druids as t2 at best, maybe t3 because their abilities are so sub par to everyone else.
And the 5th level druid casts sleetstorm, plant growth, mass snake's swiftness, kelpstrand, blinding spittle, or any number of other spells. I'd take that before literally anything you listed. I mean, the wizard can probably do better, but you said fireball, and that's not exactly super impressive.


1: it has to exist in your gm's universe. Played in more than one campaign where gms just ruled dinosaurs were a flat no, even from summons.
Yeah, fundamentally arbitrary house rules can arbitrarily hurt characters.



The hawk argument was for lvl 1. Your options for animal companions are... slim.
I literally said riding dog. Wolf can work in a pinch.


For 4th lvl, sure you can take a bear. Which, against a mid op sword and board fighter's ac of 24 needs an 18 to hit(20 with bite). With you as a deinonychus needing a 17 to hit (20 with all but talons) against a fighter needing an 11 to hit you and a 3 to hit your bear.
You can also take a fleshraker, which is quite a bit better in general. Same to-hit, and a lot of beefy advantages.


Fighter lvl 5 with tower shield, platemail, masterwork weapon, 20 str, 14 dex, and feats or gold spent to up ac to 24 (easily doable with +1 to both shield and armor) Grand total: about 5k.
That seems pretty mediocre, to be honest. You do realize that spells are an option here, right? Blinding spittle, for example. The fighter is now, in all likelihood, blinded.


Where the fighter has +5 bab, the druid has +3. He also has, in deinonychus form, a 19 str for a total of +7. This needs a 17 to hit. The druid's ac can easily be buffed with a ring of protection +1, bracers of armor +2 and an amulet of natural armor +1 bringing his ac to 21. These items are expensive for a 5th lvl char, but that amount spent buffing ac seems appropriate for a druid. Grand total: 7k
Could do that, or the druid could just not be a dinosaur and cast some spells. I really don't much use wild shape at level 5, to be honest. If it's this hard for your fighter to hit the druid's AC of 21, I wonder how hard it'll be to hit the fleshraker's AC of 22 after I stick leather barding on him.



Buffs are tricky to calculate. Does the fighter and druid know this fight is coming? Does the druid even have bulls strength prepared? How many spells has the druid used today?
The druid does not have bull's strength prepared. Because that spell kinda sucks.


Let's say he adds bulls strength, bears endurance and cat's grace as well as magic fang beforehand.
Nah. I think the druid is pretty advantaged with literally none of that.

Well, the fighter still has 4k gold to play with. Let's give him shield of faith, bulls strength, bear's endurance and expeditious retreat as potion buffs.
You're spending almost half your gold on potion buffs?

So, yeah, if you ignore access to all of the actually impactful spells and just pretend to be a particularly mediocre fighter, you wind up with a particularly mediocre fighter. If you don't ignore the impactful spells, and instead do the opposite of that, then super AC having fighter becomes pretty crappy. A blinded idiot swiping in vain at a druid who can maybe win through the use of sling bullets (though it may become necessary to toss some other spells into the mix). If you choose not to build a particularly mediocre fighter, and instead build a pretty good fighter, then you wind up with a fleshraker, maybe even a natural bond having fleshraker, still backed up by a druid.


Fighter is T5 right? How exactly does:



HP - 13
Init - +2
Spd - 50 ft


AC - 14
TAC - 12
FFAC - 12


BAB/Grp - +1/+2
Attack - Bite +3 (1d6+1)
F. Attack - Bite +3 (1d6+1)


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Trip (+1 check bonus)
Special Qualities: Scent, Low-Light Vision


Fort - +5
Ref - +5
Will - +1


Str - 13
Dex - 15
Con - 15


Int - 2
Wis - 12
Cha - 6


TrackB
Weapon Focus (Bite)




handle typical combat situations better than this:

Human - Fighter 1 - Elite Array Ability Scores


HP - 12
Init - +1
Spd - 20 ft


AC - 15
TAC - 11
FFAC - 14


BAB/Grp - +1/+3
Attack - Greatsword +4 (2d6+3)
Attack - Longbow +2 (1d8)


Space/Reach - 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Trip (+7 check bonus)
Special Qualities:


Fort - +4
Ref - +1
Will - +0


Str - 15
Dex - 12
Con - 14


Int - 13
Wis - 10
Cha - 8


Weapon Focus (Greatsword)Human Bonus
Combat Expertise 1st lvl
Improved Trip Fighter Bonus


Probably doesn't. Few things. First, while fighter is tier five, the weaker tier five is the monk. Not as great a comparison for the not-AC. Second, wolves are good, but riding dogs are better, and leather barding is a thing. Combine these two and the comparison becomes quite a bit better for the animal companion. Third, the goal here isn't precisely outfighting, though that can happen depending on setup and situation. What you want, and this is true across a range of early levels, is something close enough to a fighter. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, broadly speaking, capable of doing the things you want a fighter to do.


While Animal Companions are really cool, I just don't think they are as awesome sauce as a lot of people tend to think, and I don't think they can fully replace a fighter.
Be a fighter? Maybe not. Fully replace a fighter? I think it's possible. A well built fighter is usually going to be better than an animal companion. There are exceptions, but whatever. But what do you want a fighter for? There're a few things. You want someone to stand in front to soak up some attacks. You want someone to traipse into a controlled battlefield to do the damage. You maybe want someone to add extra control to the battlefield, not as the main source but to supplement what's already going on. An animal companion does these things. It does these things well enough that you probably don't need another fighter. You usually can't get ranged combat (though I'm a big fan of the sailsnake), but you're a druid and that's not really why you wanted a fighter in the first place.



But I have successfully argued my points. They are worse at hand to hand combat than a fighter.
Depends on some factors, but sure.


They lose in healing to a cleric (in fact, heal... the best healing spell available, is actually a higher level spell for them)
Unicorn summoning is pretty efficient, but also sure.



Their animal companion is more a liability than a help.
Still makes literally no sense.


Their buffs are mostly self only or meant for animals, and are weaker than same level arcane/cleric buffs.
Sure on the first. Depends on the cleric comparison. They both have advantages and disadvantages.


Why do people consider them t1?
This:


They lose in spell combat to any other full caster.
Really not true. Wizard casting is usually going to be stronger than druid casting. Cleric casting is often going to be weaker. Druid spells are amazing. Without it, with nothing but their direct combat, their healing, their blasting, and their entangle, they are not tier one. It's after you account for the fact that they have an incredibly powerful and versatile spell list that they hit tier one. The list of things a druid cannot do is shockingly small. And we haven't even gotten into wild shape optimization yet, which winds up covering a surprising amount of gaps in the spell list.



Wait, someone other than me created a multi-planar monster like that?! Someone, please, point me at this thing!
Dharculus, yo. Planar handbook, page 112. Really sweet.

[ranagrande]

In the last game I played, my teammates were a barbarian, a fighter, a sorcerer, and a swordsage. I was a druid. For most of the game, I controlled the two most powerful characters, myself and my animal companion. My character was the only one to survive the entire campaign, which was important because I was the only one who could bring back a dead character, via reincarnate.

Animal companions are definitely not a liability. Sure, mine died a few times; I think I went through like six of them. After level 9 though, the companion becomes a nigh unstoppable juggernaut. After that, most combat encounters would begin with me summoning a few more animals and then casting animal growth on them and the companion.

Without me, the party had a lot of shortcomings. As a druid, I could fill every single gap. If there was anything I couldn't do myself, the perfect solution was only a summon spell away.

[Goaty14]

Why do people consider them t1?
This.

I believe you mean this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)).

[AnimeTheCat]

I’m confident you did not prove that for fighter. You proved that a specific fighter is better than the second best AC if he has no armor and you ignore shared heals and better saves and scent and you ignore the fact that he is totally replaceable.

That soulknife example was embarrassing. It basically said “please ignore my lower AC, lower Hp, lower saves, lower AB and your free trip attacks and scent and calll it a win because I can go up trees.” Please by all means continue dismantling your argument in such an effective fashion. So when your job is “stand here and block the enemies from coming through a door and murdering your Mage your response will be to run up a tree and pull out a light crossbow.

How could it possibly be more embarrassing for you? Well I guess you could try to write off the second strongest core feat (after leadership), which the fighter can’t get, as a “feat tax”. That would be flat out funny.

I really don't like your tone and it's kind of really irritating and frustrating me. I recognize your opinion. I don't share it.

I have no further interest in attempting to talk to someone as rude as you.

[Quertus]

@Eggynack: It's not as horrifying / high CR as my homebrew, but clearly a similar idea. thanks!

[Calthropstu]

In the last game I played, my teammates were a barbarian, a fighter, a sorcerer, and a swordsage. I was a druid. For most of the game, I controlled the two most powerful characters, myself and my animal companion. My character was the only one to survive the entire campaign, which was important because I was the only one who could bring back a dead character, via reincarnate.

Animal companions are definitely not a liability. Sure, mine died a few times; I think I went through like six of them. After level 9 though, the companion becomes a nigh unstoppable juggernaut. After that, most combat encounters would begin with me summoning a few more animals and then casting animal growth on them and the companion.

Without me, the party had a lot of shortcomings. As a druid, I could fill every single gap. If there was anything I couldn't do myself, the perfect solution was only a summon spell away.

You must have more tactical acumen than the people I played with then, because my sorcerer filled that role. Granted, it was pf where summons are much much stronger for summon monster, but eh?

When I run campaigns, my players tend to come really close to tpk situations quite often. I played through combats in pfs and breezed through them, but when I ran them those combats took hours.

[Aetis]

Oh my gosh, it's eggynack. You're the guy who did the really comprehensive druid handbook iirc.

I can't for the life of me remember if you answered this in your handbook or not but I always wanted to ask: how do you handle the handle animal skill for your animal companion? Do you just max it and cross your fingers?

In low levels, our druid always had trouble getting his animal companion to do what he wanted due to failing Handle Animal checks. (why the heck is it based off Cha???) In addition, the DM generally controlled the animal companion in combat (with our druid issuing orders), so it was quite difficult to get it to move around tactically even if the checks succeeded!

[eggynack]

Oh my gosh, it's eggynack. You're the guy who did the really comprehensive druid handbook iirc.

I can't for the life of me remember if you answered this in your handbook or not but I always wanted to ask: how do you handle the handle animal skill for your animal companion? Do you just max it and cross your fingers?

In low levels, our druid always had trouble getting his animal companion to do what he wanted due to failing Handle Animal checks. (why the heck is it based off Cha???) In addition, the DM generally controlled the animal companion in combat (with our druid issuing orders), so it was quite difficult to get it to move around tactically even if the checks succeeded!
The numbers are pretty stacked in favor of handle animal working. Link grants both a +4 to the check and the ability to make checks as a free action. Handling only takes a DC 10, maybe a DC 12. Even if you have like 8 charisma and no investment in the skill, you can still make a reasonable number of free action checks and succeed basically every time. Decent investment can make that success even more straightforward. Of course, that's assuming the companion is trained in the trick in question, but that covers a lot of the ground you would want in combat contexts. A lot of what you want is just attacking specific enemies as opposed to enemies in general.

[Aetis]

Ah, we use that you can only attempt handle animal once per round, even if it's a free action. We agreed that it didn't make sense for the druid master to be able to try it a bunch of times in midst of combat.

DC 10/12 is pretty devastating at lv 1 if you have no ranks and negative Cha I think? You're more likely to fail than succeed...

EDIT: Sorry, I assumed 3 Cha for negative cha. I guess you have better than 50% due to the +4, but it still seems really big. I dunno.

[eggynack]

Ah, we use that you can only attempt handle animal once per round, even if it's a free action. We agreed that it didn't make sense for the druid master to be able to try it a bunch of times in midst of combat.

DC 10/12 is pretty devastating at lv 1 if you have no ranks and negative Cha I think? You're more likely to fail than succeed...

EDIT: Sorry, I assumed 3 Cha for negative cha. I guess you have better than 50% due to the +4, but it still seems really big. I dunno.
In that case you generally just invest a bit. My stated situation was a bit of a worst case scenario. -1 from charisma, +4 from link, and the goal is 10, so you need just +6 to succeed on that every time. The +4 you get from investing at first level leaves you with a +8 to the check, which means a 90% success rate, and a couple levels gets you to 100%. Honestly, there's only so much you can do at the only levels where this is relevant, cause resources be limited. By the point you could do anything to meaningfully optimize, you'd already probably have enough juice to always succeed.

[Lans]

That soulknife example was embarrassing. It basically said “please ignore my lower AC, lower Hp, lower saves, lower AB and your free trip attacks and scent and calll it a win because I can go up trees.” Please by all means continue dismantling your argument in such an effective fashion. So when your job is “stand here and block the enemies from coming through a door and murdering your Mage your response will be to run up a tree and pull out a light crossbow.


The Elan soulknifes hp should be 2 higher, and can spend 1 of its 4 power points to reduce the damage its going to take by 2 or to gain +4 to its saves.





While Animal Companions are really cool, I just don't think they are as awesome sauce as a lot of people tend to think, and I don't think they can fully replace a fighter. If for no other reason, they would essentially need to be outfitted as another PC, which would mean that both it and the druid would be 50% behind the rest of the party in WBL, if you're outfitting it like the fighter with Magic Items. If you're not, I don't have any doubt that a fighter could do better than an animal companion at all levels of play.


Does the reduced WBL even matter? Instead of a +5 ring of deflection and amulet of natural armor you have 2 +3 versions, instead of a +6 stat booster you have 2 +4. Instead of 1 +5 cloak of resistance you have 2 +5 cloak of resistances. I think the wildshape and spells can cover the difference.




And there's nothing stopping a druid from picking up a weapon. They have medium BAB and a d8 hit die. That's basically -1 to hit and -1 HP/level compared to a martial character. So the martial dork's advantages boil down to the equivalent of...Weapon Focus and Improved Toughness? Which are well known to be extremely powerful feats, I guess?

You are forgetting the class features of the martial character, a whirling frenzy barbarian would get +1 attack and 3 on damage, warblade could get 1d6 damage+ other stuff, the warrior has two handed martial weapons for an extra point of damage.

[Troacctid]

You are forgetting the class features of the martial character, a whirling frenzy barbarian would get +1 attack and 3 on damage, warblade could get 1d6 damage+ other stuff, the warrior has two handed martial weapons for an extra point of damage.
But they weren't doing that in the example, were they?

[Lans]

But they weren't doing that in the example, were they?

You said compared to a martial character, not the martial character so what they were doing in the example doesn't matter.

[Acanous]

You are forgetting the class features of the martial character, a whirling frenzy barbarian would get +1 attack and 3 on damage, warblade could get 1d6 damage+ other stuff, the warrior has two handed martial weapons for an extra point of damage.
If it’s that close, I think the point is made

[ryu]

If it’s that close, I think the point is made

Especially with martial classes being heavily front-loaded where the animal hasn't hit peak growth relative to general power curve. Game gets a lot harder for the poor martial when the fleshraker shows up.

[Ignimortis]

Especially with martial classes being heavily front-loaded where the animal hasn't hit peak growth relative to general power curve. Game gets a lot harder for the poor martial when the fleshraker shows up.

I figure if the fleshraker does show up, then your monks aren't exactly straight PHB monks either, and your fighters are at least taking dungeoncrasher levels, and so on.

[emeraldstreak]

A monk with toughness.

Sure.

1st level Shifter Monk
Undying Way (Toughness as bonus monk feat)
Troll-Blooded (1st level)
Endurance (flaw1)
Shifter Stamina (flaw2)

Congratulations, you're now immune to damage while shifting.


PS. We've been over this before, Fighters aren't a match for Monks optimized for damage dice. The most charitable thing that can be said about Fighters is they get ubercharger going a few levels faster.

[Florian]

I think it will mostly depend on type of campaign, pacing and whether or not you have to carefully manage your resources. High tier classes in a more proactive game, like a sandbox campaign, will work very different from being in a more reactive game, like an AP.

@Druid discussion:

I think it´s fair to say that the 3E/3.5E druid suffers from some stupid design choices. Two main class features, AC and WS, are dependent on gm material, so stuff that follows very different design and balance criteria than what's made for players, ie. fleshraker and hydra form.

[eggynack]

I think it´s fair to say that the 3E/3.5E druid suffers from some stupid design choices. Two main class features, AC and WS, are dependent on gm material, so stuff that follows very different design and balance criteria than what's made for players, ie. fleshraker and hydra form.
The animal companion isn't that big of a deal, because the designers had the option of whether to allow any given creature as a companion. They made some mistakes on what to let into the club, and at which level, but it's kinda like summoning or spells in general. Power grows by way of source access, but not in a way that grants access to things that the designers didn't likely intend.

You're correct about wild shape though. The obvious issues here are aberration and dragon wild shape, the former especially. Exalted and frozen, as powerful as they can be, are akin to the fleshraker in that everything you're doing is more or less intentional. Well, maybe not the celestial animal for free Ex abilities thing, but cryohydra is literally right there in the book. By contrast, only some dragon things you can pull off are likely intentional, and I'd guess that's the case for an incredibly small minority of the more interesting things you can do with aberrations.

The problems show up before that though. Animals they almost had a handle on. A dire tortoise here, maybe some weird vision mode or fast healing there, but it's all relatively normal. Plants though, they sometimes read like mini-aberrations. Not on the same level, certainly, but I doubt the designers expected you to be able to animate the dead by becoming a plant. I wouldn't quite call it all broken, but it's nowhere close to what the designers were expecting.