Why don't people want to gish?

[magicalmagicman]

Lot of talk about mundanes and how to balance casters in this forum of late.
A lot of opinions thrown around from mundane users is "I don't want to use magic". The question is, why not?

Mundanes need their WBL in magic gear to function. So they're already being affected by magic, be it in the form of all day buff or x/day flight or whatever.

Mundanes constantly ask spellcasters to buff them.

So... why not go a gish and be completely self sufficient instead of whining about how OP casters are and how mundanes are reliant on wealth or that minions completely replace them? Minions may replace mundanes but not properly built gishes.

Also versatility. A gish can prepare or learn spells that help them do the out of combat things spellcasters do, be it teleport, divinations, crafting, etc.

Barbarians have rage/day. So why not call Righteous Might or Divine Power "rage" and just be done with it? Why are there so many people who completely insistent on not going a gish and then cry about how OP casters are compared to them? If you're going to bash things with a magical sword while teleporting around by tapping your boots together, why not learn how to cast spells that do the same for free instead of crying about how reliant you are on wealth?

A gish is on par with PO and TO spellcasters even if all they do is bash things with a magical sword. So why not gish if all you want to do is bash things with a sword? Why do people stubbornly stick to a fighter and then cry how weak they are?

Is there a reason you must play the dead level filled horrendously scaling class that must rely on a kingdom's treasury worth of magic equipment just to stay slightly less irrelevant instead of the mountains and mountains of PrCs, class features, and spells that let you customize your character? Why don't they do this instead of banning every single thing in 3.5 to keep everything on par with a naked fighter?

[Uncle Pine]

Because there can be a certain romantic appeal in playing brutes and smashers.

Because d&d is a cooperative game, so "not being self sufficient" can enhance fun rather than limit it.

Because most people who ask how to build a mundane character for a real game don't give a poop about tiers and just want to have fun with their character concept.

[Kurald Galain]

People do want to gish. Whatever makes you think they don't? :smallamused:

[Venger]

Lot of talk about mundanes and how to balance casters in this forum of late.
A lot of opinions thrown around from mundane users is "I don't want to use magic". The question is, why not?
Much of the time because they want to recreate a character from an anime, tv show, comic, etc, who doesn't have magical powers that map out 1:1 to how magic works in D&D


Mundanes need their WBL in magic gear to function. So they're already being affected by magic, be it in the form of all day buff or x/day flight or whatever.
People who tend to ask these sorts of questions tend not to know that, especially in the "mage killer" threads who want to operate entirely without magic including items.


So... why not go a gish and be completely self sufficient instead of whining about how OP casters are and how mundanes are reliant on wealth or that minions completely replace them? Minions may replace mundanes but not properly built gishes.
For the most part, it's either a new player who doesn't know/isn't interested in learning how to play a caster since it's a whole new set of rules and a lot of bookkeeping (depending on the class) or an expert player who wants to play on hard mode, often to hamstring himself so he'll be able to play with a table with less system mastery


A gish is on par with PO and TO spellcasters even if all they do is bash things with a magical sword. So why not gish if all you want to do is bash things with a sword? Why do people stubbornly stick to a fighter and then cry how weak they are?

Is there a reason you must play the dead level filled horrendously scaling class that must rely on a kingdom's treasury worth of magic equipment just to stay slightly less irrelevant instead of the mountains and mountains of PrCs, class features, and spells that let you customize your character? Why don't they do this instead of banning every single thing in 3.5 to keep everything on par with a naked fighter?

If, after all this, they continue to rebuff your attempts to help them, then their goal isn't to accomplish anything, but to complain and shoot down all your ideas. It's best not to post in those sorts of threads.

[Nifft]

People do want to gish.

It's just that we play a gish in our game, instead of complaining on the forums about it -- probably because it works great.

[Venger]

People do want to gish.

It's just that we play a gish in our game, instead of complaining on the forums about it -- probably because it works great.

Very true. People who play gishes and have everything work fine seldom make threads about it.

I think magicalmagicman is referring stuff like the ubiquitous "fighter fix" and similar threads where people say "fighter sucks how can it be made better?" and then shoot down every attempt to give it anything, saying "no spells, no maneuvers, no nothing. why does fighter still suck? does anyone have ideas?"

[ryu]

Very true. People who play gishes and have everything work fine seldom make threads about it.

I think magicalmagicman is referring stuff like the ubiquitous "fighter fix" and similar threads where people say "fighter sucks how can it be made better?" and then shoot down every attempt to give it anything, saying "no spells, no maneuvers, no nothing. why does fighter still suck? does anyone have ideas?"

To which I always respond with "No I don't have ideas because the problem is not having enough meaningful options, and you won't accept simply giving them options. Like, what actually do you want from me?"

[ranagrande]

Mundanes need their WBL in magic gear to function. So they're already being affected by magic, be it in the form of all day buff or x/day flight or whatever.

Not necessarily. There are all kinds of fun things you can do without magic or items, like having an armor class of 87.

[Knaight]

People don't want to gish because they want to play any one of the numerous fantasy archetypes that don't involve casting spells, in a game that explicitly claims to provide those fantasy archetypes. That said archetypes have a tendency to suck is a failing of the game, not the players who like the archetypes.

[Venger]

To which I always respond with "No I don't have ideas because the problem is not having enough meaningful options, and you won't accept simply giving them options. Like, what actually do you want from me?"
Nothing. They just want to whine and shoot down good ideas.


Not necessarily. There are all kinds of fun things you can do without magic or items, like having an armor class of 87.

So, setting aside how difficult it is to get a good AC without magic (anything 21+ higher than your enemies' to-hit is a waste,) AC is pointless due to the proliferation of things that offer a way to bypass it via touch attacks, and without scintillating scales, you're up a certain creek without a certain implement. To say nothing of aoes, targeted magical effects, etc. This is the reason it's preferable for most normal characters to make the comparatively simple defensive measure of miss chance through things like a cloak of minor displacement.

Mundanes simply need gear more than casters, because they can't natively provide themselves with magical effects. There's certain things, like flying, that you can't do on your own no matter how many pushups you can do.

[ranagrande]

Mundanes simply need gear more than casters, because they can't natively provide themselves with magical effects. There's certain things, like flying, that you can't do on your own no matter how many pushups you can do.

There are lots of ways to achieve mundane flight. You could be a Raptoran or Dragonborn, for instance, or one of numerous higher ECL races.

Yes, we all know that magic is inherently better. Succeeding without it is challenging, and that can be fun.

[RoboEmperor]

Yes, we all know that magic is inherently better. Succeeding without it is challenging, and that can be fun.

That's not what the OP is saying though. He's saying people don't use magic and then cry about how OP magic is and then demands magic to be banned.

[Venger]

There are lots of ways to achieve mundane flight. You could be a Raptoran or Dragonborn, for instance, or one of numerous higher ECL races.

Yes, we all know that magic is inherently better. Succeeding without it is challenging, and that can be fun.
You will notice I said "like flying," as in non-exhaustive. It's just one of the most clear-cut, binary things on the list of necessary magic items, but there's also negating invisibility, miss chance, dr/magic, etc.

You could indeed be a raptoran or dragonborn or something else, but you'll notice that those are benefits conferred by your race, not by your class, so if you pick a mundane class such as fighter or barbarian, they do not natively provide access to these things. You fixing the problem via race instead of magic items doesn't mean the class provides these things, it means the opposite.

My point isn't that magic is better, it's that all characters need to have access to magic. Casters have it through their casting. Mundanes need it through their gear or caster allies, or they are going to die when they run into a shadow at level 3. The game is written assuming you'll have access to these things.


That's not what the OP is saying though. He's saying people don't use magic and then cry about how OP magic is and then demands magic to be banned.

yeah.

[Florian]

Why should I want to play a Magus when I want to play a Fighter? I chose the Magus when I want to play Magus, period. I also don't see the issue with WBL, or where there should be any hypocrisy, because that's simply tied into the level and CR structure of the game. If you don't want that, use Automatic Bonus Progression and the issue is solved, no more x-mass tree.

[Knaight]

Why should I want to play a Magus when I want to play a Fighter? I chose the Magus when I want to play Magus, period. I also don't see the issue with WBL, or where there should be any hypocrisy, because that's simply tied into the level and CR structure of the game. If you don't want that, use Automatic Bonus Progression and the issue is solved, no more x-mass tree.

More than that, the idea that every character that uses magic items should also cast spells is ridiculous. The skills needed to use a magic item (particularly a weapon or similar) aren't even slightly similar to those needed to cast spells, and tend to fit neatly within basically every non-caster adventuring fantasy archetype; spells simply don't.

[ExLibrisMortis]

In-universe, there is no justification for being a "mundane", because the rules clearly spell out that mundanes suck at most anything (compared to spellcasters). Hence, people who do not want to gish (=not want to play a spellcaster) must want to play someone who sucks. If people whine about that, they need to find a game that rewards you for ignoring half the universe's physics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Couple reasons;

Let's just knock out the mechanical issues first;

Casting is usually a standard action. Attacking is either a standard or a full round. You can't do both on any given round unless you put real effort and resources into either quickening spells reliably or breaking the action economy or both. Easiest route is probably daze immunity and the celerity spells but daze immunity isn't trivial.

Then there's the comparison; a dedicated caster is just plain better at casting and a Gish is actually -more- buff reliant than a dedicated martial. The balancing act creates as many weaknesses as it covers until/ unless you push it into "dispel dc = lol, no" territory; another non-trivial investment that takes away from your martial options. A Gish can be either crap at melee and a decent (not good) caster, decent at melee and a crap caster, or merely acceptable at both.

When he's at peak function, fully buffed before combat begins, he's a terror to behold. When he's caught by surprise or just been dispelled, he's less than the martial he's mimicking. Worse still; he's less able than a martial with the same buffs, nevermind the level appropriate buffs he's at least one level behind on casting. Unless it's an all Gish party, the synergy between a dedicated caster and a dedicated martial is greater than the synergy between two gishes.

Mechanics alone; a gish is better than no caster in the party at all but a straight step down from a dedicated martial if there's even one other player looking at a dedicated caster. Even if he doesn't give you buffs, the only thing he can do that doesn't enable you to better squish the enemies is self-buff and fight them directly, stepping on your toes when either buffing you or using a different tactic is invariably more optimal.

Now that's not to say gishing doesn't have its appeal. As I said above, a fully buffed Gish is a nightmarish foe and if you have the chance to prebuff then there's no reason you have to choose only one character to buff especially if you go warweaver. Two swords beat one on cleanup after successfully debuffing or controlling the enemy.



Now that we've discussed the practical, let's look at the subjective.

First, just calling divine power "rage" doesn't change the fact it's magic. It's still subject to dispelling, dead magic zones, and being turned against you by certain abjurations. Refluffing is great but there are limits.

That out of the way; dedicated martials, even most martial adepts, just don't play the same as gishes. There's no build-up, there's no prep' work, you just go most of the time. There's way less short-term resource management. That's a good thing to a -lot- of people.

Then there's the flavor of it; while it's certainly true that no character gets along without magic beyond a fairly low level (certain very specific builds, excepted), there's something... different... about that magic being something external and alien rather than an inherent part of you.

For the martial character, you're just a soldier. Maybe special forces, sure, but you don't need to know how the power armour works, only that it does. The engineers can do the building, the politicians can do the talking, you do the killing with the tools you can get 'cause somebody's gotta do it.

A gish is somewhere between a super hero and an eccentric mage. Maybe you can angle for the engineer or scientist but that really feels more artificery.

And, of course, the touched by the gods divine gishes are what they are.


Finally, there's a detail that I've tried to explain before but seems difficult for some people to grasp; it's -harder- to play a martial character. The resources and options are inherently more limited than with other types of characters. Overcoming challenges with limited resources is just more satisfying than having a huge box of tools and just picking the right one for the current situation.


These are the best answers I have for this question.

To be perfectly clear; I'm not saying that martials are better than gishes overall. All I'm saying is that there are perfectly valid reasons why someone might choose a martial character over a gish.

[Kurald Galain]

Casting is usually a standard action. Attacking is either a standard or a full round. You can't do both on any given round unless you put real effort and resources into either quickening spells reliably or breaking the action economy or both.
Unless you play Pathfinder, which has several classes that can do precisely that (and from very low level, too). Gishes are popular in PF.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

Some people just don't care for actual spellcasting, like my friend Calvin. He loves using items though and never asks for any buffs. His main build he ends up doing more damage than most of the party, and usually will have items for self sustainability, like a belt of healing.

The rest of my group seems to either go full out caster or full out warrior. And unless someone plays a bard we don't actually use really any buffs from the caster. And we regularly take out monsters with CR above our level with relative ease.

I'm basically the only one that'll play a gish in the party, and I tend to build either heal tank cleric or lightning kensai (magus archetype), with the heal tank he does mostly front line fighting, and healing whenever needed, though when I have it I do cast lesser vigor mass at the beginning of battles. The magus uses the spellstrike class feature, using words of power instead of normal spells so he can make the spell to be able to be used through spellstrike.

[magicalmagicman]

Theres a difference between people playing mundanes who know what they are doing, and people playing mundanes who don't have a clue what d&d is and then proceeds to cry and ban/nerf all spellcasters because these people decided to take up DMing.

I'm seeing a lot of the former in this thread, people who play mundanes for the challenge and are good enough to pull them off, but I'm asking why people of the latter don't gish and instead start house rule homebrew ban spam and then calls their house rule home brew ban spam smart or balanced.

Or hell, even learn how to mundane properly, as clearly mentioned above, they hold their own even at high levels.

[Venger]

Theres a difference between people playing mundanes who know what they are doing, and people playing mundanes who don't have a clue what d&d is and then proceeds to cry and ban/nerf all spellcasters because these people decided to take up DMing.

I'm seeing a lot of the former in this thread, people who play mundanes for the challenge and are good enough to pull them off, but I'm asking why people of the latter don't gish and instead start house rule homebrew ban spam and then calls their house rule home brew ban spam smart or balanced.

Or hell, even learn how to mundane properly, as clearly mentioned above, they hold their own even at high levels.

You've kind of answered your own question: as said upthread, the reason new players seek out mundanes and then forswear magic is that they don't understand the system very well and think that's a viable option.

only learning to play mundanes may mean you don't have to learn the casting subsystem, yes, but being good at playing a mundane, as mentioned, requires a great degree of system mastery because the game is not built to support them, so you need to know about a lot of stuff, like playing an archer, twfer, or precision damage user.

[emeraldstreak]

Lot of talk about mundanes and how to balance casters in this forum of late.
A lot of opinions thrown around from mundane users is "I don't want to use magic". The question is, why not?

Mundanes need their WBL in magic gear to function. So they're already being affected by magic, be it in the form of all day buff or x/day flight or whatever.

Mundanes constantly ask spellcasters to buff them.

So... why not go a gish and be completely self sufficient instead of whining about how OP casters are and how mundanes are reliant on wealth or that minions completely replace them? Minions may replace mundanes but not properly built gishes.

Also versatility. A gish can prepare or learn spells that help them do the out of combat things spellcasters do, be it teleport, divinations, crafting, etc.

Barbarians have rage/day. So why not call Righteous Might or Divine Power "rage" and just be done with it? Why are there so many people who completely insistent on not going a gish and then cry about how OP casters are compared to them? If you're going to bash things with a magical sword while teleporting around by tapping your boots together, why not learn how to cast spells that do the same for free instead of crying about how reliant you are on wealth?

A gish is on par with PO and TO spellcasters even if all they do is bash things with a magical sword. So why not gish if all you want to do is bash things with a sword? Why do people stubbornly stick to a fighter and then cry how weak they are?

Is there a reason you must play the dead level filled horrendously scaling class that must rely on a kingdom's treasury worth of magic equipment just to stay slightly less irrelevant instead of the mountains and mountains of PrCs, class features, and spells that let you customize your character? Why don't they do this instead of banning every single thing in 3.5 to keep everything on par with a naked fighter?

People do gish. What people don't want is dealing with huge lists of equipment, but if you're on the mundane side they are a must. I'll dig up an old "gishy" great renown champion to show you how much equipment he had even being in the lower levels.

[Venger]

People do gish. What people don't want is dealing with huge lists of equipment, but if you're on the mundane side they are a must. I'll dig up an old "gishy" great renown champion to show you how much equipment he had even being in the lower levels.

There's that as well. Depending on your gm, you may not be able to afford all the goodies you'll need to be able to keep up as a pure mundane.

[AvatarVecna]

"I see so many people complaining about how the martial-caster divide in 3.5 forces them to play a caster if they want to be good. Well, have you thought about playing a caster who pretends to not be a caster? Seems like the best of both worlds!"

No. No it's not. Not only does this "solution" not solve the problem people have with the divide, the presented "solution" is literally the problem they're complaining about.

[magicalmagicman]

You've kind of answered your own question: as said upthread, the reason new players seek out mundanes and then forswear magic is that they don't understand the system very well and think that's a viable option.

only learning to play mundanes may mean you don't have to learn the casting subsystem, yes, but being good at playing a mundane, as mentioned, requires a great degree of system mastery because the game is not built to support them, so you need to know about a lot of stuff, like playing an archer, twfer, or precision damage user.

Thanks for putting it in perspective.

D&D 3.5 is a high magic game.
Anyone who doesn't try to use a lot of magic fails.
New Mundane users don't try to use a lot of magic.
New Mundane users fail.
New Mundane users instead of trying to learn magic items/gishing, they try to convert D&D 3.5 into a low magic game.
New Mundane users take up DMing and ruin games with house rules homebrew ban spam.

So it's not a Mundane/Caster problem, it's more of a new player/DM ranting on forums problem (though I'm guilty of ranting too XD).

Thanks! I got it now.

"Go high magic or go home" - D&D 3.5

[Elkad]

DMs encourage it by giving out terrible point buy.

A duskblade wants 4 good stats at least. A Sorcadin wants 5, plus enough Int to still get some skillpoints.

When you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with 25 points, better to just be a Druid. Which makes a fine Gish anyway.

[RoboEmperor]

DMs encourage it by giving out terrible point buy.

A duskblade wants 4 good stats at least. A Sorcadin wants 5, plus enough Int to still get some skillpoints.

When you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with 25 points, better to just be a Druid. Which makes a fine Gish anyway.

If u do 25 PB, mundanes hit hard and clerics hit soft.
If u do more than 25 PB, like 32 PB clerics hit just as hard as mundanes and therefore no real advantage of going mundane.

[lylsyly]

Who says people don't want to gish. I never play a caster without going the Gish route. Even if it is just to have more options at lower levels.

[2D8HP]

@2D8HP:

Oi, man, please scale down those images! That really hurts on mobile!

We have been over that before. Even with a very complex and fiddly game system like anything based on D20, including 3.5E and Pathfinder, the art here is to build a "mundane" that is deceptively easy to learn and use, intuitive to play without having to deal with/learn a truck-load of rules, fun to play and still competitive in a very toxic environment, like this very forum. Can be done because it already has been done, problem s more to talk with the right people about it.



]Because I lack the mental agility to effectively play a spell-caster anyway, plus I want to play Captain Sinbad the hero,


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTczOTk3NDU3Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTYzNDQyNA@@._ V1_UY218_CR14,0,150,218_AL_.jpg


not the villainous Sokurah the Magician!


http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNGZiNzYyYTQtZTU1OC00NmQ3LThkMTAtODY1MmY2MTdlZD ljXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzc5NjM0NA@@._V1_SY800_CR0,0,133 3,1000_AL_.jpg

Because what is right, true, beautiful, and proper is that after Hristomilo casts his wicked spell, he meets Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser's blades (Yes, my ideas of how D&D should be pretty much begin and end with Leiber's works (https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg030.pdf))


Because

Magic Is Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicIsEvil)

so the

Barbarian Hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BarbarianHero)

fights the

Evil Sorcerer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilSorcerer)!


Because in the long run

the magic goes away (http://bronzeageofblogs.blogspot.com/2017/02/not-long-before-end.html)


Conan didn't casts spells!

[Darrin]

Spellcasting requires a lot of effort to do well. You have to select the right spells, manage your spell slots, and be prepared to do an awful lot of bookdiving to look up monster stats and SLAs and subtables and so forth. I can do this easily if I'm in the right mood and the particular group I'm in needs an IDKFA Wizard to crack a few planets in half.

But in a lot of cases, spellcasting is a lot more *work* than it is fun.

Sometimes I'm perfectly happy chopping things in half with a greataxe or slipping a dagger into an ogre's spleen. I don't always need to shoehorn the whole magic subsystem into my character concept to have a good time at the table.

[BassoonHero]

The original question is not quite right. It isn't that players don't want to play gishes, but that they do want to play non-gishes.

There's no conflict here. Players like playing all sorts of characters. I've played a wide variety of mundane fighter-types and a fair number of gishes. I've played all of the major archetypes, most of them more than once. None of them is a substitute for any other.

[Florian]

@2D8HP:

Oi, man, please scale down those images! That really hurts on mobile!

We have been over that before. Even with a very complex and fiddly game system like anything based on D20, including 3.5E and Pathfinder, the art here is to build a "mundane" that is deceptively easy to learn and use, intuitive to play without having to deal with/learn a truck-load of rules, fun to play and still competitive in a very toxic environment, like this very forum. Can be done because it already has been done, problem s more to talk with the right people about it.

[Elkad]

If u do 25 PB, mundanes hit hard and clerics hit soft.
If u do more than 25 PB, like 32 PB clerics hit just as hard as mundanes and therefore no real advantage of going mundane.

A cleric is already a gish if he wants to be. And once his buffs come online, a few extra stat points disappear into the noise.

More points closes the tier gap. 42points (what I consider the starting point of "high" pointbuy) does far more good for the Duskblade, Paladin, etc than it does for the Cleric. The wizard gets a few more hitpoints. The druid doesn't even care, because he's using the physical stats of whatever he is wildshaped into anyway.

The low-tier guy will never catch up from more points, but it helps. At least then he's not stuck putting his lone skillpoint in Ride his entire career.

[ryu]

A cleric is already a gish if he wants to be. And once his buffs come online, a few extra stat points disappear into the noise.

More points closes the tier gap. 42points (what I consider the starting point of "high" pointbuy) does far more good for the Duskblade, Paladin, etc than it does for the Cleric. The wizard gets a few more hitpoints. The druid doesn't even care, because he's using the physical stats of whatever he is wildshaped into anyway.

The low-tier guy will never catch up from more points, but it helps. At least then he's not stuck putting his lone skillpoint in Ride his entire career.

The druid looks at it and goes: "Extra skill points and never failing a handle animal check sweet."

[emeraldstreak]

Here's the consumables' list of the then fastest to great renown rating champion of the Core Coliseum, a Monk/Cleric with Magic domain/Psychic Warrior, who I played as a gish. Mind you, 1) source material was limited and supplements were still being published at the time; creating a list of similar effect with all the 1st party material available will be even more bookkeeping; 2) it's for a low-level character 3) just the consumables 4) the Coliseum's shop was stocked, no DM dramas for my gish




Expendable Items: [0lb] [tot. 5675gp]
Arcane Scrolls: [2550gp]
Expedious Retreat [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Protection from Law [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
2x True Strike [CL 1] [0 lbs][50 gp]
Shield [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
2x Sleep [CL 1] [0 lbs][50 gp]
Protection from Arrows[CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
See Invisibility [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
2x Invisibility [CL 3] [0 lbs][300 gp]
Blindness/Deafness [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Summon Swarm [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Mirror Image [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Fly [CL 5] [0 lbs][375 gp]
Stoneskin [CL 7] [0 lbs][950 gp]
Divine Scrolls: [875gp]
Protection from Evil [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Protection from Chaos [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Protection from Good [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Magic Weapon [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Hide from Undead [CL 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
2x Resist Energy [CL 3] [0 lbs][300 gp]
Shatter [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Silence [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Hold Person [CL 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
Powerstones: [700gp]
Inertial Armor [ML 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
Synesthete [ML 1] [0 lbs][25 gp]
ExpansionA [ML 3] [0 lbs][150 gp]
2x Dissolving Weapon [ML 3] [0 lbs][300 gp]
VigorA [ML 4] [0 lbs][200 gp]
Wands: [750gp]
wand of cure light wounds (50) [0 lbs][750 gp]
Wondrous Items: [500gp]
Feather token:whip [0 lbs][500 gp]
Poisons: [300gp]
Sassone Leaf Residue [0 lbs][300 gp]

[ericgrau]

People want to gish. And people want to not gish. Even on mundanes, the system expects you to rely on magic items like you said. I have a lot of fun optimizing magic items on pure mundanes and it works well. I've been more versatile then the party wizard/cleric this way; simply because they didn't go as far in decking out their options via spells. The only problem comes when you want to play a mundane gear mundane, or you think they should stand alone without their gear. Then you're playing the wrong system.

[tiercel]

One problem I see with asking “why play a mundane when you could (should?) play a gish instead?” is that the same logic leads to asking “why play a gish when you could (should?) play a full caster instead?”

I mean, if it’s the spellcasting that is all that makes you so good, why are you swinging a piece of metal around at all when you could instead have more spellcasting? Why waste time and energy on close-in combat buffs when you could just rain battlefield control, debuffs, summons, or, gods forbid, even AoE damage from afar?

Following the chain of logic to its unimaginative end might lead one to conclude that anyone who isn’t playing an Abrupt Jaunting, Spontaneous Divinationing, DCFSing, RAW-spell-reading-hard-enough-to-make-the-Tippyverse-cry Incantatrix (or some similarly-tricked-out T1-pushing-for-T0-territory build) is just Doing It Wrong.

Options are good and all but “I solve the problem as a standard action; next?” can feel a little less like heroism and a little more like having an arcane (or divine or psionic) accounting degree.

[Falontani]

Following the chain of logic to its unimaginative end might lead one to conclude that anyone who isn’t playing an Abrupt Jaunting, Spontaneous Divinationing, DCFSing, RAW-spell-reading-hard-enough-to-make-the-Tippyverse-cry Incantatrix (or some similarly-tricked-out T1-pushing-for-T0-territory build) is just Doing It Wrong.


I think I'll just play an artificer. That is T0 enough.

[Ignimortis]

People want to gish. And people want to not gish. Even on mundanes, the system expects you to rely on magic items like you said. I have a lot of fun optimizing magic items on pure mundanes and it works well. I've been more versatile then the party wizard/cleric this way; simply because they didn't go as far in decking out their options via spells. The only problem comes when you want to play a mundane gear mundane, or you think they should stand alone without their gear. Then you're playing the wrong system.

Or you could use the automatic bonus progression. That eliminates the need for "the big six", and if your fighter really wants to be self-sufficient without magic items, helps quite a bit.

[Necroticplague]

Or you could use the automatic bonus progression. That eliminates the need for "the big six", and if your fighter really wants to be self-sufficient without magic items, helps quite a bit.

Getting rid of the big six only stops the fighter from numerically (quantitatively) falling behind, though. It doesn't remotely stop them from falling behind qualitatively, since they tend to get stronger version of low-level abilities at higher levels, instead of higher-level abilities.

[ericgrau]

Agreed, but it sounds like a good way to at least partly reduce WBL and item tracking.

As for all the tricks I pull optimizing magic items, none of them are numerical. Though I get numerical bonuses too.

[Ignimortis]

Getting rid of the big six only stops the fighter from numerically (quantitatively) falling behind, though. It doesn't remotely stop them from falling behind qualitatively, since they tend to get stronger version of low-level abilities at higher levels, instead of higher-level abilities.

Oh, of course. A completely magic-free fighter won't do much even with that system.


Agreed, but it sounds like a good way to at least partly reduce WBL and item tracking.

And reduces the necessity of magic items to mostly (at least slightly) interesting effects instead of numerical bonuses.

[Andor13]

Lot of talk about mundanes and how to balance casters in this forum of late.
A lot of opinions thrown around from mundane users is "I don't want to use magic". The question is, why not?

Really? I'm seeing a lot more posts along the line of "Someone at my table isn't playing a T1 character. How can I crush their soul so badly they'll never want to pick up dice again? WTF is wrong with people who come to D&D wanting to emulate Conan, or Fafhrd, or Aragorn, or d'Artagnan, or Musashi, or Lancelot? How dare they expect me to aid them with breathing under water? It's almost like they think this isn't a cut-throat, winner take all, competition."


Spellcasting requires a lot of effort to do well. You have to select the right spells, manage your spell slots, and be prepared to do an awful lot of bookdiving to look up monster stats and SLAs and subtables and so forth. I can do this easily if I'm in the right mood and the particular group I'm in needs an IDKFA Wizard to crack a few planets in half.

But in a lot of cases, spellcasting is a lot more *work* than it is fun.

Sometimes I'm perfectly happy chopping things in half with a greataxe or slipping a dagger into an ogre's spleen. I don't always need to shoehorn the whole magic subsystem into my character concept to have a good time at the table.

This. I've been playing D&D since the Red Box set, and I haven't had the interest to pour over spell lists in detail since 2e. It is a stupendous amount of work to gain deep system mastery of Spell Casting, far more than for any other sub system in the game. Even a quick glance at a guide is enough to get a fair grasp of optimizing any other class to whatever level your table demands.

There seem to be a lot of people on these boards who, if they are IRL anything like they seem online, I would never play more than a single session with. What's with this sense of entitlement that anyone who enjoys a different aspect of the game than T1 high op world breaking is having badwrongfun and must be stopped?

Before anyone comes back with some anecdote about dead weight players, I'm not talking about "That Guy". I've played with that guy. I once had to spend 45 minutes explaining to someone why he really shouldn't try to make a fighter with no thumbs. We actually had to break out shinai and knock them out of his hands a bunch of times before he would concede it was a terrible idea.

A dead weight player is dead weight whatever their class.

At this point in my gaming career I have no interest in playing a T1 caster. I simply don't want to put that level of effort into mastering my characters abilities. And I don't have to. 3.5/PF gives me tons of options for making enjoyable and effective characters who need absolutely nothing from the casters aside from the occasional heal or plane shift. A Totemist say, or an Aegis in PF. Or even a fighter who spends a couple of his many feats picking up a maneuver or a soul meld that cover his weakness, or grant flying, and picks his gear with the campaign in mind. Honestly, I would not normally choose to play a fighter these days, with the wealth of superior options, but it remains a decent chassis for someone new to the game or who has no interest in delving deep into system mastery, because they do well in combat and combat is a major component of the game.

[BowStreetRunner]

When I first started playing 1st edition we were all thinking of Lord of the Rings, Shannara, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, the Arthurian legends, Chronicles of Narnia, Earthsea, and other similar fantasy stories. Dungeons and Dragons allows people to play adventures that have the feel of those sorts of stories. There are still lots of people who use it as an aid to accomplish storytelling experiences in this way.

However, if you are into character optimization then D&D becomes something very different - almost more like the Marvel Universe with superheroes and villains powerful enough to lay waste to entire cities and often even worlds. In optimization circles it seems strange anyone would want to play something that wasn't optimized.

Herbert Simon's theory of bounded rationality (what he called satisficing) may have dealt primarily with economic decision making, but I believe the concept is relevant here. Most people tend to seek something that is 'good enough', not necessarily perfectly optimized. What constitutes 'good enough' depends heavily on the preconceptions you bring with you into the game, as well as on the amount of information about the game you are able to process. Players who have been immersed in the D&D culture long enough often forget there was ever a time when they weren't looking to build a multi-class caster with dual 9ths and would have been just fine with a cool swordsman who could slice through orcs like Aragorn on a good day.

[King of Nowhere]

Vegetable is good for your healt and totally nutritious. Why would you eat ice cream instead?

Flavor, of course.

And you overly exaggerate the reliance of mundanes on casters. they need the occasional buff spells, but it's all low level stuff you won't have any better use for. Most of that is taken care by the equipment.
No, where mundanes really need casters is for out-of-combat utility. Scry on the enemy, teleport on the plot destination, ward the lair against enemy scrying and teleportation... those kind of things. And since the caster is going to need to do them anyway, they carry no extra cost. Once you build your super duper wizard tower, there's room in it for more people. And while an isolated fighter is unaware of any threat that may be coming his way and has no defence against someone teleporting on his camp in the night and slitting his throat, a fighter working in team with a wizard has those needs covered and can make a good show of being useful at all but the highest echelon of optimization.
And do note that a gish can't help there. you can get some basic buff, but you can't get high level utility like scry and teleport. As a gish you are equally dependent on the wizard for utility. And, you fight worse than a dedicated, buffed martial.

So, why be a gish? to say "I don't need to have buffs cast on me"? What is the party wizard and cleric going to do with those low level slots anyway? Cast scorching ray? cast augury?
As I look, the cleric low level spell list is practically nothing but buffs. I see no reason to hurt one's martial effectiveness, if slightly, over squabbles like "that spell slot is mine".

[Dienekes]

Thanks for putting it in perspective.

D&D 3.5 is a high magic game.
Anyone who doesn't try to use a lot of magic fails.
New Mundane users don't try to use a lot of magic.
New Mundane users fail.
New Mundane users instead of trying to learn magic items/gishing, they try to convert D&D 3.5 into a low magic game.
New Mundane users take up DMing and ruin games with house rules homebrew ban spam.

So it's not a Mundane/Caster problem, it's more of a new player/DM ranting on forums problem (though I'm guilty of ranting too XD).

Thanks! I got it now.

"Go high magic or go home" - D&D 3.5

Eh. It kind of still is a magic/mundane problem. But less about the system and more about the promises of the system.

When I first started playing D&D I wanted to play as the type of characters I enjoyed in fiction and history. I wanted to be the Prince Kheldar, or Sir Bors, or Dienekes, or a Viking. And I was told I could totally do that. So, I did.

Then over the next few months I learned, sure you can do that. But you aren’t actually effective at anything. Really half the classes in the game are traps when compared to the effectiveness of the other half.

And that’s just terrible game design. Any way you cut it. But more than that it leads to one of these mentalities:

1) everything is stronger than the stuff I want to do. Therefore they are too strong and I must nerf them.
2) what I want to do is too weak. Therefore I must buff it to match those that are stronger.
3) what I want to do sucks so I’ll stop playing.
4) what I want to do sucks so I’ll play something I don’t want to play instead.
5) game’s broken. I’ll go play something else.

None of these are particularly good options for the game that says being mundane is an option in the opening pages.

Unfortunately what I would argue is the best answer for those types who want to play mundanes (option 5) is not always available and requires getting your team to go learn an entirely new system. It’s definitely worth it though if you can do it.

[Pronounceable]

"I don't want to use magic"...why not?
Because magic ****ing sucks. Once you drop all the ingame pretenses, DnD's spellcasting system is just pages upon pages of bloated text one has to spend literal hours combing through with a sieve to come to grips with the pointlessly overcomplicated system mastery shenanigans it expects you to master (or just resign to "being bad"). And unless you're in an extremely narrow minority of humankind, this is a totally unfun waste of time and effort. Especially in this day and age, where I can be having so much more fun by spending all that time and effort on vidyagames.

Also, some peeps wanna Batman. (usually out of some misguided notion that Batsy doesn't have superpowers)

[Nifft]

(...) overcomplicated system mastery shenanigans it expects you to master (or just resign to "being bad"). (...) Especially in this day and age, where I can be having so much more fun by spending all that time and effort on vidyagames.

Don't the other 12-year-olds playing your vidyagames tell you to "git gud" or similar?

System mastery and grinding for power seem significantly more pervasive in the electronic gaming world.

[Jama7301]

Don't the other 12-year-olds playing your vidyagames tell you to "git gud" or similar?

System mastery and grinding for power seem significantly more pervasive in the electronic gaming world.

Zoning out and listening to music while doing fights in tabletop RPGs is considered a faux pas at most tables, whereas I can do runs in Diablo for loot while doing just that. Don't think I've ever seen a video game with as many spells as the 3.5 PHB either. Could be wrong though.

Is there a Gish in core that isn't MAD as heck, or tied strongly to a theme (Like Druid or Paladin. Ranger might work I guess?), or is this a concept that requires extensive splat-diving to use?

[tiercel]

When I first started playing D&D I wanted to play as the type of characters I enjoyed in fiction and history. I wanted to be the Prince Kheldar, or Sir Bors, or Dienekes, or a Viking. And I was told I could totally do that. So, I did.

And Kheldar can be in the same group as, say, Belgarath, because Belgarath doesn’t cast the same way that D&D board discussions claim a high-op high-level wizard “should.”


Then over the next few months I learned, sure you can do that. But you aren’t actually effective at anything.

ArgharghARGHarghArghARGHHHHHH!

“Not as instantly effective as a high-op, especially high level, T1 or T0” doesn’t mean “not actually effective at anything.” A lot of books would be one standard action long if main characters had the capabilities that a T0 character “should.” —Yet, those characters often manage to be effective, albeit on their own terms.

Yes, lower tier characters work differently than higher tier ones, and different classes have different levels of options. “Not effective” is a matter of playstyle choice and relative capability, not some absolute. (People actually play Fighters. As long as the adventure isn’t calibrated for high-op play and the other players aren’t expecting CoDzilla, the game can actually work and be fun!)

[King of Nowhere]

System mastery and grinding for power seem significantly more pervasive in the electronic gaming world.

Just like in D&D, this applies to a small minority, that nevertheless is more visible. The ones who care enough to put effort into it, who enjoy putting that effort in the first place. 99% of people who play videogames are totally incompetent. Especially your average 12-y-o. And they would never want, or care to, put all the effort in learning the system.
Even people who like to master the system generally find a level they're comfortable with and stay there. And sometimes they do that specifically because going upwards would change the game paradigm to something they don't like. Game at my table with my level of optimization looks very different from what people of the high OP end describe in their tables, and the thing is, I don't like the kind of games they have at their tables, so I have no interest learning those kind of skills.

[Florian]

Even people who like to master the system generally find a level they're comfortable with and stay there. And sometimes they do that specifically because going upwards would change the game paradigm to something they don't like. Game at my table with my level of optimization looks very different from what people of the high OP end describe in their tables, and the thing is, I don't like the kind of games they have at their tables, so I have no interest learning those kind of skills.

Agreed. Couldn't say that my level of system mastery is not good, still it´s not the level that I'm enjoying playing the game at most.

[Dienekes]

And Kheldar can be in the same group as, say, Belgarath, because Belgarath doesn’t cast the same way that D&D board discussions claim a high-op high-level wizard “should.”



ArgharghARGHarghArghARGHHHHHH!

“Not as instantly effective as a high-op, especially high level, T1 or T0” doesn’t mean “not actually effective at anything.” A lot of books would be one standard action long if main characters had the capabilities that a T0 character “should.” —Yet, those characters often manage to be effective, albeit on their own terms.

Yes, lower tier characters work differently than higher tier ones, and different classes have different levels of options. “Not effective” is a matter of playstyle choice and relative capability, not some absolute. (People actually play Fighters. As long as the adventure isn’t calibrated for high-op play and the other players aren’t expecting CoDzilla, the game can actually work and be fun!)

What broke the game for me. Was after several encounters where the druids pet seemed as useful as my Fighter. Which eventually led to joking about my character and eventually a challenge. A fight Mano a Mano Fighter vs animal. And I lost. Partially because of a few bad rolls, but still. I was less effective than a different characters class ability.

Now admittedly this was the early months where I had no clue how to build a character. But then neither did the Druid player. I know now you can make a low tier character that breaks the game. But for young impressionable me. That ended all enjoyment I had in the system as a fighter.

I would also argue, that while of course there is always going to be some weird combination of abilities the designers didn’t see coming that is too powerful. When to be on the same footing you have to tell half the players to not try so hard. That’s poor game design.

[ryu]

Personally I think the most efficient method for making the system work would be accurately labeling the power of things, with a stated guideline to keep things within set power bands. Nothing mechanical has to change. Just let everyone go in with eyes wide open.

[King of Nowhere]

I would also argue, that while of course there is always going to be some weird combination of abilities the designers didn’t see coming that is too powerful. When to be on the same footing you have to tell half the players to not try so hard. That’s poor game design.

I would expand on that: it's completely impossible for game designers to see every consequence of every combo and balance all. With the vast amount of material produced, the law of great numbers dictates there will be many broken combinations. It is therefore up to the DM to ban or allow any particular build, something that proponents of TO seem to take as a personal insult or ignore completely. The point is not to screw the player, but merely to fix the designers' inevitable mistakes and keep the power level where it is supposed to be. And "where it is supposed to be" depends widely on the table, because there is no right answer. lovers of TO will play with everything allowed. Me, I lost count of the material I banned or nerfed ("refused to use even though I could have" when I was the player), because it keeps the game balance at a point where it is more interesting to me.

The only way banning build could be intended to screw players would be if npcs were systematically allowed stuff that pcs were denied (one specific boss having one or two tricks up his sleeve that only he knows do not generally count, though it should be judged case-by-case).

[Kelb_Panthera]

"Go high magic or go home" - D&D 3.5

It certainly can go that way. Certain adjustments by a DM that actual understands the system as-is can make for a perfectly viable low-magic game but such DMs are incredibly rare.

Most of the time, a DM that wants low magic wants it because they can't be bothered to actually master the system beyond a fairly minimal degree. This leads to them taking a hatchet to a task that needs a scalpel. The most common, and by far the worst version of this is the version where they simply give out basically no treasure and leave the casters alone until "OMG, teh broxorz!!11" That's not a low magic game. That's a "screw the warriors" game.

[JNAProductions]

I would expand on that: it's completely impossible for game designers to see every consequence of every combo and balance all. With the vast amount of material produced, the law of great numbers dictates there will be many broken combinations. It is therefore up to the DM to ban or allow any particular build, something that proponents of TO seem to take as a personal insult or ignore completely. The point is not to screw the player, but merely to fix the designers' inevitable mistakes and keep the power level where it is supposed to be. And "where it is supposed to be" depends widely on the table, because there is no right answer. lovers of TO will play with everything allowed. Me, I lost count of the material I banned or nerfed ("refused to use even though I could have" when I was the player), because it keeps the game balance at a point where it is more interesting to me.

The only way banning build could be intended to screw players would be if npcs were systematically allowed stuff that pcs were denied (one specific boss having one or two tricks up his sleeve that only he knows do not generally count, though it should be judged case-by-case).

The issue is that it's NOT obscure, random combinations that are overly powerful. (Or at least, not SOLELY those.)

It's right there in Core. Seriously, go up five posts or so-there's another poster with their own story about them losing to an Animal Companion. That's purely the PHB there.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is there a Gish in core that isn't MAD as heck, or tied strongly to a theme (Like Druid or Paladin. Ranger might work I guess?), or is this a concept that requires extensive splat-diving to use?

It's hardly the most impressive of the type but good ol' eldritch knight is right there in the DMG. Gishing (like casting in general) doesn't require much splat diving to reach baseline competence. Pick your casting base, pick a PrC you like, throw in enough melee levels to meet the prereq's on time and go.

As I mentioned before, ToB's Ruby Knight Vindicator and Jade Phoenix Mage are generally regarded as the best of the bunch. Neither requires anything outside the core rules and their own splat to be solid. That said, wu-jen (CAr) casting on the JPM does produce some really cool and thematically appropriate effects. Lotta gishy spells on that list and body outside body is phenomenal on any Gish.

Now, of course, deeper system mastery and more splat access makes literally everything better and gishes are no exception. So there is always that fact looming in the background of these kinds of questions.

[death390]

DMs encourage it by giving out terrible point buy.

A duskblade wants 4 good stats at least. A Sorcadin wants 5, plus enough Int to still get some skillpoints.

When you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with 25 points, better to just be a Druid. Which makes a fine Gish anyway.

a lot of Gish only need 2 stats to be relevant. their casting stat and their combat stat. Con is always helpful but doesn't need to be maxed. hell duskblade only need a 22 max Int because he get less of a bonus after that (loses out on the higher level slots past 6) hell they can get away with just a 16 Int.

most Gish only need Str for combat stat to be relevant unless your building some kind of TwF build which you need Dex instead.



also WotC understood that people wanted some kind of "fighter buff" which is why several of the later splats made alternate "not-magic" casting systems for people to use. Initators usable at 1/2 power by picking up a feat (1/2 progression technically) and incarnum are the two big examles.

[King of Nowhere]

The issue is that it's NOT obscure, random combinations that are overly powerful. (Or at least, not SOLELY those.)

It's right there in Core. Seriously, go up five posts or so-there's another poster with their own story about them losing to an Animal Companion. That's purely the PHB there.

but combinations exacerbate the problem. You can deal with a core druid companion outfighting a core fighter. Dealing with a wizard making a demiplane with thousands of ice assassins ad hundreds of contingencies is a completely different matter.

And I'm not talking only about class balance, I'm generally talking about the kind of game you want to have. Like, I don't use venomfire fleshrakers, but I also don't use ubercharger, because I prefer a game where heroes are actually difficult to kill to a rocket tag game that seem to evolve at higher levels of optimization.

[ExLibrisMortis]

rocket tag game that seem to evolve at higher levels of optimization.
Interestingly--and I mean this purely as an addition for fun, not to join in the argument--there seems to be a bit of a dip in mortality at very, very high levels of optimization, where everyone's running around with damage immunity (if not outright immunity to harm), and combat consists of multiple iterations of hard counters and counter-counters. You wouldn't expect it when damage outpaces AC and hp so quickly, but there it is.

[Elkad]

a lot of Gish only need 2 stats to be relevant. their casting stat and their combat stat. Con is always helpful but doesn't need to be maxed. hell duskblade only need a 22 max Int because he get less of a bonus after that (loses out on the higher level slots past 6) hell they can get away with just a 16 Int.

Nobody only needs 2 stats. Closest thing to actually being SAD is a Faerie Initiate Wizard, and he still wants Dex/Wis/Con for the save bonuses, initiative, AC, etc.

A duskblade wants a good Str, Dex, Con, & Int, and a positive Wis (for Will). Are all those strictly necessary? Not really, but he still wants them. 16,16,16,16,10,8 is 42points. Which happens to be where I started my last party.
A Paladin wants 5 stats, and at least a 10 int so he can put points in Ride and Know:Religion

When I get points for 18/14/12/8/8/8 (26pts) I'm making a Wizard or a Druid every time.
Give me 16pts and I'm still making an 18int Wizard or Psion. And then go Grey Elf or Primordial Giant or something. I'll adventure with Con:6, Str:6 until I can make it into Necropolitan, buy a True Mind Switch, sustain Magic Jar all day, or something similar.

I could do of those Str:40 orc/minotaur/ogre/dragonborn/giant/troll thingies (apparently 6 halves only make one whole in some people's minds - maybe because they have a -6 Int penalty themselves?), but I can't deal with an Int of less than 12 on anything. But that is a personal failing. I can imagine/understand/roleplay being weak, clumsy, frail, foolish, or (anti-social/introverted/whatever), but not being stupid. It's too foreign.

I consider the stats that are safe to tank as Str, Cha, and maaaaaybe Con if you are a super-cautious backliner with Vigor or something. Int, Dex and Wis always want to be 10+, no matter the character.

[Thirdtwin]

Maybe they don't like Vancian casting.

[Pleh]

Dunno if anyone mentioned it yet, but mundane works fine in E6 without "fixing" them. People that want to beatstick without magic reliance usually want to play Conan, the idea that being a Gish means being a Jedi who is helpless when the Force is taken away from them. Conan needs no puny wizard magic because his muscules always work in anti magic fields.

It works better in low power gritty fantasy. For 3.5, that world lives in E6.

[Karl Aegis]

You're a spellcaster with more hit points in exchange for... being a spellcaster. Specialize in your thing and you won't be left behind.

[ericgrau]

It's right there in Core. Seriously, go up five posts or so-there's another poster with their own story about them losing to an Animal Companion. That's purely the PHB there.

Eh, not really, that just takes a few minutes of checking stats to know it's not true. A level 8 druid's animal companion is worse than a CR 4 monster. So maybe about CR 3 equivalent. A PHB fighter is about on par with a simple foe of equal CR, or a little higher if well built. I think that took me 5-10 minutes to check. More like the new player screwed up really badly and probably couldn't fight non-magical monsters of half his level either.

When I see comments like this I say "Great it's gone off topic and into wild hyperbole again, no point in bothering with this thread anymore. What else in the list?"

[JNAProductions]

Eh, not really, that just takes a few minutes of checking stats to know it's not true. A level 8 druid's animal companion is worse than a CR 4 monster. So maybe about CR 3 equivalent. A PHB fighter is about on par with a simple foe of equal CR, or a little higher if well built. I think that took me 5-10 minutes to check. More like the new player screwed up really badly and probably couldn't fight non-magical monsters of half his level either.

When I see comments like this I say "Great it's gone off topic and into wild hyperbole again, no point in bothering with this thread anymore. What else in the list?"

Except, unless you want to accuse that poster of lying, that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. So yes, was it a poorly built fighter? Almost certainly. But in a better system, it'd be clearer on how to build a good fighter, and the floor would be below another person's class feature.

[ericgrau]

Ok... I've seen a lot of druids fail horribly. And played many game systems that went bonkers 100 times as many different ways as D&D.

[JNAProductions]

Ok... I've seen a lot of druids fail horribly. And played many game systems that went bonkers 100 different ways.

Okay. So other systems can be bad too-why should that be an excuse for 3E D&D?

[ericgrau]

Okay. So other systems can be bad too-why should that be an excuse for 3E D&D?

Cuz 95% are worse.

Only exception to the bad I think was war with a deck of cards (https://www.bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/war/).

[JNAProductions]

Cuz 95% are worse.

Only exception to the bad I think was war with a deck of cards (https://www.bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/war/).

War... War sucks. Hard. I don't know why that's your standard for a good game, because it's less fun than thumb-twiddling.

And saying "Other things are worse" is not an excuse to accept something being bad. If we take an in-game example, a Rogue stealing the crown jewels and a Fighter killing the king are both bad. The Fighter did worse, of course-he murdered a rather important man-but the Rogue still committed a pretty major crime. But, hey, the Fighter did worse, so let's just let the Rogue off the hook, hey?

[RoboEmperor]

War... War sucks. Hard. I don't know why that's your standard for a good game, because it's less fun than thumb-twiddling.

And saying "Other things are worse" is not an excuse to accept something being bad. If we take an in-game example, a Rogue stealing the crown jewels and a Fighter killing the king are both bad. The Fighter did worse, of course-he murdered a rather important man-but the Rogue still committed a pretty major crime. But, hey, the Fighter did worse, so let's just let the Rogue off the hook, hey?

I think you're wrong.

High skill ceiling and extremely low floors maybe not good for new players, but so what? I don't play d&d 3.5 because it's good for new players. I play it because it offers things I can't get from video games and I am willing to learn the system to obtain those things.

High skill ceiling and low skill floors be damned. The fighter should get gud and learn from this experience instead of saying this game is crap because he didn't know how to use his character correctly and lost to an animal companion.

[ryu]

So long as the king is of alignment opposite to yours I was of the impression that was considered an entirely legitimate 3.5 activity. What you've never had that as one of your early to mid goals in a campaign?

[JNAProductions]

I think you're wrong.

High skill ceiling and extremely low floors maybe not good for new players, but so what? I don't play d&d 3.5 because it's good for new players. I play it because it offers things I can't get from video games and I am willing to learn the system to obtain those things.

High skill ceiling and low skill floors be damned. The fighter should get gud and learn from this experience instead of saying this game is crap because I didn't know how to use my character correctly.

Right, but show me a high-OP Fighter that beats a high-OP Wizard.

Moreover, I'd be much, MUCH more understanding of 3E's wild character variance if it was acknowledged and noted in the books themselves. If it's clear that casters are superior to martials right there in the books, then I'd be a lot more willing to agree with you.

But as it is, simply by picking what looks good, you can end up with a Tough and Diehard Monk, and a Natural Spell Druid.

[RoboEmperor]

Right, but show me a high-OP Fighter that beats a high-OP Wizard.

This is a PvE game not a PvP. Doesn't matter how much better everyone else is as long as you pull your weight. It's one of the reasons I play d&d and co-op games instead of games like Dota 2. In co-op games you can play suboptimally but completely to your tastes and have a good time even though someone else is better than you, where as in competitive games you gotta maximize to the absolute limit or get flamed online like no tomorrow for going something suboptimal or making a mistake.

If you want to be a two handed swordsman then so be it. Who cares uberchargers are better, or gishes are better, or spellcasters are better? As long as you get to cut stuff to pieces with your dual swords, nothing else matters. Its when you can't do it because you're too weak does it become a problem, but that can be remedied by finding a group who plays in a similar optimization level as you.


Moreover, I'd be much, MUCH more understanding of 3E's wild character variance if it was acknowledged and noted in the books themselves. If it's clear that casters are superior to martials right there in the books, then I'd be a lot more willing to agree with you.

But as it is, simply by picking what looks good, you can end up with a Tough and Diehard Monk, and a Natural Spell Druid.

It's what forums are for. D&D 3.5 started out as a game where mundanes and casters can coexist on par, but the developers did not know what they were truly doing like most developers (check out the balance patch notes every developer releases for their games), and eventually the game became something really different from the original goal with its metric **** ton of books that when mixed together results in absolutely crazy shenanigans.

So thats why you go online. Experienced people tell you how the developers were wrong and how to properly enjoy the game. The game evolved, and the developers didn't know exactly what they were doing. So what? I enjoy d&d as it is now and if you don't like it then find a new game.

[Drakevarg]

I'm not sure this is a question that can ever be adequately answered for someone who feels the need to ask it. I don't know how to articulate the idea that some people don't need their fun to be mathematically optimized. It's like asking how anyone can conceivably enjoy playing Doom when Half-Life is clearly superior in every quantifiable way.

Maybe the OP was genuinely curious, but this thread seems mostly to have functioned as bait for the "I know right" crowd to sneer collectively, at least until it spun into the inevitable tier debates. The caster/martial disparity is massively exaggerated in forum debates compared to actual table experiences. Personally, the most overpowered player I've ever had to deal with wasn't even a caster, he just had uncanny dice luck (not cheating - the guy just rolls high so consistently with any dice handed to him that our group has learned to exploit the tendency). And the worst players weren't martials, they were casters who just happened to be fantastically terrible (not just in terms of ignorance - though that does happen - but just bafflingly stupid decisions like taunting a large bear at melee range while level 1, when the rest of the party is trying to sneak past it).

Point is, the scourge of party-cripplingly incompetent martials/game-ruiningly overpowered casters is largely a myth perpetuated by environments that are far more conducive to analyzing hypotheticals than actually putting them into practice. Nine times out of ten, if you can build a character that is capable of fulfilling their intended role even at the most basic level (for a martial that means being able to injure things, for a caster that means having a spell selection that isn't useless in the majority of situations), then you'll probably be fine so long as the DM and/or the party aren't actively out to punish you for not meeting their standards.

[Ignimortis]

Maybe they don't like Vancian casting.

That's partly true. Not even because it's restrictive - I like it being used with casters because it's restrictive. The issue is that for a long time anything that was slightly more magical than swinging a weapon or opening a lock by fiddling with it tended to obey the same rules - you get X awesome ability uses per day, because otherwise it's unfair to casters who can't do stuff all day.

Some of the later 3.5 designs which served as a playtest for 4e were cool with their "per encounter" schtick. You still have to ration resources, but it's over a much shorter period of time, and if you win, you get it all back anyway, so you get to use your stuff much more often.

[ryu]

That's partly true. Not even because it's restrictive - I like it being used with casters because it's restrictive. The issue is that for a long time anything that was slightly more magical than swinging a weapon or opening a lock by fiddling with it tended to obey the same rules - you get X awesome ability uses per day, because otherwise it's unfair to casters who can't do stuff all day.

Some of the later 3.5 designs which served as a playtest for 4e were cool with their "per encounter" schtick. You still have to ration resources, but it's over a much shorter period of time, and if you win, you get it all back anyway, so you get to use your stuff much more often.

That can be a valid method of setting up your resource handling as part of a larger system, but it's just not complex enough to be the crux for an entire system as I see it. One homogeneous system for everything is problematic. If it's really simple it shows the seams which is worse.

[King of Nowhere]

This is a PvE game not a PvP. Doesn't matter how much better everyone else is as long as you pull your weight. It's one of the reasons I play d&d and co-op games instead of games like Dota 2. In co-op games you can play suboptimally but completely to your tastes and have a good time even though someone else is better than you, where as in competitive games you gotta maximize to the absolute limit or get flamed online like no tomorrow for going something suboptimal or making a mistake.


+1


The caster/martial disparity is massively exaggerated in forum debates compared to actual table experiences. Personally, the most overpowered player I've ever had to deal with wasn't even a caster, he just had uncanny dice luck (not cheating - the guy just rolls high so consistently with any dice handed to him that our group has learned to exploit the tendency). And the worst players weren't martials, they were casters who just happened to be fantastically terrible (not just in terms of ignorance - though that does happen - but just bafflingly stupid decisions like taunting a large bear at melee range while level 1, when the rest of the party is trying to sneak past it).

+1 on all counts.
the most overpowered player I know is such due to his ability to sweet-talk the DM into going his way. He somehow persuaded me to give him three major artifacts, and then he managed to persuade me to give him a couple more artifacts too. Man, I suck at opposed charisma check, and I can easily be swayed by a good story.
The worst player I know is playing a wizard because she likes rolling a lot of dices for fireballs. She doesn't even know what half her spells do, and she hasn't bothered to learn game mechanics yet (I lost the saving throws against the spell? (reads character sheet) but I have knowledge arcana! does that help? no? then I have spellcraft? how about that?")



Point is, the scourge of party-cripplingly incompetent martials/game-ruiningly overpowered casters is largely a myth perpetuated by environments that are far more conducive to analyzing hypotheticals than actually putting them into practice. Nine times out of ten, if you can build a character that is capable of fulfilling their intended role even at the most basic level (for a martial that means being able to injure things, for a caster that means having a spell selection that isn't useless in the majority of situations), then you'll probably be fine so long as the DM and/or the party aren't actively out to punish you for not meeting their standards.
and +1 also on that

[2D8HP]

....Even with a very complex and fiddly game system like anything based on D20, including 3.5E and Pathfinder, the art here is to build a "mundane" that is deceptively easy to learn and use, intuitive to play without having to deal with/learn a truck-load of rules, fun to play and still competitive in a very toxic environment, like this very forum. Can be done because it already has been done, problem s more to talk with the right people about it.


Any hints?

When I've asked before the overwhelming response was "Fighter is the worse class for a beginner" (despite Fighter being a viable "training wheels" class in every other version of D&D that I've played).

A common response was to "play a Warlock instead", so if I want a Robin Hood-ish character I should play Faust?

Not the "trope" I want, and judging by the OP's feeling the need "Why" others don't play a "Gish' I'm not alone.


I think you're wrong.

High skill ceiling and extremely low floors maybe not good for new players, but so what? I don't play d&d 3.5 because it's good for new players. I play it because it offers things I can't get from video games and I am willing to learn the system to obtain those things.

High skill ceiling and low skill floors be damned. The fighter should get gud and learn from this experience instead of saying this game is crap because he didn't know how to use his character correctly and lost to an animal companion.


Sounds like a way to have a diminishing player base.

Good luck with that.

I still get to read my TSR D&D rules, but I can't expect others to just know them and play the game with me.

Look at this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TDighuo06pI/AAAAAAAACRA/YFpjToiMpkA/s320/holmescover.png while there's a Wizard on the left side facing the Dragon with a magic wand, on the right side there's a warrior facing the Dragon with a Longbow in hand.

If I game calls itself "Dungeons & Dragons" that is what I expect.

Dungeons & Dragons,
Book 1:
Men & Magic, 1974
"These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin"

Of the five character cited as examples of what D&D is supposed to emulate only two can be considered a "Gish", unless one of those two can be considered a "full caster" instead, the other three are all "martials".

Am I wrong to expect that D&D should be able to do "John Carter", "Conan", and "Fafhrd" as suggested by the preamble?

If a potential player comes to a table of "D&D' expecting to be able to play a swordsman out of Swords & Sorcery fiction, and the response of the table is "Go caster or go home!", then as far as I'm concerned the table and/or the rules used are in the wrong.

[RoboEmperor]

If a potential player comes to a table of "D&D' expecting to be able to play a swordsman out of Swords & Sorcery fiction, and the response of the table is "Go caster or go home!", then as far as I'm concerned the table and/or the rules used are in the wrong.

It's not "Go caster or go home" it's "Go high magic or go home", as in learn how to fully utilize magic items both permanent and consumables, or go home. You don't need to be a caster, you just need to know how to use magic via items or whatnot.

You really can't play higher levels without fully equipping your mundane in WBL appropriate gear not because of spellcasters in your party but because monsters become that tough to kill or tank against. So if you truly are not interested in anything other than cleaving people in half with a giant axe, as in you're not interested in obtaining flight, teleportation, true seeing, magical weapons designed specifically to kill the enemy you're about to face, etc. then you do have to go home because this system is not for you.

[2D8HP]

Iif you truly are not interested in anything other than cleaving people in half with a giant axe, as in you're not interested in obtaining flight, teleportation, true seeing, magical weapons designed specifically to kill the enemy you're about to face, etc. then you do have to go home because this system is not for you.


Well since in the first published

Conan story (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556437-2D8HP-re-reads-Conan),

after his axe proves ineffective against the "great black thing which he knew was born in no sane or human world" he does use a magic item, and in

Bazaar of the Bizarre (http://www.howardandrewjones.com/sword-and-sorcery/swords-against-death-re-read-bazaar-of-the-bizarre)

Fafhrd used a magic item as well, so those are in keeping with the genre D&D is supposed to emulate.

[Elkad]

Well since in the first published

Conan story (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556437-2D8HP-re-reads-Conan),

after his axe proves ineffective against the "great black thing which he knew was born in no sane or human world" he does use a magic item, and in

Bazaar of the Bizarre (http://www.howardandrewjones.com/sword-and-sorcery/swords-against-death-re-read-bazaar-of-the-bizarre)

Fafhrd used a magic item as well, so those are in keeping with the genre D&D is supposed to emulate.

The original Barbarian class had some coverage for that as well, so you could adventure without magic items and still be somewhat effective.. You got inherent bonuses to hit creatures that required a magic weapon, dex bonus to AC was doubled to make up for lack of magic armor, con bonus to HP was doubled, automatic detection of magic and illusion, big save bonuses, etc.
Plus insane stat rolls (9d6b3 for str, 8 for con, 7 for dex, etc).
Of course you still couldn't fly.

My first Barbarian stuck to the no-magic thing fairly reliably through his career. (to 1st edition 18th level, so something near 6 million exp?).
His total magic items consisted of an amulet of Pro Evil (CL1), a magic sword that was reserved for beating on Demigods, and the very occasional potion.
Oh, and inherent bonus items. if you didn't use it in combat, it wasn't "cheating", so practicing some exercises from a book you found was OK.

[King of Nowhere]

Re: high skill ceiling (since this thread is gone on a tangent, but that tangent is actually more interesting than the initial discussion)

It is unavoidable for every activity that involves a great degree of skill. You can't make an activity (whether game or serious) that requires serious effort and expect new people to perform well at it.
In chess any half-experienced low-level club player can mop the floor with a beginner so badly that it's not even fun.
In league of legends, a strong player could win against beginners (those who still havent hit level 30 and don't have previous experience with similar games) 1v5.
In science or engineering, it will take years of hard study before you're deemed worthy of starting an apprenticeship, and some more years of apprenticeship before you can contribute meaningfully and not just be stuck doing menial work.

And yet, it seems to me the stuff that is hard to master is the stuff that is actually worth doing, that is actually worth investing the time and skill and patience and strife needed to master it. A game you master in a week is a game you'll get bored of after two weeks. A work requiring little skill is a menial job that doesn't produce anything beautiful or inspiring (there may be some few exceptions, but they are that, exceptions).

So there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the complexity of D&D. If it wasn't for it, there wouldn't be still players playing it.

Nor is there any problem with low floor and high ceiling. Regardless of what some people in forums claim, you do NOT need a high skill to play D&D. You can play at super-low op just fine. You can be a dual wielding fighter in a party with a druid that knows no buff spells, a healbot cleric, and a monk. Heck, my first character was a gnome cleric who spent an inordinate amounts of feats to be proficient with a katana. And I don't remember ever casting a buff spell to fight better, either. No, I had 8th level spell slots, and my first reaction to threats was to charge in with a katana. How silly is that? But I had fun, and my group had fun, and we dind't knew any better.

No, the only real problem is with a group expecting the newcomer to be able to keep up with them from day 1. There are many horror stories out there, because the internet tend to concentrate those, and also because roleplaying is one of the most social games that for strange reasons tend to attract some of the most asocial people.
So of course if a new guy wants to join and get a TWF fighter because he doesn't know better and the druid's animal companion kill him, or if the rest of the party will hand him 50 splatbooks and tell him he must memorize them all before he can start to play properly, we're not getting new players. The problem rests solely on the groups that play high OP and expect everyone else must conform, which is a small minority of the groups that play high OP, which itself is a small minority of the total.
In sane groups, the new guy is helped through character creation, and even though he will remain weaker that the other party members, it won't matter because nobody will be trying to compete with him. And he'lll gradually learn from others.
When new people join the chess club we don't hand them a bunch of books telling them to read first and come back later, nor we pit them against the club's stronger player (which is, incidentally, me) so that I can humiliate them and tell them to go home. No, we explain a few basic principles and then we put them against the weaker members. And while many leave because it's not their thing or they don't have the time and commitment, some stay. D&D groups should recruit under the same principles.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Any hints?

When I've asked before the overwhelming response was "Fighter is the worse class for a beginner" (despite Fighter being a viable "training wheels" class in every other version of D&D that I've played).



I love the fighter class but it really is the worst for total newbs. It has just about the lowest skill floor for any martial class. I like to point newbs toward barbarians if they're sure they want to be a strictly martial character and toward rangers if they don't really know what they want yet.

Building a decent barb is intuitive enough that a newb isn't likely to screw it up so bad that they can't do the face-smashy thing because of how they built it (more likely because they've insisted on decorating their own Christmas tree and botched that).

Ranger natively touches on every part of the system but magic item crafting. Playing one gives a player a chance to figure out which parts he likes and which parts he wants to avoid and it can do everything but dedicated casting passably while ignoring the rest of the class' features.

I really do think ranger is the best newb class.

[2D8HP]

....
I really do think ranger is the best newb class.


Thank you very much for the tip.

[RoboEmperor]

I love the fighter class but it really is the worst for total newbs. It has just about the lowest skill floor for any martial class. I like to point newbs toward barbarians if they're sure they want to be a strictly martial character and toward rangers if they don't really know what they want yet.

Building a decent barb is intuitive enough that a newb isn't likely to screw it up so bad that they can't do the face-smashy thing because of how they built it (more likely because they've insisted on decorating their own Christmas tree and botched that).

Ranger natively touches on every part of the system but magic item crafting. Playing one gives a player a chance to figure out which parts he likes and which parts he wants to avoid and it can do everything but dedicated casting passably while ignoring the rest of the class' features.

I really do think ranger is the best newb class.

I disagree. I remember a completely new player playing a fighter with a greatsword, grabbing power attack, cleave, leap attack, and shocktrooper and doing just fine the entire campaign. No pounce. She just wanted to cleave things in half and yell like a barbarian. Why she didn't actually go a barbarian I have no idea.

So... I disagree. A player following that simple fighter build the DM built for her is a great way to learn how to play the game so fighters are not the worst noob class. Picking wrong feats is one of the biggest noob mistakes out there and fighters alleviate that significantly with its plethora of bonus feats.

[RoboEmperor]

No, the only real problem is with a group expecting the newcomer to be able to keep up with them from day 1. There are many horror stories out there, because the internet tend to concentrate those, and also because roleplaying is one of the most social games that for strange reasons tend to attract some of the most asocial people.
So of course if a new guy wants to join and get a TWF fighter because he doesn't know better and the druid's animal companion kill him, or if the rest of the party will hand him 50 splatbooks and tell him he must memorize them all before he can start to play properly, we're not getting new players. The problem rests solely on the groups that play high OP and expect everyone else must conform, which is a small minority of the groups that play high OP, which itself is a small minority of the total.
In sane groups, the new guy is helped through character creation, and even though he will remain weaker that the other party members, it won't matter because nobody will be trying to compete with him. And he'lll gradually learn from others.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is always one guy in a group who maybe a complete beginner, but studies much harder than everyone else and gains system mastery much quicker than the other players, especially thanks to the internet, and then proceeds to hog the game accidentally or otherwise. New player joining a high op game results in players building the new player's character for her after hearing what she wants to do so the problem isn't that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I disagree. I remember a completely new player playing a fighter with a greatsword, grabbing power attack, cleave, leap attack, and shocktrooper and doing just fine the entire campaign. No pounce. She just wanted to cleave things in half and yell like a barbarian. Why she didn't actually go a barbarian I have no idea.

So... I disagree. A player following that simple fighter build the DM built for her is a great way to learn how to play the game so fighters are not the worst noob class. Picking wrong feats is one of the biggest noob mistakes out there and fighters alleviate that significantly with its plethora of bonus feats.

Emphasis mine.

If the GM is building for you, then most classes can reach passable (provided the GM actual knows how to do it). That doesn't say anything about the class itself and robs the player of both a learning opportunity and the fun of building for themselves.

Don't mistake me, giving tips is fine; laudable even. I think we've all seen the sitcom episode where the parent does their kid's science project for them, though.

[RoboEmperor]

Emphasis mine.

If the GM is building for you, then most classes can reach passable (provided the GM actual knows how to do it). That doesn't say anything about the class itself and robs the player of both a learning opportunity and the fun of building for themselves.

Don't mistake me, giving tips is fine; laudable even. I think we've all seen the sitcom episode where the parent does their kid's science project for them, though.

I think new players need to play a pre-built build and accumulate experience before trying to plan or build anything.

In my experience, for any game, having basic experience of playing the game is mandatory before planning and building anything, otherwise whatever you planned and built is worthless and a waste of time. So letting new players build their own characters without ever going through even 1 dungeon in my opinion is a very bad way to teach them. They'll have absolutely no idea what is good and what is bad and just pick things at random which will surely fail.

For this I think fighter is great because it is simple, simpler than barbarians, and in core. A DM built wizard is surely going to be way too complicated because the player won't know when and how to use each prepared spell and whatnot. Rangers... yeah i can see them being easy to learn since they get a bunch of relevant feats for free without a choice. So I guess I do agree that rangers are the best class for newbs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think new players need to play a pre-built build and accumulate experience before trying to plan or build anything.

I disagree. I think doing this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to the learned helplessness that generates "I resent my player for never putting any effort into her characters" threads.

Let them observe a real session, then help them build their first character.

If it's more effort than they're willing to invest, maybe this game just isn't for them. If they're willing to try, fail, and learn then you've got a player that'll be a boon to the table.


In my experience, for any game, having basic experience of playing the game is mandatory before planning and building anything, otherwise whatever you planned and built is worthless and a waste of time. So letting new players build their own characters without ever going through even 1 dungeon in my opinion is a very bad way to teach them. They'll have absolutely no idea what is good and what is bad and just pick things at random which will surely fail.

If they're so incapable of logical deduction that they're choosing options at random, I don't think this is the hobby for them, much less the appropriate game.

Everybody's first character sucks. That's just part of the learning process. Starting with something that has fewer moving parts and is hard to screw up too badly is the best way to go.


For this I think fighter is great because it is simple, simpler than barbarians, and in core. A DM built wizard is surely going to be way too complicated because the player won't know when and how to use each prepared spell and whatnot. Rangers... yeah i can see them being easy to learn since they get a bunch of relevant feats for free without a choice. So I guess I do agree that rangers are the best class for newbs.

Fighters are a lot of things but simpler than a barbarian ain't one of 'em unless it's built awfully. Even your example has a bloody tactical feat.

Trying to avoid rage as "too complicated" is a horrendous mistake. This game is positively chock full of exactly those kinds of fiddly modifiers right from level one with buffing spells. You -are- going to be making those adjustments and dealing with daily resources absolutely regardless of your character's build. There's no good reason not to start with one innate to your class that you -can- perform adequately without if you forget about it.

[King of Nowhere]

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is always one guy in a group who maybe a complete beginner, but studies much harder than everyone else and gains system mastery much quicker than the other players, especially thanks to the internet, and then proceeds to hog the game accidentally or otherwise. New player joining a high op game results in players building the new player's character for her after hearing what she wants to do so the problem isn't that.

well, I was answering to a post regarding problem for newcomers to join. As in, people going to one session, never coming back again. The scenario you describe applies after several months of play, so it's a different kind of problem. Although I'd agree it is a more insidious one, because the one I described was caused by people being jerk and it is easy to fix, just by being cooperative, while the one you describe happens by accident and often without people realizing it (it happened at my table, fortunately the thing didn't cause strife because everyone else implicitly accepted to follow the lead of the fast learner)

[death390]

Maybe they don't like Vancian casting.

different versions are avalible, spontaneous casting is partial vanician without the prep, spell point, recharge version, ect.




Nobody only needs 2 stats. Closest thing to actually being SAD is a Faerie Initiate Wizard, and he still wants Dex/Wis/Con for the save bonuses, initiative, AC, etc.

A duskblade wants a good Str, Dex, Con, & Int, and a positive Wis (for Will). Are all those strictly necessary? Not really, but he still wants them. 16,16,16,16,10,8 is 42points. Which happens to be where I started my last party.
A Paladin wants 5 stats, and at least a 10 int so he can put points in Ride and Know:Religion

When I get points for 18/14/12/8/8/8 (26pts) I'm making a Wizard or a Druid every time.
Give me 16pts and I'm still making an 18int Wizard or Psion. And then go Grey Elf or Primordial Giant or something. I'll adventure with Con:6, Str:6 until I can make it into Necropolitan, buy a True Mind Switch, sustain Magic Jar all day, or something similar.

I could do of those Str:40 orc/minotaur/ogre/dragonborn/giant/troll thingies (apparently 6 halves only make one whole in some people's minds - maybe because they have a -6 Int penalty themselves?), but I can't deal with an Int of less than 12 on anything. But that is a personal failing. I can imagine/understand/roleplay being weak, clumsy, frail, foolish, or (anti-social/introverted/whatever), but not being stupid. It's too foreign.

I consider the stats that are safe to tank as Str, Cha, and maaaaaybe Con if you are a super-cautious backliner with Vigor or something. Int, Dex and Wis always want to be 10+, no matter the character.

there is a difference between NEED and WANT. a spellcaster only NEEDS thier casting modifier because everything is based off of it, CON is still very usefull for HP/Save, Dex is great for AC/ save/ Skills, Str you just want 10 to avoid a penalty, Cha is a dump stat unless your the face, and Wis is nice for Perception skills/ saves.

Duskblade ONLY NEEDS INT for casting (and that can be 16 don't NEED to boost it past that, and STR for combat. the rest is the same as Wizard with a little more emphasis on CON and less on Dex due to Heavy armor Proficiency (and casting without ASF for the cost of 1 feat & level 7).

[RoboEmperor]

I disagree. I think doing this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to the learned helplessness that generates "I resent my player for never putting any effort into her characters" threads.

Let them observe a real session, then help them build their first character.

If it's more effort than they're willing to invest, maybe this game just isn't for them. If they're willing to try, fail, and learn then you've got a player that'll be a boon to the table.

In my experience, doing the deed helps a person understand what they're doing much more than just watching. A player rolling the actual rolls of the fighter while personally adding all the modifiers themselves (BAB + flanking + STR + Weapon enchantment + Prone) and feeling the effects of his party member's tripping, flanking, grease, sleep spell, etc. is far better than simply watching people play d&d and not understanding half the things going around and then start zoning out.


If they're so incapable of logical deduction that they're choosing options at random, I don't think this is the hobby for them, much less the appropriate game.

Everybody's first character sucks. That's just part of the learning process. Starting with something that has fewer moving parts and is hard to screw up too badly is the best way to go.

There's a group of feats we refer to as "trap feats". A new player is going to grab every single one of these feats because they don't know how bad those are.

I'm not saying the player should play a pre-built character for an entire campaign. I'm saying they should play one for at least one dungeon. Just one. And retire the character and bring in a new character they built themselves afterwards.

[Florian]

Any hints?

Preface: It´s generally easier to teach a game system (or edition) to new players than it is to teach it to someone who already "knows his way around", because that includes the step to first un-learn everything you know before you can be taught anything new without confronting bias at every corner.

For example, with 3E/3,5E/PF, a "character concept" is not what you start with, it´s the goal where you want to end up with. That's pretty different from having an overall "character archetype/theme" in mind.

The major hint is to try and realize that you have to work backwards, more or less from level 20 downwards to level 1. You will end up as "Thor" and only realize "Fafhrd" at 10th, while starting out as a nobody.

[Ignimortis]

For example, with 3E/3,5E/PF, a "character concept" is not what you start with, it´s the goal where you want to end up with. That's pretty different from having an overall "character archetype/theme" in mind.

The major hint is to try and realize that you have to work backwards, more or less from level 20 downwards to level 1. You will end up as "Thor" and only realize "Fafhrd" at 10th, while starting out as a nobody.

I'll have to disagree. By about 3rd-5th level you can already have most concepts up and running if you build for them well enough. Since the first two levels are rather deadly but also rather swiftly done with, that's about the best praise you can give to 3.PF - you can build anything you want. Some concepts stop working at a certain level (like the aforementioned no-magic-at-all-martial), and some concepts come into play later - you won't be a believable Thor at level 3, but at level 9 it might be no problem, even if you're not a god yet, just a very tough guy with a hammer who flies around and cracks skulls. In fact, I'm pretty sure bloodrager can do just that, but I might be wrong there. But most things are doable by level 5 if they don't involve lots of very different shticks.

[ryu]

If you don't want to work backwards, but still want to be effective learning and obeying various good practice rules is a simple practice to learn a given class. Stuff like not dropping caster levels, the strengths and relative weaknesses of a given spell list, attribute allocation priority, and so on. You won't be as strong as you likely would be with a plan, but baseline competent caster doesn't necessarily have to be hard to build. The reason I listed generalities is that outside of a few generally applicable rules many things are variable with class.

[Florian]

My answer deals with a very specific complaint by 2D8HP: "Too many feats" and should point out that in reality, that is not so. Once you decide on something, like going into two-weapon fighting or mounted combat, you basically decide on one whole "block" of feats, with the final list of prerequisites telling you basically how to develop the character. For example, if you play PF and decide to be serious about sword and board fighting, that's a block of feats that will use up any available slot from 1st to 12th level. The difference to 5E is basically that in that particular edition, you simply get the "block" and it isn't stretched out this way.

[BowStreetRunner]

...Once you decide on something, like going into two-weapon fighting or mounted combat, you basically decide on one whole "block" of feats, with the final list of prerequisites telling you basically how to develop the character...What amazes me though is how often someone decides to do something like create a Two Weapon fighter build, Two Handed fighter build, or Archer build and then jumps around with their selection of feats anyway. Once they choose their focus there are going to be a set of core feats that are necessary to make the build work, supporting feats that make the build work even better, synergistic feats that work really well with the build, and prerequisite feats that are necessary to get to the important ones. Yet somehow they often end up taking something completely unrelated...and then something else completely unrelated...and pretty soon their build is a diverse mess of feats that don't really work together all that well. :smallsigh:

Well, you live and you learn I guess... lol.

[Kurald Galain]

What amazes me though is how often someone decides to do something like create a Two Weapon fighter build, Two Handed fighter build, or Archer build and then jumps around with their selection of feats anyway.

Well, of course they do.

A vocal minority on these forums tend to confuse a build that is viable with a build that is fully optimized at the expense of everything else. This leads to people calling feats "mandatory" or "feat tax" when they're actually only a small bonus that the player could choose to forego in exchange for something else. Generally speaking you'll need one or two feats to make a particular fighting style work (so you can do this at level one if you're e.g. human or a fighter) and then you can spend all other feats on fun in-character stuff or on completely maxing out your fighting style. Theory oppers will claim that the latter is "necessary" but in practice it's obviously not; you really don't need a 95% success rate against everything you'll ever face in order to enjoy the game.

[Thirdtwin]

This is a PvE game not a PvP.

You know, if there's anything I've managed to learn after years and years watching people fight online over RPGs, it's that people come to the same game with vastly different core assumptions, and get vastly different play experiences as a result. For instance I've seen this phrase trotted out a few times in "balance" discussions, and it interests me because it kind of implies that there are groups whose DM never uses wizards as foes in their campaign. Or liches. Or dragons of a certain age. Or many demons. Or the various creatures with spell-like abilities. Or...

Like, me, I always thought that, if we've got a game where the magic the players use is the same magic that the opposition the DM puts out has access to, suddenly the balance between users of that magic and characters incapable of using it become relevant even in a PvE game. Because the CR 13 enemy wizard you run into one day can totally just pop off the same Forcecage (or whatever) that's trivialized encounters in your favor until now. Then it's your character that's been trivialized. I used to think people would care about that. Honestly it bewilders me how many people don't seem to, at least because that asinine little phrase up there keeps popping up in topics like these. But I suppose if you just play repeated runs of low-level goblin extermination, where the only thing your characters have to do is rub their faces against a bunch of green short guys in a hole in the ground until their or your numbers deplete, then the use on encounter-ender spells to end your characters would never come up, and that little truism would have more relevance. And you know, I've come to realize that a lot of people really do just want that and that alone, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't play games where you fight magical foes, well, I always thought that was a waste of most of the bestiary and a lot of interesting potential fantasy plots if you're just going to run into orcs repeatedly, but it's not my game. You don't need my approval, but I give it anyway. God knows I'd like a game that lined up with my tastes. :/

[RoboEmperor]

You know, if there's anything I've managed to learn after years and years watching people fight online over RPGs, it's that people come to the same game with vastly different core assumptions, and get vastly different play experiences as a result. For instance I've seen this phrase trotted out a few times in "balance" discussions, and it interests me because it kind of implies that there are groups whose DM never uses wizards as foes in their campaign. Or liches. Or dragons of a certain age. Or many demons. Or the various creatures with spell-like abilities. Or...

Like, me, I always thought that, if we've got a game where the magic the players use is the same magic that the opposition the DM puts out has access to, suddenly the balance between users of that magic and characters incapable of using it become relevant even in a PvE game. Because the CR 13 enemy wizard you run into one day can totally just pop off the same Forcecage (or whatever) that's trivialized encounters in your favor until now. Then it's your character that's been trivialized. I used to think people would care about that. Honestly it bewilders me how many people don't seem to, at least because that asinine little phrase up there keeps popping up in topics like these. But I suppose if you just play repeated runs of low-level goblin extermination, where the only thing your characters have to do is rub their faces against a bunch of green short guys in a hole in the ground until their or your numbers deplete, then the use on encounter-ender spells to end your characters would never come up, and that little truism would have more relevance. And you know, I've come to realize that a lot of people really do just want that and that alone, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't play games where you fight magical foes, well, I always thought that was a waste of most of the bestiary and a lot of interesting potential fantasy plots if you're just going to run into orcs repeatedly, but it's not my game. You don't need my approval, but I give it anyway. God knows I'd like a game that lined up with my tastes. :/

Is there a reason you can't teleport out?

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

If your character is trivialized by a forcecage then you're... well...

I'm having trouble understanding your logic. What does PvE have to do with spellcaster enemies? Of course enemies have spellcasters among them. Of course enemies are filled with CR appropriate monsters with SLAs and spellcasting of their own. How is PvE result in no spellcaster enemies? I don't get it. Your claim that a PvE game doesn't have spellcasters as enemies make absolutely no sense.

[BowStreetRunner]

I'm having trouble understanding your logic. What does PvE have to do with spellcaster enemies? Of course enemies have spellcasters among them. Of course enemies are filled with CR appropriate monsters with SLAs and spellcasting of their own. How is PvE result in no spellcaster enemies? I don't get it. Your claim that a PvE game doesn't have spellcasters as enemies make absolutely no sense.I think he was just thinking in terms of 1:1 comparisons. In PvP you need to optimize vs the best PC in the game. In PvE you need to optimize vs the best NPC in the game. Except he missed the whole point that it's not PvP or even PvE, it's PPPPvE. You have a party and the members work together. So it doesn't matter if the DM throws a wizard with forcecage at you. It might matter if your party of a Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, and Cleric run into a group of NPCs with 4 optimized Wizards of the same class level as the PCs. But that rarely happens, to be honest.

[King of Nowhere]

Like, me, I always thought that, if we've got a game where the magic the players use is the same magic that the opposition the DM puts out has access to, suddenly the balance between users of that magic and characters incapable of using it become relevant even in a PvE game. Because the CR 13 enemy wizard you run into one day can totally just pop off the same Forcecage (or whatever) that's trivialized encounters in your favor until now.

I have thrown a lot of magical foes at my players, and had a bunch of magical foes thrown at my character as well. THat's not how it works.
So, say your players cast a spell that trivializes an encounter. Say, a forcecage. As the DM, your job is to make encounters non-trivial, so you find a counter for that spell. And really, all you need is a single use dimension door item. Or a single use disintegrate. Anyway, your next enemy will have that, so the spell won't trivialize the encounter anymore. the players will also learn, and they will also want to get that trinket; otherwise, next encounter THEY will be the ones to face the same strategy. Heck, they may face the same tactic anyway, just to make them feel good at having spent money on that trinket.
So, the concept of "spell trivialize an encounter" is vastly exaggerated. Sure, some spells can trivialize some encounters, but that won't happen against strong, prepared opponents (definition of strong and adequately prepared opponents: those that have countered all ways to trivialize the encounter with a single spell or ability).
Now, I have no doubt that an enemy lich can still trivialize a single mundane opponent with enough application of several spells, but the core of the game being PvE is, as bowstreetrunner pointed out, that it is not a single player against an enemy, but a team of player. So if your enemy lich needs three spells to neutralize the party fighter, well, it's all actions that the lich did not use to smoke someone else. the fighter can say at the end of the fight "I contributed", even if all he did was teleporting out of a forcecage and being trapped into another.

The point of being PvE and not PvP is that the characters do not need to be all that well balanced, as long as they can make themselves useful enough times (and even just costing resources to the enemy counts) they can all have fun and be part of a team.

[Thirdtwin]

Your claim that a PvE game doesn't have spellcasters as enemies make absolutely no sense.

That was your claim though, if a non-explicit one. Or at least that's what I thought.

Let's back up a little. You regurgitated some tired Dark Souls memeology. JNAProductions asked you to show them a high-op fighter that beats a high-op wizard. You said in response that "This is a PvE game not a PvP" presumably as an excuse not to provide a high-op fighter that can beat a high-op wizard, because all three of us know such an entity doesn't actually exist.

So we follow that down a bit. Because fundamentally, an NPC wizard is a PC wizard with less money. Same class features, same spells. Usually DMs don't play wizards to the hilt because of conceptions of fair play, but strictly speaking there's nothing stopping a DM from using a high-op wizard. In which case the fighter, high-op or not, is categorically screwed, because there is no configuration of fighter that can beat a high-op wizard. (Unless you want to provide one, like JNAProductions asked you to? It's cool if you can't but it would probably have been more expedient to say so than to go off into something totally irrelevant to the conversation.) In any case, the point of people making power level comparisons in an ostensibly PvE game is that the E is composed of and has access to the same tools the P gets. It's not just hollow PvP wankery, because the E can be a P. And quite frankly after a decade and a half of 3e, where player-DM symmetry has clearly been established as an aspect of the game and has even become a selling point for many people? It's silly, if not intellectually dishonest, to try and make that distinction when it benefits the given argument (for instance to illegitimize claims of game unbalance between individual characters by undermining their relevance to the "real" game). Players and DMs play by the same rules, that being one of the points of 3e; therefore it is and must be possible to mirror any unbalanced relationship between two player characters with a player character and a non-player character. Cries of "PvE! PvE!" don't change that, and people in general should stop trying to make that defunct argument in the case of this particular game, or at least that's what I think.

But... If you come from a worldview where your characters regularly don't face opposition equal to your optimization level, then maybe you don't really understand that you can do that because nobody you know does it. Your lived experience may lack an example that demonstrates it for you, and many examples that demonstrate the opposite. Now the easiest way to get to that point is of course for the DM to cut out most of the magic on the part of the opponents, because most of the optimization is in the magic. And you know what? People do that. The level 1 dungeon crawl is really popular-more popular than perhaps I personally would like, since other games more to my taste are apparently much less popular. 5e, although a much different game from 3e, is perceived (at least) to be a game that supports that whole aesthetic, and D&D is experiencing a renaissance in popularity right now. There're a lot of correlations that may or may not be causations going on there, I will admit, but all the same I feel like running around in a dirty hole fighting orcs and kobolds and goblins and falling down ten foot holes and dying are many peoples' preferred, if not only, experience with D&D. And that experience is pretty hard to fit a master of the arcane arts, or an ancient dragon, or many more magical things from the bestiary into.

So! Since I try to give other people the benefit of the doubt and hope they aren't being intellectually dishonest or anything, I assumed that such a game was the playspace you were operating from with your posts. In which case, "This is a PvE game not a PvP" (I added the part in brackets) would be a sensible argument to make, if a facile one. If the DM makes sure never to expose players to magic, then magic's primacy over non-magic won't inconvenience players. The E will not be using P tools, so "PvP" experiences really won't matter to such a game. I was giving you credit, in other words. Because I assume you are aware that in 3e, generally speaking:

players can choose to use magic or non-magic
players' magic is better than player's non-magic assuming equal optimization
a player that chooses to use magic will experience inter-player imbalance with a player that uses non-magic
dms generate the environment players play in and usually the enemies they face
players and dms use the same magic
therefore dms' magic is better than player's non-magic assuming equal optimization
therefore inter-player imbalance is relevant to PvE playstyles


But even if you didn't buy those premises, you at least see that they follow from one another, right? You might not think those things are [I]problems, but you do see those are things? Or if you didn't think 3e as a game worked like that, that in another hypothetical game that did work like that you would experience those events, right? Well, in my experience people who don't think those hypothetical things are problems tend to not have played games where those statements became problems. And, also in my experience, those games usually come about because the DM chooses not to use the same magic as players-which usually resolves to "using magic at all," because of (what I perceive to be) the popularity of low-level low-magic low-fantasy games. In my effort to try and give you the benefit of the doubt, I presumed you mostly played in games like that, and that's why you made the claim that PvP is irrelevant to PvE, instead of trying to muddy the waters in an already quite silty topic. I'm sorry if that's not the case.

Edit:

different versions are avalible, spontaneous casting is partial vanician without the prep, spell point, recharge version, ect.

Well, the latter two options aren't things players pick, they're settings the DM turns on or off as they choose as I understand it (and I have never seen a game where the DM said recharge casting was okay, never mind play in one). Spont casting is good, but of course the particular spont casters have their own issues with (for instance) PrC prereqs, which gishes tend to like. But yeah, when I've played gishes I usually try to use sorcs because the preparing aspect is what really gets me down wrt Vancian casting. (Or I could just be a Psychic Warrior, which is nice because I like points.)

[death390]

Well, of course they do.

A vocal minority on these forums tend to confuse a build that is viable with a build that is fully optimized at the expense of everything else. This leads to people calling feats "mandatory" or "feat tax" when they're actually only a small bonus that the player could choose to forego in exchange for something else. Generally speaking you'll need one or two feats to make a particular fighting style work (so you can do this at level one if you're e.g. human or a fighter) and then you can spend all other feats on fun in-character stuff or on completely maxing out your fighting style. Theory oppers will claim that the latter is "necessary" but in practice it's obviously not; you really don't need a 95% success rate against everything you'll ever face in order to enjoy the game.

if i want to build a whirling deverish of a two weapon fighter ala Drizzt i can expect to need the two weapon fighting line HOWEVER looking at whirlwind attack it is just what i would want of a deverish. that said dodge, mobility, AND spring attack are straight taxes to this idea. combat expertise makes sense because being in control of my movement to make sure i am not hit in the middle of so many enemies but spring attack makes no sense for this build because it focuses on getting into the middle of a group of enemies then attacking as many as possible. dodge is a crap feat that should not have been added or had a different effect and is of itself a tax and new player trap, while spring attack is useful it is not really part of the build idea AND has nothing to do mechanically with whirlwind attack. spring attack put you in and out of combat, whirlwind has you stand in the middle due to fullround action. spring attack gives you 1 attack, whilwhind hits multiple. it makes no sense to be gated behind spring attack.

hell building whirlwind on anything other than a fighter/ monk is near impossible to do viably and a monk is nigh unviable while fighter is always sub-par.

[Drakevarg]

The big flaw in your argument, Thirdtwin, is that while the players and the DM might shop at roughly the same market as one another, they don't have anywhere near approaching the same economy. PvE vs. PvP distinction is absolutely relevant because the onus to balance a PvE encounter is entirely in the hands of the DM. Yes, the DM can use the same high-op Wizard the players can. You know what else they can do? Use 20 of them. Or none. Or a low-op Wizard, or five high-op wizards of significantly lower level. Or a pit fiend. Or a legion of sufficiently devious kobolds. Or a large rock. DMs have an infinite capacity to tweak an encounter to their preference, where the players have a decidedly narrower band of options.

In a PvP scenario you need to stay competitive with your peers. A guy who can hit things real good will pretty much always be behind a guy who can rewrite reality, that's just common sense. In a PvE scenario, all you need to do is not actively hold your party back. Because a DM intent on making your character irrelevant will succeed if they have even a little bit of a clue what they're doing. It doesn't matter if you somehow made it to 13th level while taking levels in Commoner, or if you're trying to roll Pun-Pun. The best tricks are still inferior to all the tricks plus the ability to decide what tricks do and don't exist.

If a DM isn't intent on making your character irrelevant, then they most likely will be building encounters specifically so you'll be able to contribute. That's their job. A DM knows that even the best casters can't do everything all the time, so building an encounter where the fighter can't contribute is basically the same thing as building an encounter where survival hinges on the wizard having a spell you know for a fact they haven't got access to today. It requires either malice or negligence on the part of the DM.

[King of Nowhere]

players can choose to use magic or non-magic
players' magic is better than player's non-magic assuming equal optimization
a player that chooses to use magic will experience inter-player imbalance with a player that uses non-magic
dms generate the environment players play in and usually the enemies they face
players and dms use the same magic
therefore dms' magic is better than player's non-magic assuming equal optimization
therefore inter-player imbalance is relevant to PvE playstyles



You are vastly overstating the case here. You make those seem like huge, unsurmontable problems when in 99% of cases they are mild nuisances at best.
First thing, you are talking from high-op point of view. I assure you, at mid-op, where most people play, there are several ways a mundane can beat a caster. Most of that comes in terms of a specific situation.
But even discounting that, there is a huge difference between PvP and PvE: in PvP, players need to be balanced perfectly; the slightest advantage would lead to unfair play. In chess both sides have the same amount of pieces, and yet the slight advantage of white moving first results in around a 60% score for white at high levels.
In PvE, there is no need for perfect balance, as long as everyone can meaningfully contribute. And while a fighter cannot defeat a caster 1v1, a fighter properly equipped with flight and teleportation and see illusions and stuff will be able to meaningfully contribute in taking down a caster, by costing the caster many actions. So the imbalance between casters and martials isn't really all that important, except in a few specific styles of play. Furthermore, any DM I've ever heard of takes active steps (banning builds, combos and spells, mostly) to reduce the gap.

Really, if there are tons of people who've been playing for years, gone all the way to high levels, and they still claim from personal experience that the imbalance isn't a big deal, then maybe there's a reason. It's unlikely all those guys have all gone nuts or are all noobs pretending to be more experienced than they are

[Thirdtwin]

You are vastly overstating the case here. You make those seem like huge, unsurmontable problems when in 99% of cases they are mild nuisances at best.
First thing, you are talking from high-op point of view. I assure you, at mid-op, where most people play, there are several ways a mundane can beat a caster. Most of that comes in terms of a specific situation.
But even discounting that, there is a huge difference between PvP and PvE: in PvP, players need to be balanced perfectly; the slightest advantage would lead to unfair play. In chess both sides have the same amount of pieces, and yet the slight advantage of white moving first results in around a 60% score for white at high levels.
In PvE, there is no need for perfect balance, as long as everyone can meaningfully contribute. And while a fighter cannot defeat a caster 1v1, a fighter properly equipped with flight and teleportation and see illusions and stuff will be able to meaningfully contribute in taking down a caster, by costing the caster many actions. So the imbalance between casters and martials isn't really all that important, except in a few specific styles of play. Furthermore, any DM I've ever heard of takes active steps (banning builds, combos and spells, mostly) to reduce the gap.

Really, if there are tons of people who've been playing for years, gone all the way to high levels, and they still claim from personal experience that the imbalance isn't a big deal, then maybe there's a reason. It's unlikely all those guys have all gone nuts or are all noobs pretending to be more experienced than they are

...ahhhh, I messed up again.

I didn't say those were problems. I know it's going to sound like I'm trying to juggle words around when I make this distinction, but I sincerely thought I was being clearer than I was. I said "...in my experience people who don't think those hypothetical things are problems tend to not have played games where those statements became problems." I didn't say anything regarding whether I considered them problems, first of all. I think in some games they can be problems, yes, but in some games they're, well, the point. And that's fine. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying otherwise or trying to tear down the game.

But even beyond that, I'm not trying to argue that those are bad things in all or even most cases, but rather merely that they are things in the first place-things that have to be kept in mind when considering the implications of uneven class balance in 3e. Because a DM who thinks they're pulling their punches with their half-optimized wizard BBEG may suddenly detonate their friend who plays a fighter without quite meaning to because of a good save-or-lose against a low save and an unavailable immunity. There's more chance of that happening in the no magic mart or no psionics or no custom items types of games, and in the wild those games are actually quite common (to my chagrin in some cases). The same dirty tricks a wizard can pull in players' hands are available to the DM, and moreover I've often seen a lot of DMs state explicitly that if they are confronted with something they consider cheesy in terms of op, they will escalate their play level to match.

The prospective DM wouldn't be able to state this as clearly if they had a different set of tools to construct the environment of play, one that wasn't symmetrical to player choices, because the comparison wouldn't be so obvious. (And of course a DM always has the "rocks fall, everyone dies" option, although that's not relevant to class balance as such.) But since the tools ARE there, since you could see a series of actions in game language and not be able to guess whether the wizard was being run by a player or GM when they dominate their martial target and tell them to sit there not doing anything for 20 days until they die from thirst, that means that we have to consider the implications of that ability existing in the DM's toolbox. PvE is different from PvP, but it's not fundamentally so, especially in these weird RPG thingummers. Certainly they can't be that different when the environment is made out of the same bits as the players are. So often statements that the game IS PvE, which first of all everyone knows already unless they've been playing in one of those games that used to get posted in "GM Horror Story" topics all their life, and second of all is usually only brought up in circumstances orthogonal to the topic of the moment, have come to exemplify for me a sort of pre-emptive defense against people who aren't even attacking, a hollow truism that usually sends already-wobbly topicality into a death spin. It's maybe a bit more pertinent than saying the sky is blue, but it's five times or more as likely as to derail D&D conversations.

Also, I daresay you overstate the necessity for "balance" in competitive gaming. For instance, the old fighting game Marvel vs Capcom 2 is widely considered one of the most unbalanced fighting games its publisher Capcom has ever put out, with many individual characters being utterly worthless competitively and there being a clear and indisputed "god tier" of four characters, so good that every team worth a damn has at least two of these characters (a team being made of three characters in this game). It's also been one of the most popular and widely-played by "professional" fighting gamers*. I still haven't quite figured out whether that's despite the first fact or because of it. There's arguably a sort of meta-balance that occurs within top-tier play, especially with the team format the game exhibits, which gives more flexibility in choice than the single-character layouts many other fighter games use. But still, in a roster of 54 characters, you have 4 who are unequivocally the best, which is not the most balanced ratio. Yet this game was still getting top billing at fighting game events for over a decade, with players still getting explosively excited over it even several years in after the tiers had solidified into their final form. (hell, a low-quality cam rip of several awkwardly edited shots of a CRT TV running the game while a man in the background yelled about food became a meme for a short while seven years after the game's release, and this meme got several references in the eventual sequel Marvel vs Capcom 3.) Point being, a game where valid character choices include a lego figurine, a somewhat angry hobo, Wolverine with no adamantium, and a lady with absolute control over weather phenomena, and where the play balance between these characters pretty much matches these humorous descriptions, maintained a ridiculously strong following (despite/because) of this. Of course it ain't chess or nothing, but neither is D&D.

*this was prior to the emergence of eSports as a term, never mind the fighting game community's weird half-in half-out participation in that label, so professional gaming wasn't really a thing yet. I don't think they even had sponsorships in those days, yet. But these were still the best players, who attended most of the fighting game tournaments across the country, placed highly and won money for doing so.

[RoboEmperor]

1. I never played Dark Souls.
2. You're saying a fighter cannot beat a planar shepherds with a 10:1 time bubble or 3/day wish 1v1. So... what? The game is not 1v1. It's 4-6 v.s. 1. A full party of 4-6 can defeat the planar shepherd. Are you saying because your party of 4-6 cannot defeat an encounter of 4-6 planar shepherds because everyone in the party is not playing an optimized build comparable to a planar shepherd so the game is bad? wtf kind of argument is that? The DM throws an encounter your party can win. That is what PvE means. It doesn't matter, at all, that a fighter cannot beat a planar shepherd 1v1.


But... If you come from a worldview where your characters regularly don't face opposition equal to your optimization level, then maybe you don't really understand that you can do that because nobody you know does it.

Who said that? Who here said the DM doesn't throw characters equal to our optimization level? How is PvE = DM doesn't throw characters equal to your optimization level? It's the exact opposite. PvE means you throw encounters equal to the party's optimization level. PvP means you throw 6 planar shepherds at the party and tell them "if you optimized you wouldn't have gotten TPKed. I had same number of characters as you and used the same rules so it's your fault you all died, not mine."


Your lived experience may lack an example that demonstrates it for you, and many examples that demonstrate the opposite. Now the easiest way to get to that point is of course for the DM to cut out most of the magic on the part of the opponents, because most of the optimization is in the magic.

Where did I say the DM should cut out most of the magic? The topic creater said "go high magic or go home" and I wholeheartedly agreed with that statement, so explain to me where the hell did I say the DM should cut out most of the magic?


And you know what? People do that. The level 1 dungeon crawl is really popular-more popular than perhaps I personally would like, since other games more to my taste are apparently much less popular.

I hate level 1 dungeon crawls. I like high levels much more, especially 9th level spells. I do not play with DMs who have no intention of going the full 20 levels with their group. Where did I say I like low level dungeon crawls where most of the character options are cut out? Where did I say PvE = low level dungeon crawls and banning high levels of d&d?


5e, although a much different game from 3e, is perceived (at least) to be a game that supports that whole aesthetic, and D&D is experiencing a renaissance in popularity right now. There're a lot of correlations that may or may not be causations going on there, I will admit, but all the same I feel like running around in a dirty hole fighting orcs and kobolds and goblins and falling down ten foot holes and dying are many peoples' preferred, if not only, experience with D&D. And that experience is pretty hard to fit a master of the arcane arts, or an ancient dragon, or many more magical things from the bestiary into.

I hate 5e. It's why I'm still hanging around here. Where did I say PvE = running around in a dirty hole fighting nonmagical orcs, kobolds, and goblins and dying by falling down 10ft holes?

Don't put words in my mouth because you don't know what PvE means. PvE means the DM throws encounters that the players can beat with their current level of optimization be it nonmagical kobolds or dragons maximized with craft contingent items, scintillating scales, and with the best BFC spells instead of the spells suggested in the monster manual. PvP means the DM throws TO characters at the players every encounter to the point where the players have to roll TO characters themselves just to have a 50:50 chance of beating an encounter.

[Thirdtwin]

See, this must be another way the games I've played differ from how other people D&D-do you guys really just run all your fights (party-size) on 1? See, with as much as people go on about action economy, I figured it would be obvious to have more than one character per fight even for a "climactic" battle, because the quickest way to have enough "actions" on one side is to have lots of dudes. But now I'm seeing all this "PPPPvE" and "It's 4-6 v.s. 1" and, well, I don't usually fight one guy every fight in my games. Even boss fights have minions and stuff. Truly the world is vast and contains multitudes.



2. You're saying a fighter cannot beat a planar shepherds with a 10:1 time bubble or 3/day wish 1v1. So... what? The game is not 1v1. It's 4-6 v.s. 1. A full party of 4-6 can defeat the planar shepherd. Are you saying because your party of 4-6 cannot defeat an encounter of 4-6 planar shepherds because everyone in the party is not playing an optimized build comparable to a planar shepherd so the game is bad? wtf kind of argument is that? The DM throws an encounter your party can win. That is what PvE means. It doesn't matter, at all, that a fighter cannot beat a planar shepherd 1v1.

...

Who said that? Who here said the DM dWoesn't throw characters equal to our optimization level? How is PvE = DM doesn't throw characters equal to your optimization level? It's the exact opposite. PvE means you throw encounters equal to the party's optimization level. PvP means you throw 6 planar shepherds at the party and tell them "if you optimized you wouldn't have gotten TPKed. I had same number of characters as you and used the same rules so it's your fault you all died, not mine."

...

Don't put words in my mouth because you don't know what PvE means. PvE means the DM throws encounters that the players can beat with their current level of optimization be it nonmagical kobolds or dragons maximized with craft contingent items, scintillating scales, and with the best BFC spells instead of the spells suggested in the monster manual. PvP means the DM throws TO characters at the players every encounter to the point where the players have to roll TO characters themselves just to have a 50:50 chance of beating an encounter.

Oh. Here it is.
You were complaining about PvP vs PvE. Those terms stand for "Player vs Player" and "Player vs Environment." What I thought you meant by PvP was, "direct comparison and competition of player character capabilities, up to and including the PCs literally fighting one another." Because that's the usual basis of PvP comparison in topics like these, or at least the strawman version. People compare classes and everything's going fine until some spoilsport chimes in with "this isn't a PvP game [with the subtext of 'you filthy optimizer'], it's not like the wizard is going to fight the fighter in a big white room somewhere." It elides over the reality that many games include fights with wizards, or beefy wizards on steroids, or magic-users more generally, and when that becomes the case the capability of a fighter to fight a magic user becomes absolutely and obviously pertinent.

Meanwhile PvE would be "pretty much how normal D&Ds go." The DM controls the environment and the players contend against it. Player vs Environment, PvE. I always thought it was a self-evident term. Most notably I never recalled any direct association between those terms and the difficulty level of the games they described. PvE and PvP would create different experiences and have different challenges, and it's trivial to imagine an easy PvP game and a difficult PvE game, at least for me.

But what you mean by PvP is "how normal D&Ds go, only the DM is softballing it and only throwing one monster per fight at you at a time or something," and then PvE becomes "full aggro adversarial DM vs TO-using players." Now personally I don't like either of those gamestates, but using your definitions and being willing to stretch "This is a PvE game not a PvP" beyond its plainest meaning, I agree that the game generally functions better when the DM isn't actively trying to murder the player characters (or the players for that matter). Now I'm pretty sure that's still a facile statement, and one that has no relevance to the capabilities of a high-op fighter vs a high-op wizard, which was the question you were asked and answered with "This is a PvE game not a PvP." So, I mean, you still dodged the question with a non-sequitur but at least you and I don't have a total failure to communicate anymore and we can share premises and stuff. Because I certainly agree that the DM dropping fifty Planar Shepherds and Ur-Priests and etc. would very quickly create results isomorphic to "rocks fall, everyone dies." Just, I've never seen anybody maintain that that degenerate game state is what they mean when they say "PvP" so it's a usage I'm unfamiliar with. I suppose that I and everyone else I've ever spoken to may in fact be wrong when they read "PvP" and take the words "Player vs Player" at face value, which (considering the general jargony usage of "player" in RPG discussion to mean "not-DM," even though strictly speaking both non-DMs and DMs are playing the game and thus are players in a broader sense) would indicate a case where two non-DM players are fighting one another by some contrivance. But either way you mean something different, and I'm okay with working with your definitions. So yeah, it's cool. Degenerate game states are in fact degenerate.




Where did I say the DM should cut out most of the magic? The topic creater said "go high magic or go home" and I wholeheartedly agreed with that statement, so explain to me where the hell did I say the DM should cut out most of the magic?

...

I hate level 1 dungeon crawls. I like high levels much more, especially 9th level spells. I do not play with DMs who have no intention of going the full 20 levels with their group. Where did I say I like low level dungeon crawls where most of the character options are cut out? Where did I say PvE = low level dungeon crawls and banning high levels of d&d?

...

I hate 5e. It's why I'm still hanging around here. Where did I say PvE = running around in a dirty hole fighting nonmagical orcs, kobolds, and goblins and dying by falling down 10ft holes?

Okay, so. Obviously you're upset. I could go down this list of stuff and note where I never said that's what you said, but that would leave me sounding like a parrot and not engender any further understanding. So I'm going to try and break down where I was operating from so we can get a clearer understanding of what went wrong.

You threw out some Dark Souls jargon don't know how to spell "good," and the way you choose to spell it has some coincidental memetic resonance with some unpleasant internets characters. JNAProductions asked you to come up with a high-op fighter that had parity with a high-op wizard. You went "This is a PvE game not a PvP."

What I thought you meant by that statement was:

"(D&D) is (a game where characters deal with, interact, or "oppose" aspects of their fictional environment, including the creatures that live in it),
not (a game where the players generate characters solely to beat them against each other like some sort of nerdy Fight Club)."


The relevance of that statement has little to do with what you were asked, though, and because I've participated in other topics where the wizard/fighter balance comes up, and I'm used to people saying "this is a PvE game so your fighter won't fight a wizard in the first place," I thought that was what you, too, were maintaining. Now as noted before that's not true; you're probably going to fight something in the **** bestiary that knows some kind of magic, at least, and many times the villain of a given story is some sort of wizard in particular. And even if it were true, it's something so trivially self-evident that saying so doesn't have any utility above people getting irritated (because somebody wouldn't say something obvious without trying to imply that a given person is too dumb to know it) and sinking the level of discourse in a given topic.

Now because this is the internet, I know that persons exist who enjoy irritating people and sinking the level of discourse in topics. I however make it a personal point to assume good faith on the part of people who aren't blatantly trolling, and I didn't get that read from you. So instead I tried to conceptualize the type of person who would say something facile like that without actually meaning insult or offense. A person who would say "this is a PvE game so your fighter won't fight a wizard in the first place" probably has a certain level of lived experience that precludes them encountering spellcasting-capable enemies in D&D. What I've come upon in other discussions about D&D, including ones about its current edition and that edition's current (apparent) level of popularity, is that there is a lot of "back to the dungeon" sentiment out there. People are pulling out old modules and running 5e characters through them because they're faintly compatible. New modules are selling too, including one that explicitly starts with level 1 PCs because all the other high level FR guys are off doing something else.

Now, like you it turns out, I'm pretty big on high magic (with some tangential qualifications) high fantasy D&D. I'm not a great fan of the fantasy Vietnam schtick. But after a bunch of lurking and a bunch of discussion in various places, I've concluded that it may in fact be my tastes that are the outliers, not the people I discussed with. People like 5e. They like the official games offered for it. A large part of those games include a lot of low-level dirt-scrabbling beating-up-small-green-guys play. WotC is certainly satisfied with how it's doing, and although that may be modulated by their unambitious product release schedule, the "D&D is back, babey!!!!" sentiment is totally out there. We've got people who passed on 3e and 4e suddenly taking interest in 5e, and a bunch of new players getting drawn in too. Now again, correlation isn't causation, but maybe that aesthetic really is more popular/lucrative/current format for D&D, and my rarefied tastes are actually just rare. People like this probably would have ended up passing on both 3e and 4e, which in their own ways deny that particular format, but that doesn't preclude people with a historical interest in the older games, or people who are steadfast in maintaining that actually dungeonpanic is totally feasible in 3e, or whatever. Point is, it's rational for me to keep in mind that any given person I interact with on the topic of D&D may be in level 1 low magic dirty faces mode while I'm looking for something a bit higher up in the shininess quotient.

So in an effort to give you credit in my mind, I pre-supposed that you were one of those people. In which case you would think that saying "this is a PvE game so your fighter won't fight a wizard in the first place" would actually be relevant because all your experience would tell you that was the case, and that usually takes primacy in a person's head over stuff that you just read about. That's just how people tend to work.

Now, that was a mistake on my part, and you dodged JNAProductions' question for some other reason. But a more fundamental problem is that we were operating on totally different axioms, because while I thought you meant one thing when you said "This is a PvE game not a PvP.", you actually meant:

"(D&D) is (a game where the DM lines up the monsters in neat little rows and sends them out to attack one by one)
and not (a totally nonfunctional hellscape populated by the ruins of a world where theoretical optimization was made to run rampant on both sides of the screen, and where the basic rules are broken down beyond any repair.)"

Which still dodges the question, but at least doesn't drag the tired "this is a PvE game so your fighter won't fight a wizard in the first place" argument around on its back like an albatross. Instead the argument becomes "this is a PvE game so the DM isn't sending a googolplex of Pun-Puns after your characters for daring to have the hubris to challenge their authority." ...which is also pointless and non-sequitur, but at least I can agree with it.

So basically this was an extended example of what happens when one makes an assumption, and unfortunately Mption isn't around, so the u is me. I was uncertain where you were coming from, and I gave the "innocent" option undue primacy in my estimation of your character. That was wrong, and on my part I apologize.

[King of Nowhere]

...ahhhh, I messed up again.
...
Ah, ok, that clarifies.
Yeah, those points are actual points that a DM has to take into account when throwing enemies at the party. And most experienced DM and players who choose to play at medium optimization do so specifically because those problems are much less severe. Likewise, most DM ban a lot of the strongest combos casters have to keep those problems in check. And it's also definitely worse when you have strangers in a competitive environment than close friends who don't mind being outshone by someone else.

But yeah, there are many ways to keep those imbalance-related problems small enough that they don't really affect the game. Your original post sounded like "you either can't play a mixed party because of this, or you never played past level 3". Glad for the clarification.


See, this must be another way the games I've played differ from how other people D&D-do you guys really just run all your fights (party-size) on 1? See, with as much as people go on about action economy, I figured it would be obvious to have more than one character per fight even for a "climactic" battle, because the quickest way to have enough "actions" on one side is to have lots of dudes. But now I'm seeing all this "PPPPvE" and "It's 4-6 v.s. 1" and, well, I don't usually fight one guy every fight in my games. Even boss fights have minions and stuff. Truly the world is vast and contains multitudes.


Well, while on one hand the NPCs should be as competent as the party and access roughly the same resources, the party is expected to win, so they must have SOME advantage. It can change with the situation.
One typical encounter is the "big boss versus all", where the boss is stronger than any member of the party taken individually, but has the disadvantage of numbers. This is the typical case where you can throw an optimized caster (more optimized, higher level than them) at the party. This is the caster that can defeat the fighter solo, but he can also defeat the wizard solo. You need teamplay to take him down.
Or you could have a party of enemies in equal number, each a couple level below the party. When I do that, martials on both sides tend to make a beeline against the enemy casters - the party don't have a trip-lockdown build, so I mostly avoid using one against them. regardless, in both cases the martials end up neutralized, but they cost actions to the casters, that cannot ignore tham because a couple power attacks may prove lethal. Basically, the martial that can keep the enemy casters busy for longer brings the victory to his team.
Or you could have an enemy (single or party) that is actuallyy stronger than the party, but the party has the advantage of surprise. I did that once, the party hired a spy to research a wizard, and I made this wizard that could have taken the part alone but had a predictable schedule and behavior and could be ambushed to the party's advantage.
Or you could have everyone at the same level, but the party better equipped. Or the player's party of 6 against a party of 4. Or many more combinations.

Basically, there are many ways to respect both the "enemies have the same resources" and "party can be expected to win" conditions. We've been putting a lot of emphasis on party vs 1 strong opponent because encounters with high-OP, high level casters are generallly of that kind. You implicitly acknowledge that they are stronger by having them alone facing the whole party.

[AvatarVecna]

You couldn't have a PPPPvE with a non-caster Enemy. Not past like 5th lvl. Not if he's even remotely close to an appropriate challenge for your group.

EDIT: Because then it's the party bending over backwards to avoid just utterly stomping the encounter...and parties don't do that.

EDIT 2: Which is kinda the point. The asymmetry of the system is on both sides of the screen. When the DM needs a solo Caster of (APL+2) to challenge the party and a solo non-Caster of (APL*2) to challenge the party, there's a very clear issue, and past lvl 11 that martial will be too tough for you to technically get any XP by RAW because you're not supposed to be able to solo people that much more supposedly-"powerful" than you.

[ryu]

You couldn't have a PPPPvE with a non-caster Enemy. Not past like 5th lvl. Not if he's even remotely close to an appropriate challenge for your group.

EDIT: Because then it's the party bending over backwards to avoid just utterly stomping the encounter...and parties don't do that.

EDIT 2: Which is kinda the point. The asymmetry of the system is on both sides of the screen. When the DM needs a solo Caster of (APL+2) to challenge the party and a solo non-Caster of (APL*2) to challenge the party, there's a very clear issue, and past lvl 11 that martial will be too tough for you to technically get any XP by RAW because you're not supposed to be able to solo people that much more supposedly-"powerful" than you.

I thought cases like that automatically gave one XP short of leveling twice as opposed to no XP?

[Talakeal]

3.X has a huge power disparity, far larger than most any fantasy fiction (including the fluff presented in the D&D books) or RPGs (including other editions of D&D).

The problem is that, unlike a game like GURPS or Mutants and Masterminds, this discrepancy in power level is never addressed, and furthermore a character's fluff archetype is linked to their mechanical power.

Thus you get a lot of people who want to play at a certain power level and / or archetype that conflicts with the game's internal crunch / fluff matchup or the expectations of the rest of their party.


I don't think it is unreasonable to want a less powerful caster or more powerful martial, other games (including other editions of D&D) managed it just fine, and even 3.5 got a lot closer in balance as the edition went on, and I imagine WoTC could have done it themselves if not for fear of killing sacred cows.

What really baffles me though is why so many new players are still coming into a game that has been out of print for over ten years and superseded by two editions (not counting PF) and that old groups haven't figured out a solution to these fundamental disconnects (whether they be between the game's internal fluff and crunch of the desires of people in the gaming group).

[Drakevarg]

What really baffles me though is why so many new players are still coming into a game that has been out of print for over ten years and superseded by two editions (not counting PF) and that old groups haven't figured out a solution to these fundamental disconnects (whether they be between the game's internal fluff and crunch of the desires of people in the gaming group).

I think part of it is that despite the absolute mountains of homebrew on the market, as well as third-party published material, many people are hesitant to stray too far from the official stuff, perhaps out of a sense that too many conflicting creative visions without a central oversight can lead to a disjointed product. Is this logical? Probably not, for numerous reasons. But gut instincts can be troublesome. I personally don't use much homebrew besides my own for that reason. There's always the concern that doing so will just produce a shambling Frankenstein of a system, regardless of intentions.

And since WotC isn't publishing it anymore, that pretty much leaves Pathfinder as the only widely-accepted system patches. As a result every group finds themselves having to personally deal with these issues according to their own standards and resources.