PDA

View Full Version : Class balance in actual practice



Mike_G
2007-11-01, 01:48 PM
I was wondering how many people have actually had problems with class balance in actual play and if so, what those problems were.

I've seen some game squashing imbalance, but mostly at higher levels where casters dominate. We did have a mass strike by melee class players after one 17th or so level adventure where all they did was mop up after the two wizards, but I've never seen the Foresight/Celerity/Forcecage/Cloudkill win button for the low low Kmart price of all your top tier slots, nor have I ever seen a Wizard spend 23 hours a day in his MMM after spending spells like a drunken sailor for one encounter, nor a game where people could just make or buy continuous constant use metamagic items and then just point to the section in the rulebook when the DM leaned across the table and clouted them.

Do these things happen in anybody's game, or just in Forum thought experiments? Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?

Discuss.
.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 01:57 PM
It happened out of competition, me save-or-die/suck/lose wizard and my friend's zoomaster druidzilla got into a rivalry on who can pwn combat more. Everyone else got pissed off that a) my wizard will end combat in one round, or b) the druid will amass an army so large and powerful that the battle field was a mess of monsers that the dm gives up keeping track.

Saph
2007-11-01, 02:04 PM
I was wondering how many people have actually had problems with class balance in actual play and if so, what those problems were.

Never, for the simple reason that skill is vastly more important than character class. A good player will always outperform a bad one, no matter what class he's playing.


I've seen some game squashing imbalance, but mostly at higher levels where casters dominate.

Yup. Casters only become overwhelmingly powerful from 15th level onwards or so, which is higher-level than 90% of D&D games take place at.


We did have a mass strike by melee class players after one 17th or so level adventure where all they did was mop up after the two wizards, but I've never seen the Foresight/Celerity/Forcecage/Cloudkill win button

Psst - that combo doesn't work. :P


for the low low Kmart price of all your top tier slots, nor have I ever seen a Wizard spend 23 hours a day in his MMM after spending spells like a drunken sailor for one encounter, nor a game where people could just make or buy continuous constant use metamagic items and then just point to the section in the rulebook when the DM leaned across the table and clouted them.

Spending 23 hours a day in a MMM in most games is like volunteering to remove your character from the adventure, since everyone else isn't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs while you rest up. So no, I've never seen it either. The rest of the party isn't going to schedule their life around the wizard's spell capacity unless they really, really need him for something.


Do these things happen in anybody's game, or just in Forum thought experiments? Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?

Discuss.

It depends. Playing really horribly underpowered classes like the Samurai can spoil one's fun a bit, because it's so hard to contribute. But not playing overpowered classes - or not playing them to their full broken potential - doesn't spoil one's fun at all, and in fact makes the rest of the party more likely to have fun.

The basic answer to your question is "no", these things don't generally happen for real. That's one of the problems I have with much of what I read in optimisation threads - it seems to be designed with absolutely no awareness of what a normal D&D game looks like. (One of the reasons I like TLN's wizard guide is that it specifically doesn't do this.)

- Saph

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-01, 02:07 PM
I've never actually seen a game where the casters dominated everything. Then again my experience with quasi epic level games is none existant, and my local bard has a couple clerics (who don't go clericzilla), a bard, a psionic gish, and an infiltrator rogue/wizard type. We do have one cohort that's straight wizard who does do quite a bit in combat. We also play in a setting with a ton of higher powered options for fighter/barbarians and comparatively much less for casters. The combats also tend to be over quickly (no time for the casters to buff themselves into oblivion), and start at close range.

Tormsskull
2007-11-01, 02:19 PM
I've only seen one game where a character was overpowered to an insane degree, and it was a Barbarian. It was around level 4 or 5 and the Barbarian (due to his awesome stats, and his awesome gear that he accumulated from other PCs having died and he having not), was dishing out close to 15 points of damage as a minimum. He also had godly HPs (IIRC he was like 2 or 3 off max), and had a very good AC for a Barbarian.

It got to the point that I had to send much more powerful mobs at the party, which challenged the barb but outright trounced everyone else.

As far as the super-powered spellcasters, we usually play in low-magic/magic-is-spooky kinda worlds so I've never seen a real problem with it.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 02:23 PM
fifteen damage minimum at level 15 is suboptimal for a barbarian btw...

Shishnarfne
2007-11-01, 02:23 PM
Generally, in my games, it comes down to player balance more than class balance. There's usually enough diversity in player ability that (unless a player writes a build into a dead-end) the ability of the player to design and play an effective character is more critical than the chosen class.

That said, the most successful games (IMHO) come when all the players work together to create characters all similarly capable that cover each other's weaknesses. That way the DM need not go out of their way to ensure that the challenge is worthwhile for all party members and not overpowering for any. As a DM, I prefer to try to work for this before the first die roll, so that I can be a bit more lazy later.

The dominating wizard fear is that the wizard will drop one spell that manages to turn a really tough fight into a cakewalk, moreso than the spammed combo of doom prefered by one local wizard. (I've seen a level 2 bard do similarly scary things at the one encounter/day rate: sleep + a karmic strike fighter with a big weapon turns leader+mooks fights into one round affairs).

Also, if your group doesn't do very much serious combat, class balance in combat has less influence on the course of the game.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-01, 02:25 PM
My play experience reflects the rough "tiers"--full spellcasters with strong spell lists being on top, et cetera. There is a lot of adjustment for player skill.

Casters are already fairly overwhelmingly overpowered at level 10 or so. The combination of Overland Flight--a Sorcerer might just cast Fly a lot--with several potent defenses and a save-or-lose offense is really strong.

Melee people mostly stuck to Tome of Battle in my last group, so there was less of a disparity.

Solo
2007-11-01, 02:33 PM
I've only seen one game where a character was overpowered to an insane degree, and it was a Barbarian. It was around level 4 or 5 and the Barbarian (due to his awesome stats, and his awesome gear that he accumulated from other PCs having died and he having not), was dishing out close to 15 points of damage as a minimum. He also had godly HPs (IIRC he was like 2 or 3 off max), and had a very good AC for a Barbarian.

It got to the point that I had to send much more powerful mobs at the party, which challenged the barb but outright trounced everyone else.


Cast Sleep or Deeper Slumber on him.

Down he goes!

Bryn
2007-11-01, 02:38 PM
I've never really experienced balance problems, but that's mainly due to a relatively inexperienced group and, more importantly, the fact that we never play past level 10, and rarely as high as that. The fact that we never take our games even slightly seriously also contributes to that :smallamused:

KIDS
2007-11-01, 02:43 PM
Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?

Yes. However, that still doesn't make the imbalance "just" or "proper way of gaming" as some people are trying to make it look.

Chronos
2007-11-01, 03:55 PM
fifteen damage minimum at level 15 is suboptimal for a barbarian btw...Yeah, but at level 4 or 5, where Tormsskull said they were playing, it's pretty good.

Frosty
2007-11-01, 04:05 PM
At level 5, Fighters and Barbarians Rule. They're in their prime. so this is not surprising. It's after that when they start to get outshone by the casters. Chargers can still keep up in damage, however.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 04:06 PM
Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?
The problem I have is that even if they can, a glaring imbalance can make it a LOT harder on the GM. If there's a Wizard in the party, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder finding a way for a CW Samurai to shine (and thus contribute and in turn have fun) than it is finding a way for a Cleric or Sorcerer to have their moments in the spotlight.

Mike_G
2007-11-01, 04:42 PM
I'm not taking a position that there is no imbalance, or even how much imbalance is ok, I just want to see how much imbalance people have atctually experienced in play.

We've seen the numbers crunched on how the only viable fighter builds are two handed Power Attacking, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper or Tripmasters with Guisarmes and Armor Spikes (something I've never seen in a real game), and how Clerics are better at melee than Fighters and so on.

I've never seen a group actually play that way, and I think 3.5 is balanced just fine up to maybe 10th level. I do agree that casters dominate at high levels, and as they approach epic, the game breaks.

I started this thread not to hear about what classes are "suboptimal," but how much the power discrepancy actually affects play.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-01, 04:46 PM
At around level 10, I've found that everyone in the party plays the casters' body guard. They buy him time until he ends the battle in a single round.

Raum
2007-11-01, 04:56 PM
I was wondering how many people have actually had problems with class balance in actual play and if so, what those problems were.When it comes to actual play, I find it more useful to phrase class balance in terms of 'potential choices per action' rather than raw power. In those terms, the problem with a fighter isn't that he can't kill a prepared wizard it's simply that he has few potential actions (most of which boil down to a version of "I hit it again") compared to said wizard with access to whatever spells he prepared and the ability to prepare an entirely new set of spells for the next day.


I've seen some game squashing imbalance, but mostly at higher levels where casters dominate. We did have a mass strike by melee class players after one 17th or so level adventure where all they did was mop up after the two wizards, but I've never seen the Foresight/Celerity/Forcecage/Cloudkill win button for the low low Kmart price of all your top tier slots, nor have I ever seen a Wizard spend 23 hours a day in his MMM after spending spells like a drunken sailor for one encounter, nor a game where people could just make or buy continuous constant use metamagic items and then just point to the section in the rulebook when the DM leaned across the table and clouted them.It is fairly common (in my experience) for the entire party to rest when a caster is low on spells...but it's usually the cleric's healing spells they're waiting on. I have seen fights ended quickly by casters, but that only seems to be an issue if it was expected to be the 'penultimate battle'. Unless you're simply running a dungeon crawl, your campaign probably doesn't revolve around combat.


Do these things happen in anybody's game, or just in Forum thought experiments? Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?I have played homebrew classes which were simply too innefective to be fun (tried reversing a bard's song effects for an evil campaign, I don't recommend it). Classes do need the ability to contribute to be fun, but relative combat power will only affect play if the central theme of your game is combat.

Saph
2007-11-01, 05:03 PM
I'm not taking a position that there is no imbalance, or even how much imbalance is ok, I just want to see how much imbalance people have actually experienced in play.

Like I said, I don't think it actually affects play very much. I'd say that D&D is balanced pretty well for levels 5-10 and not so well for levels 1-4 and 11-14, but I've seen groups at all those levels work fine even with a mixture of newbies and veterans. The optimisation builds you see around boards have very little relevance to actual play - they're usually one-trick ponies designed without thought to what they'd actually be like to play in a campaign.

I've also never seen most of the super-uber-one-turn-win combos around in games. Sometimes it's because the supposedly uber combo is actually in practice completely useless (like the Forcecage/Cloudkill one). Often it's because they look great in theory but turn out to have a few little flaws in practice, which only become obvious when you try and use them (by which time it's too late).

And partly it's because the players who really are good enough to pull these combos off are smart enough to know not to do it.

- Saph

Overlard
2007-11-01, 05:11 PM
At low levels, there's no real problem. But we recently played a game where there were only 2 non-full-casters at mid-high levels, and the gap was obvious. Two clerics, a wizard and a beguiler simply trashed virtually everything in their path, while the monk and exalted paladin spent their time lying on the ground waiting to be healed.

The gap starts to form with the introduction of 3rd level spells, and just gets wider from there.

Overlard
2007-11-01, 05:16 PM
I've also never seen most of the super-uber-one-turn-win combos around in games. Sometimes it's because the supposedly uber combo is actually in practice completely useless (like the Forcecage/Cloudkill one).
It's not useless, it just doesn't work exactly as simply as it's claimed to. I managed to take out two colossal dragons with it - using forcecage is the mistake.

lord_khaine
2007-11-01, 05:34 PM
ok now im curious, how did you take down a colossal dragon with a cloudkill?

Jayabalard
2007-11-01, 05:40 PM
Yes. However, that still doesn't make the imbalance "just" or "proper way of gaming" as some people are trying to make it look.If everyone is having fun and contributing, then what exactly is the problem?


I'm not taking a position that there is no imbalance, or even how much imbalance is ok, I just want to see how much imbalance people have atctually experienced in play.Different system, but I've played a fairly normal person in a campaign where most of the rest of the group were in powered armor or crazy non humans (and most of them capable of destroying a small modern day army).

Raum
2007-11-01, 05:45 PM
I've also never seen most of the super-uber-one-turn-win combos around in games. Sometimes it's because the supposedly uber combo is actually in practice completely useless (like the Forcecage/Cloudkill one). Often it's because they look great in theory but turn out to have a few little flaws in practice, which only become obvious when you try and use them (by which time it's too late).Stating there isn't a power imbalance is just avoiding the question. There is even without optimization. I've seen Sleep spells prevent a fight at low levels and Disintegrate spells end fights in the middling to upper levels. Neither requires much thought to use or requires optimization.

It's just not a big deal unless combat is your entire game. Say the group needs to escape a town so the wizard puts the gate guards to sleep....great! We can get on with the game now...we're one step closer to accomplishing the goal.

slexlollar89
2007-11-01, 05:49 PM
It largely depends on the players and the method of play. My ld group would never see a wizard dominating the battle feild because the wizard (even at 15th level) would snivel behind the larger fighter types. If you don't have alot of hp, we would roleplay it. The wizard would come out with the ocasional one round end combat spell chain, but largely the balance remained in place because all of us wanted to play and have a fun time. I played a CW samuri along with a party wizard, and archivist, a half ogre/orc barbarian. I was the third strongest character there (when the barbarian didn't rage).

The people who play characters dicate how balanced they are. Balance is not simply how many battles you can win in a single round, or how many people you can bluff into thinking you are a god, but rather how much fun each class is able to provide (through whatever means, be it skll or damage, or hilarity).

I know this sounds kind of preachy but it's how I view game balance...

Starbuck_II
2007-11-01, 06:13 PM
I've only seen one game where a character was overpowered to an insane degree, and it was a Barbarian. It was around level 4 or 5 and the Barbarian (due to his awesome stats, and his awesome gear that he accumulated from other PCs having died and he having not), was dishing out close to 15 points of damage as a minimum. He also had godly HPs (IIRC he was like 2 or 3 off max), and had a very good AC for a Barbarian.

It got to the point that I had to send much more powerful mobs at the party, which challenged the barb but outright trounced everyone else.

As far as the super-powered spellcasters, we usually play in low-magic/magic-is-spooky kinda worlds so I've never seen a real problem with it.

Dude, that is the minimum level 5 barbarian should be able to deal 14. At least in a Core game, non-core, he should do better.

18 Str (easy in PB, hard in rolling) +4 Rage=22 Str (+6 damage) x1.5 2 handed= +9 str damage.

Greatsword=6.5 Average.
We can assume a +1 weapon: +1 more damage
PA for 1 (never a bad idea):+2 damage
So minimum: 14
Average: 18.5
Max: 24

Really, it is not that out of ordinary.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-01, 06:24 PM
I've also never seen most of the super-uber-one-turn-win combos around in games. Sometimes it's because the supposedly uber combo is actually in practice completely useless (like the Forcecage/Cloudkill one). Often it's because they look great in theory but turn out to have a few little flaws in practice, which only become obvious when you try and use them (by which time it's too late).

Super-uber-one-turn-win combos look more like "Confusion" or "Fear" or "Baleful Polymorph" than "Forcecage/Cloudkill". They're not *quite* one-turn wins, but the rest is mop-up.

Saph
2007-11-01, 06:35 PM
Stating there isn't a power imbalance is just avoiding the question. There is even without optimization.

I'm fairly sure I specifically said that there was a power imbalance - which way the imbalance goes depends on level. But like I said, potential class power is much, much less important than player skill.


Super-uber-one-turn-win combos look more like "Confusion" or "Fear" or "Baleful Polymorph" than "Forcecage/Cloudkill". They're not *quite* one-turn wins, but the rest is mop-up.

I've seen both Confusion and Baleful Polymorph used without ending a battle - and that was after they got through the enemy saves and SR. Fear is too much of a nuisance for my taste (yeah, let's spend ten rounds chasing the monster across the map! Ugh. Just kill the damn thing already so we can go on to the next encounter.)

That said, it's kind of off topic from Mike's original question, which was "does class balance cause a problem in actual play", and my answer's still "no" - not below the high levels, anyway.

- Saph

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 06:49 PM
Dude, that is the minimum level 5 barbarian should be able to deal 14. At least in a Core game, non-core, he should do better.

18 Str (easy in PB, hard in rolling) +4 Rage=22 Str (+6 damage) x1.5 2 handed= +9 str damage.

Greatsword=6.5 Average.
We can assume a +1 weapon: +1 more damage
PA for 1 (never a bad idea):+2 damage
So minimum: 14
Average: 18.5
Max: 24

Really, it is not that out of ordinary.

Sorry for the typo and thanks for the correction. I meant fifteen damage minimum at level 5 is suboptimal for a barbarian btw...

LOLz, I mean hahahaha.

Raum
2007-11-01, 07:32 PM
I'm fairly sure I specifically said that there was a power imbalance - which way the imbalance goes depends on level. But like I said, potential class power is much, much less important than player skill.My apologies, I interpreted this as stating there weren't significant balance issues, at least for levels 5-10.

Like I said, I don't think it actually affects play very much. I'd say that D&D is balanced pretty well for levels 5-10 and not so well for levels 1-4 and 11-14, but I've seen groups at all those levels work fine even with a mixture of newbies and veterans.Perhaps I misinterpreted. I do agree with your conclusion, but I think the cause is different. In my experience it's not player skill, the players aren't usually competing against each other. I think the reason it doesn't cause many problems in play is because most play is focused more on accomplishing campaign goals than on winning a single battle. In fact, most of the time it's the GM who needs to avoid an imbalance in power. A caster 'winning' a single battle isn't bad for the PCs...unless it was an NPC caster.

Saph
2007-11-01, 07:42 PM
My apologies, I interpreted this as stating there weren't significant balance issues, at least for levels 5-10.

Well, reasonably. An veteran player will still effortlessly outclass a newbie, and once the DM starts playing around with the campaign setting and WBL, it's anyone's guess what'll happen. And some classes, like soulknives, are underpowered at every level. But if you're playing at the low-to-mid levels, the majority of classes can all contribute well.

- Saph

Temp
2007-11-01, 08:05 PM
Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?
This bothers me. Bards at or above Psychic Warrior/ToB tier.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-01, 08:05 PM
For a one off PbP campaing, I played a swordsage. The rest of the party was an artificier, a wizard, a factotum, a cleric, and a barbarian with pounce. we went from 1 to 22 over the course of it.

It was not pretty. The other players were outshined in every single combat unless they took REAL cheesiness, a la celerity, Font of inspiration Nova, anything that allowed the artificier to go first, etc. An example of the different level ranges:

1-5:

"- You encounter a (Insert some templated guy who had something to do with Golems and had DR/+2 magical weps, but pathetic HP because of some kind of handicap). He runs at you. Okay, Az, you won init. Whatya do
- I use (listen to this!) Mountain Hammer!
- Okay. The golem guy drop dead, crushed by your attack (This was at level 3 or 5, against a leveled enemy)"


6-10

"-Okay, the dragon wyrmling approaches the factotum, angry because you've disturbed it's sleep. Roll init, you win again, Az (This many init wins were due to the quick to act init bonus, plus improved init, plus 18 dex.). Take your turn.
-Hokay, I catch it flat footed, so I use Hand of Death, again. Yay, it failed the save!
-You paralyze him. Sigh.
-I coup de grace it.
-Groan."

11-15

"-The Titanic (Insert some vermin) comes to you, clicking it's claws.
-I activate the Wand of Wraithstrike and use Avalanche of blades. Let's see how many I can get in (Starts rolling. Unleashes 9 attacks on it). So, 54 times 9, do I kill it?
-Groan."


16-20, the rest was rediculous outright:

"The tarrasque comes for you. The other guys can't help you, too far away to do something (Tarrasque is at half of HP, I think).
- I use my dual boost, activate Raging Mongoose, Girallon Windmill flesh rip, and Time stands still and let it have it. HECK YEAH, all the attacks hitted! thats 20d6, plus the attacks. Yay, it's down! (Note: I wasn't acting THAT childish, I'm just dramatizing it a bit)
-Oh, bloody hell, this does it. Let's just play Immersive, 'kay?"


It simply went that way. The DM eventually got accustomed to creating a second party for me, so that the others could do something without always using cheesy combos. And the monsters weren't weak for us (Well, the Tarrasque was, but everyone knows the tarrasque is no TDC). I just had too much nova power with the swordy.

Mike_G
2007-11-01, 09:26 PM
This bothers me. Bards at or above Psychic Warrior/ToB tier.

Bards are considered underpowered on this forum. By the Optimization Police, at least.

The whole point of the thread is to examine how overpowered / underpowered classes/builds actually perform in a campaign, as opposed to how they perform in a "Design 20 levels of max damage output character, using an obscure elven subtype, six prestige classes and a specific feat tree."

Be helpful and tell us how you find Bards to be of a higher power tier than ToB classes.

Temp
2007-11-01, 09:32 PM
Be helpful and tell us how you find Bards to be of a higher power tier than ToB classes.

1. Full Spellcasting
2. Good Skill Points and Great Skill List
3. Fascinate/Suggestion

They also have access to incredibly powerful Multiclasses and Prestige Classes, but those aren't the Bard class itself so I'll not put those with the in-class abilities.

They make far better use of codex creep than ToB. Thusly they have more options and through those, more potential power. That isn't to say ToB Classes and Bard Power are exclusive; SotWR does incredible things for Inspire Courage builds.
-----------------

Anyway, balancing classes isn't usually too much of a problem because experienced players are... well, experienced. Players who can optimize well usually realize it and match the rest of the group's power.

This doesn't mean that the girl with the poorly-built Rogue doesn't feel useless sometimes and often have to have situations absurdly tailored to her character's few talents.

Usually though, veteran players can either restrain their use of powerful class abilities (with reserve feats and the like) or help the rest of the group build more closely to a single power level.

Thrawn183
2007-11-01, 09:40 PM
To be honest Azerion, using wraithstrike isn't much more indicative of a class' power than using polymorph.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-01, 10:07 PM
In my opinion, one of the most powerful bard abilities is purely core:

Save or be my b****.

I'm sorry, it's "save against my Perform check result (you can't, even with a 20) or save each round for a number of rounds equal to my class level against an ever-increasing 10+1/2 my level+my hideously high Charisma modifier (good luck) or ..."

That mostly matters because spells like Suggestion normally lose their teeth more and more as saves get higher and higher. Anything that has an ever-increasing save DC and can turn a tough encounter into an ally to help you trounce other tough encounters deserves recognition, I think.

horseboy
2007-11-01, 11:06 PM
Well, given that the first game of 3.5 D&D that I played was 3 CoDzillas, Batman and an a troll blooded, monkey grip fighter with a large, adamantine great axe. Yeah. Half way through the day, I offered to let the fighter play my constrictor AC since it was more useful. We were level 4.
When the rest of that group goes to convention it gets even worse. In fact I think one of them has a shirt saying something like "DMs are like strippers, it's only good if you leave them crying."
Conventions are the worst, from what I hear. That's when they come back with all the stories of how the mage magic jared a rust monster they were dumb enough to put into a module and break the rest of it. Or the whole "Summon Celestial Bison" fiascoes.
So yeah, I see it a lot.

BardicDuelist
2007-11-01, 11:30 PM
My bards have always been the most solid characters in the party, even if they don't shine. (And yes, fascinate/suggestion is usually my ace in the hole when I need to pull the party out of a whole lot of crap. The DC is really high, even if all you do is put ranks in perform and have Cha in your top two stats).

I think that, in actual play, imbalance isn't much of an issue until you get above level 10. At lower levels, yes sleep can win a fight, but the next fight will revolve around melee basing because you don't have anymore sleep spells, etc.

When players optomize, there will always be imbalance. When they don't, there won't be. I talk about optomizing builds a lot on the forums, but in practice, I play a core bard or rogue usually (or a factotum recently). I find myself creating characters with weaknesses, or taking suboptomal choices (like dash instead of font of inspiration for a factotum) because I enjoy the flavor they bring to my character.

My friend love the "I smash" types of fighters and barbarians (and to a lesser extent, the rangers he plays), and he always contributes to the party.

In actual practice, the problem I always seem to find is not a balance between the classes, but making sure that you have all of the "party roles" covered. I dislike that without a rogue/whatever you can't find traps (and thus can suck if the DM didn't make the dungeon for your party), or without a caster flying opponents are really hard, and without a healer you always are worrying about dieing, not because you are playing poorly, but because the game expects you to have somthing that you don't.

Reinboom
2007-11-01, 11:46 PM
In practice, I've ran into issues with different classes - though mostly due to something being underwhelming.
I've played a fiend of possession that made the DM struggle, and made my character completely outshine the rest of the party by just being unkillable (try it, if done properly it is). I've also done a planar shepherd of dream. Both against the same DM - both to teach the DM a lesson about how to handle the game.
For those playing under me, I had to deal with a ridiculously optimized frenzied berserker before. I won't allow that again.

Playing alongside others... someone who was abusing assume supernatural ability. Also, I've seen a druid completely outshine the rest of the party - but the player got quickly bored with it and had his character killed so he could play a barbarian instead.

Dausuul
2007-11-02, 08:54 AM
When players optomize, there will always be imbalance. When they don't, there won't be.

Not true. This would be better stated as:

When players optimize, the predictable imbalances we all know and love will predominate--casters rule, monks suck, et cetera. When players don't optimize, the imbalances will be somewhat different; classes that come "pre-optimized," like the barbarian and the druid, will dominate over classes that require the player to make a lot of potentially non-optimal choices, like the sorceror and the fighter. When some players optimize and others don't, the optimizers will dominate unless they intentionally limit themselves.

amish
2007-11-02, 09:57 AM
The reason this sort of thing doesn't come up in play very often is because the DM is in charge and determines what is going to happen. You want to follow the rules most of the time, as this is more fun, but at certain junctures they get in the way of the story. The rules are there to enhance play, not strangle the GM.

Also, as someone mentioned before, it is a role playing game and there should always be way more going on in the game than just killing monsters.

Along these lines, this sort of thing shouldn't happen because at these sort of levels the monsters the PCs are fighting are generally ultra intelegent casters (or non-casters) themselves or work for people who are. They are going to know about the twinks and exploits that are possible and have their defenses set up so that if the casters are dumb enough to try such a thing they die (or use them on the PCs themselves).

For example a Dragon lines his cave with crystals that negates a cloudkill spell specifically, or even better turns it into another substance that only kills metahumans and is harmless to dragons. The evil mage slips off into an alternate demention where magic works by different rules, which he knows and the PCs don't. Etc.

If people are cake-walking through your games, its time to mix things up and make them think a bit.

There should always be a way through, but don't blame class balance too much because the DM is the ultimate arbiter of what goes on in his game world. You can -always- say no, and you are not limited in any way to what the dice say if the result isn't going to be any fun.

You can let them one shot the boss once and a while to get their morale up, but if they are getting you on the run, then stop playing to their strengths and start playing to their weaknesses. Everyone sleeps sometime, and one of the coolest level 20 games I have ever played featured primarily level 1 kobolds (billions and billions of them, with traps and tactics galore). Granted in 3rd ed you wouldn't get any xp, but again thats not neccesarily the name of the game (plus you can always give them xp for figuring out the traps etc).

Don't let the players run your games, thats the GMs job.

Just my 0.02$.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-11-02, 10:18 AM
ok now im curious, how did you take down a colossal dragon with a cloudkill?

By using Maximised Shivering touch? :smallbiggrin:

martyboy74
2007-11-02, 10:29 AM
By using Maximised Shivering touch? :smallbiggrin:

With Cloudkill, not Shivering Touch.

Kompera
2007-11-02, 10:30 AM
I was wondering how many people have actually had problems with class balance in actual play and if so, what those problems were.

I've seen some game squashing imbalance, but mostly at higher levels where casters dominate.

That's it exactly. There is and always will be class imbalance. There's really no way to design a complex game without it. The best kind of imbalance is a rock/paper/scissors type, where one class can do something well which the others can not, so each can shine in their own little sphere of influence. But any character who dominates makes for a less enjoyable experience for the rest of the players, and the class is irrelevant when this happens.

Game breaking imbalance doesn't become markedly visible unless a few conditions are met:

Access to lots of splat books
- There's plenty of breakage which can be done if a GM doesn't homebrew their own campaign environment and expressly forbid some classes, Feats, skills, spells, or entire non-core books. And possibly some within core.

Treasure as per DMG.
- I've yet to play in a campaign where the treasure was anywhere near as generous as that listed in the DMG as the standard. It's not that all my GMs have been stingy treasure hoarding meanies, just that the golf bag full of wands and rods hasn't been in my experience. There is no problem with a smattering of minor magic items and a couple more potent ones, but once the party is fully decked out they begin to be able to nova down challenges and break others by the use of obstacle avoidance items. And a backpack full of scrolls and potions is a sure means to a broken game, despite the ease of crafting these items.

Free access to spells by arcane casters
- Every GM I've run with has had some random roll for spell acquisition by Wizards. If Wizards can pick and choose their spells freely, they'll always have the most potent spells. A few levels of Wizards struggling with some random spells doesn't hurt at all as a class balancer, and it allows the GM to hand out very meaningful rewards to the Arcane types in the form of scrolls and spellbooks.

Player desire
- If the players want to break the game, they probably can several levels earlier than they could if they didn't take a narrowly focused approach to their character development.

GM misjudgment
- If the GM hand out an item or two which upsets the class balance, this can easily make for a broken campaign. Each player should have about equal potency in items, but I've seen several cases of an artifact class item or even a loaded up home brewed item breaking the balance. GMs need to be aware that their neat idea may not be the best thing for the game, and adjust the magic rewards accordingly.

High Level
- No matter how stingy the DM is with access to non-core books, magical treasures, or spells, after about 15th level designing encounters for groups with a mix of classes becomes more difficult. Overland encounters are especially easy for casters, since many monsters have no ranged attack and flight is fairly easy to come by through spells or items.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 11:07 AM
Player desire
- If the players want to break the game, they probably can several levels earlier than they could if they didn't take a narrowly focused approach to their character development.

At what point in time is it the player's "fault" and when is it caused by just sloppy writing on WotC's fault? If I can break the game simply by writing "Druid" under class on the sheet, how is that player's fault? D&D takes more effort to make a non-broken character than a broken character.



Also, as someone mentioned before, it is a role playing game and there should always be way more going on in the game than just killing monsters.Problem there is combat is all D&D is good for. :smallfrown:


There should always be a way through, but don't blame class balance too much because the DM is the ultimate arbiter of what goes on in his game world. You can -always- say no, and you are not limited in any way to what the dice say if the result isn't going to be any fun.

I know it's a poor musician that blames his flute, but that comes down to how much metagaming is the DM required to do?

Raum
2007-11-02, 12:25 PM
Game breaking imbalance doesn't become markedly visible unless a few conditions are met:

Access to lots of splat booksCan't agree with you here, core isn't any more balanced than the accessory books.


Treasure as per DMG.
<snip>

Free access to spells by arcane castersTo restate, if you artificially gimp the characters and the caster classes, you don't have a balance issue. Is that what you intended to say? I can't argue with it, but it does illustrate that there is an issue if you're not playing with those house rules.


Problem there is combat is all D&D is good for. :smallfrown: I think that depends on what section of the books you're reading. You can play entire levels without ever getting in a fight - entirely within the rules. :)


I know it's a poor musician that blames his flute, but that comes down to how much metagaming is the DM required to do?I agree with you here, balanced rules should require very little modification on the fly. In fact, to the extent the game is more important than the story, there shouldn't be unexpected rule modifications.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-02, 12:36 PM
Free access to spells by arcane casters
- Every GM I've run with has had some random roll for spell acquisition by Wizards. If Wizards can pick and choose their spells freely, they'll always have the most potent spells. A few levels of Wizards struggling with some random spells doesn't hurt at all as a class balancer, and it allows the GM to hand out very meaningful rewards to the Arcane types in the form of scrolls and spellbooks.

The 2 free spells shouldn't be randomized. They should be free access. THey come as inspiration: you don't need scrolls or anything.

Temp
2007-11-02, 12:39 PM
Access to lots of splat books
- There's plenty of breakage which can be done if a GM doesn't homebrew their own campaign environment and expressly forbid some classes, Feats, skills, spells, or entire non-core books. And possibly some within core.
Fewer rules =/= less imbalance. Core is just as broken, if not more, than any other rule-set.

Game balance entirely depends on the players, not the sources.


Free access to spells by arcane casters
- Every GM I've run with has had some random roll for spell acquisition by Wizards. If Wizards can pick and choose their spells freely, they'll always have the most potent spells. A few levels of Wizards struggling with some random spells doesn't hurt at all as a class balancer, and it allows the GM to hand out very meaningful rewards to the Arcane types in the form of scrolls and spellbooks.


I don't understand this. For a Sorcerer it could make sense, but Wizards not so much.

And it does nothing for the Cleric or Druid who are just as offensive.


And a backpack full of scrolls and potions is a sure means to a broken game, despite the ease of crafting these items.
Why?

------------------
But I'll agree that the game functions pretty well until about level 12 in actual practice. From there the powers spellcasters have access to are difficult not .

And DM/Player communication and rules comprehension are neccessary for a balanced game. With them, there shouldn't be many problems.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 01:23 PM
Can't agree with you here, core isn't any more balanced than the accessory books. And in the case of druids, splat books are needed to balance core (PHBII).


I think that depends on what section of the books you're reading. You can play entire levels without ever getting in a fight - entirely within the rules. :)I was looking at the character creation/development sections. :smallamused:

Kompera
2007-11-02, 01:37 PM
Fewer rules =/= less imbalance. Core is just as broken, if not more, than any other rule-set.I could not disagree more strongly with your first sentence. Core has issues all by itself it's true, but the cracks in the system quickly become large enough to drive a truck through as additional source books are added.


Game balance entirely depends on the players, not the sources.I covered the players desire to break the system as one of my points. But the sources are fuel to be used for that end, and sharply limiting them does have a mitigating effect on the breakage which is possible.


At what point in time is it the player's "fault" and when is it caused by just sloppy writing on WotC's fault? If I can break the game simply by writing "Druid" under class on the sheet, how is that player's fault?I thought I had made my point clearly. I'll try again. The system is not balanced, but there are factors which can spin it off balance more easily than will occur naturally once higher levels are reached. And player desire to do so is indeed one of those factors. The choice to build an optimized character is solely in the hands of the player. There are other spells, other Feats, other skills, many other things which can be explored other than "5th level, hot damn! Natural Spell here I come." So yes, writing Druid on your character sheet offers many possibilities, but selecting the most unbalancing from amongst those is a player decision.


[re: limiting spell access for Arcane casters] I don't understand this. For a Sorcerer it could make sense, but Wizards not so much.

The 2 free spells shouldn't be randomized. They should be free access. THey come as inspiration: you don't need scrolls or anything.
Understanding is not required. Opinions on how the spells "should" be gained are not required. It's a method which works to limit the ability of arcane casters to break the game, and in a game of imagination I'm sure a workable rationale can be applied, regardless of any knee-jerk dislike of the method. If you accept that arcane casters are unbalanced in comparison to other classes, then clinging to preconceptions of how their spells "should" be gained is deliberately limiting your tools available to try to address the problem. Open your imaginations to the vast possibilities available!

To restate, if you artificially gimp the characters and the caster classes, you don't have a balance issue. Is that what you intended to say? I can't argue with it, but it does illustrate that there is an issue if you're not playing with those house rules.You've summarized it correctly, save that I would not say that these steps will eliminate all balance issues. It will help though. If the 'rules' didn't set such generous loot guidelines and allow arcane casters to pick their spells freely balance would be a lot more easy to maintain. Look at any "Batman is better than X" thread. All of the supporters of Batman will post this or that spell or combinations of spells as ultimate foils to whatever tactic the X supporters think will work against Batman. Remove the free access to all spells and suddenly things will work a little differently, and Batman will no longer exist other than as a theoretical apex of arcane potential.


[re: And a backpack full of scrolls and potions is a sure means to a broken game, despite the ease of crafting these items.]Why?I'd think it would be obvious. Easy access to nova = bad for game balance.


And DM/Player communication and rules comprehension are neccessary for a balanced game. With them, there shouldn't be many problems.I thought your position was that the game was broken even in core? Knowing the rules and communications between players and the DM won't change that. Houseruling some basic changes has the potential to help.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-02, 01:39 PM
Super-uber-one-turn-win combos look more like "Confusion" or "Fear" or "Baleful Polymorph" than "Forcecage/Cloudkill". They're not *quite* one-turn wins, but the rest is mop-up.

No one uses Fear in my games anymore because the monster that goes off running tends to come back with his buddies and ambush the party. Almost have had a few TPKs that way.

Artanis
2007-11-02, 01:44 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting from a lot of the replies is this:

"Balance is just fine! All you need is a GM who's a god at metagaming, some way to cripple casters, players who don't even accidentally min-max, and no desire whatsoever to stray from a band of 5 levels out of the available 20! See? Balanced!"


That, to me, screams imbalance. Even if the players wind up balanced in the actual session, the imbalance is taking its toll outside the session in the form of an increased workload for the GM, potentially-crippling restrictions on the players' imaginations, and the total inability to explore three quarters of the content.

Frosty
2007-11-02, 01:52 PM
Hehe. Just like in World of Warcraft. Fear something and they might draw more aggro.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:03 PM
Bards are considered underpowered on this forum. By the Optimization Police, at least.

The whole point of the thread is to examine how overpowered / underpowered classes/builds actually perform in a campaign, as opposed to how they perform in a "Design 20 levels of max damage output character, using an obscure elven subtype, six prestige classes and a specific feat tree."

Be helpful and tell us how you find Bards to be of a higher power tier than ToB classes.

Actually, Bards were rated as one of the most powerful classes in the game (right after the Big Four including Wizard, Druid, Cleric, and Artificer and similar classes) on the CharOp board polls.

There are "casts better than a sorceror" bard builds, "fights better than a fighter" bard builds, roguish bard builds, and of course song-focused bard builds (though for the most part, EVERY bard can fit in Inspire Courage optimization at least into their builds). And of course, they all will have great skills, particularly social skills, and most will end up with the brokenation of Fascinate/Suggestion with 50 DCs.

I've had this conversation before, and I've given example builds, and example PARTIES of all bards. The Three Sisters bard party I used as an example had access to 9th level spells, 9th level maneuvers, and very powerful buffs, and all of them were BARD BUILDS. If even one of the party took Leadership, all those level 1 followers they'd get would receive full BAB with all the iterative attacks (war chanter ability), +12 attack and damage (inspire courage), +12d6 energy damage (dragonfire inspiration), and two or three normally-single-target buffs from the Bard or Wizard list like Displacement or whatever (War Weaver benefit). And the melee bard would STILL have an action to charge for hundreds of damage on round one. On top of all that, they can do the usual diplomancy and fascinate brokenation that almost all bards can do. And they're ALL skill monkies, and can ALL use UMD, Diplomacy, etc etc.

And, they're playable from low level, and very effective right off of low level. And there's no obscure elven subtypes, just humans, thank you.

...See, the thing is, the people usually saying "bards suck" aren't usually as great optimizers as they SAY they are (unless they're like Frank or something, where they will say that anything less than a straightclassed Transmuter Wizard is totally useless and nickname Tome of Battle "Tome of Sponges: Book of Nine Papercuts"). To quote from the WotC charop boards: "The old fashioned notion that bards are underpowered has long since fallen out of style here."

In some respects, bards are considered BROKEN because they can defeat wyrms at low level with a certain ability they all get (fascinate / suggestion).

Heck, in my personal experience in actual games, every time I've seen a bard played they've actually taken the role as the most effective character in the party! Of course, all those people *actually had an idea what they were doing* with bards.

Also, I've never seen these "Optimization Police" on these boards who supposedly go around saying bards suck. I mostly just see average players following the Elan meme saying that bards suck. :-\

Kaelik
2007-11-02, 02:06 PM
If you accept that arcane casters are unbalanced in comparison to other classes, then clinging to preconceptions of how their spells "should" be gained is deliberately limiting your tools available to try to address the problem. Open your imaginations to the vast possibilities available!

Accepting that arcane casters (or all casters, the truth) are unbalanced does not mean that you must attempt to change anything/seek balance. Open your imagination to the vast possibilities available!


Remove the free access to all spells and suddenly things will work a little differently, and Batman will no longer exist other than as a theoretical apex of arcane potential.

Remove the "free access to all spells" (prevent Wizards from learning the spells they want to learn and have the power to learn) and you might as well just remove the Wizard class entirely. Wizards study magic in order to learn it's secrets and manipulate the powers of the cosmos. If you just want a DM slave who only does what the DM plans for him to do because he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have you could just grant a character spell like abilities.

Frosty
2007-11-02, 02:11 PM
People usually mean that UN-optomized Bards aren't that good. Perhaps it is just harder and more obscure and very splatbook-heavy to optimize a bard, I dunno.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 02:13 PM
I thought I had made my point clearly. I'll try again. The system is not balanced, but there are factors which can spin it off balance more easily than will occur naturally once higher levels are reached. And player desire to do so is indeed one of those factors. The choice to build an optimized character is solely in the hands of the player. There are other spells, other Feats, other skills, many other things which can be explored other than "5th level, hot damn! Natural Spell here I come." So yes, writing Druid on your character sheet offers many possibilities, but selecting the most unbalancing from amongst those is a player decision. It's clear, I just disagree. If there are more written and unwritten rules for what my character can't/shouldn't do than there are situations that my character can/should do, even within their own class abilities, I submit that that is not the player's fault, but the fault of bad RPG writers.


You've summarized it correctly, save that I would not say that these steps will eliminate all balance issues. It will help though. If the 'rules' didn't set such generous loot guidelines and allow arcane casters to pick their spells freely balance would be a lot more easy to maintain. Look at any "Batman is better than X" thread. All of the supporters of Batman will post this or that spell or combinations of spells as ultimate foils to whatever tactic the X supporters think will work against Batman. Remove the free access to all spells and suddenly things will work a little differently, and Batman will no longer exist other than as a theoretical apex of arcane potential.And watch as the people willing to play the wizard dry up as they have precious little control, and therefore interest, in their character.


I thought your position was that the game was broken even in core? Knowing the rules and communications between players and the DM won't change that. Houseruling some basic changes has the potential to help.
Or, play a game that's not so broken.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:14 PM
People usually mean that UN-optomized Bards aren't that good. Perhaps it is just harder and more obscure and very splatbook-heavy to optimize a bard, I dunno.

...So, now we might as well be arguing that Wizards are underpowered because if they use Burning Hands they aren't that good. "UN-optimized wizard isn't that good!"

Seriously, to compare balance, you kinda need to assume people have some manner of clue what they're doing...

I mean, even the MOST BASIC BARD is bringing lots of skills to the table (including UMD, and easily the fastest diplomacy progression possible with a single core class), Bardic knowledge, 6th level spells (Which actually get as good as 8th in special cases, such as Otto's Irresistable Dance), Inspire Courage and other useful songs, and FASCINATE/SUGGESTION (which will end any encounter when you can use it). That's before you even consider the immense amount of love WotC has given bards in supplements, in the form of fantastic feats and multiclassing/PrCing options (I mean, look at the Sublime Chord alone. If that's not a stealth buff, I don't know what is.)

Frosty
2007-11-02, 02:19 PM
And many people don't think that's "powerful" because they think that's boring. They want to be able to change reality, or smash vault doors with their bare hands, or other heroic things. In their minds, the basic non-optimized bard that is lightly armored, can't fight extremely well, only has level 6 spells, and gets by people by charming them just isn't that...heroic.

Besides, the DM can just flat-out say some Suggestions don't work because it is too much against the interest of the victim, possibly granting huge bonuses to the saving throws.

EDIT: Most people don't know what they're doing, and most people don't have access to all books. Many of those people also play DnD. DnD needs to make learning how to play the class better be more intuitive.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:27 PM
And many people don't think that's "powerful" because they think that's boring. They want to be able to change reality, or smash vault doors with their bare hands, or other heroic things. In their minds, the basic non-optimized bard that is lightly armored, can't fight extremely well, only has level 6 spells, and gets by people by charming them just isn't that...heroic. Which is of course completely irrelevant to actual power level, and only represents the ignorance of the great unwashed and how impressionistic they can be.

Anyways, you want to say bards aren't heroic, but I think that's rubbish.

Maybe in your imagination, bards look like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Elan3.gif

In my imagination, bards look like this:

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs12/i/2006/261/c/f/Darkwood_Vigilant_by_JasonEngle.jpg

It's not the Bard's fault some people's imaginations suck.

BardicDuelist
2007-11-02, 02:29 PM
People usually mean that UN-optomized Bards aren't that good. Perhaps it is just harder and more obscure and very splatbook-heavy to optimize a bard, I dunno.

To defend bards:

Bards aren't that hard to make powerful IN CORE. Here's a secret: Put ranks in perform, bluff and diplomacy. Possibly take leadership if your DM will let you. Now you have a strong bard.

One of their best abilities (as already mentioned) is Fascinate and Suggestion (bard songs, not spells). The DCs are really high. Do you want to know how to get them that high? Put ranks in perform.

Diplomacy (by RAW), ends fight once you can make the DC to do it quickly. Bluff gets you whatever you want. Leadership gets you an army that can do whatever you want.

The thing is is that by putting ranks in three skills (all of which use your casting stat as a modifier) and using your primary class feature, you can be a solid character.

I didn't even mention UMD, which they can do as good as a rogue (until skill mastery, but even then they aren't really behind).

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:33 PM
I didn't even mention UMD, which they can do as good as a rogue (until skill mastery, but even then they aren't really behind).

Hey, don't forget they get things like Magic Savant when you go noncore. Skill Mastery can EAT IT.

(Edit: just thought I'd save this from last-post-of-the-page-ification)

And many people don't think that's "powerful" because they think that's boring. They want to be able to change reality, or smash vault doors with their bare hands, or other heroic things. In their minds, the basic non-optimized bard that is lightly armored, can't fight extremely well, only has level 6 spells, and gets by people by charming them just isn't that...heroic. Which is of course completely irrelevant to actual power level, and only represents the ignorance of the great unwashed and how impressionistic they can be.

Anyways, you want to say bards aren't heroic, but I think that's rubbish.

Maybe in your imagination, bards look like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Elan3.gif
(Lame)

In my imagination, bards look like this:

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs12/i/2006/261/c/f/Darkwood_Vigilant_by_JasonEngle.jpg
(Totally badass)

It's not the Bard's fault some people's imaginations suck.

Quietus
2007-11-02, 02:36 PM
Hey, don't forget they get things like Magic Savant when you go noncore. Skill Mastery can EAT IT.

And can get synergy bonuses to certain things more easily - a Bard can quite easily, for example, pick up 5 ranks in Spellcraft for the +2 to scroll UMD.

::Edit:: regarding that picture... that guy's work is AWESOME. I can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head, but I've used it for characters in freeform forum roleplay before, it's so good.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:39 PM
And can get synergy bonuses to certain things more easily - a Bard can quite easily, for example, pick up 5 ranks in Spellcraft for the +2 to scroll UMD.

I already mentioned that they fast-tracked diplomacy.

Note that diplomacy is SO BROKEN that it's on the CharOp boards most broken list right next to Pun Pun himself (See the Campaign Smashers thread). And the bard is one of its key abusers. Consider the obscene DCs of Fascinate/Suggestion on top of that. Basically, without houseruling, the bard can quite easily not only be powerful, but totally gamebreaking. And you all know I don't use that term lightly; when I say game breaking, I don't mean "unbalanced" or "overpowered" I mean "tears the system apart like a wet tissue."

Of course, few people will have fun very long if a Bard chooses to really take advantage of Fascinate and just walk through an entire dungeon soloing every monster there (unless they're immune to fascinate or suggestion) while the party kinda just sits around twiddling their thumbs.


::Edit:: regarding that picture... that guy's work is AWESOME. I can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head, but I've used it for characters in freeform forum roleplay before, it's so good.
That's Jason A Engle. And personally, I think taking character portraits is a Bad Thing and you Shouldn't Do It. You should really personalize your character's unique (as opposed to plagiarized) appearance for so many reasons, but that's another topic...

Frosty
2007-11-02, 02:52 PM
All of the DMs I've had nerfed Diplomacy.

And note it's not *me* saying bards are bad. I'm just telling you what the masses think when they think of Bard.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-02, 02:56 PM
All of the DMs I've had nerfed Diplomacy.

And note it's not *me* saying bards are bad. I'm just telling you what the masses think when they think of Bard.

...then, as per usual, the masses are wrong.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 02:56 PM
All of the DMs I've had nerfed Diplomacy. As well they should, for the sake of sanity.


And note it's not *me* saying bards are bad. I'm just telling you what the masses think when they think of Bard. The masses are stupid and we totally shouldn't care about what they think. Groupthink doesn't care about the principles of logic and reasoning. I could go on and on about superstition, susceptibility to propaganda, enculturation, and all the things that make people total morons, and I could give tons of examples of real situations and events, but it's probably against the CoC to talk about political things (and mass groupthink is of course political). =\

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-02, 03:05 PM
...then, as per usual, the masses are wrong.

Except when they've got torches and pitch forks and are looking for something to noose.

cupkeyk
2007-11-02, 03:14 PM
Pfah, when the masses are mobbing, the bard uses and area effect spell on them and they die. Levitate, Song of Discord. Bard wins.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-02, 03:19 PM
Accepting that arcane casters (or all casters, the truth) are unbalanced does not mean that you must attempt to change anything/seek balance. Open your imagination to the vast possibilities available!

Remove the "free access to all spells" (prevent Wizards from learning the spells they want to learn and have the power to learn) and you might as well just remove the Wizard class entirely.

Why? Wizards are only fun if they dominate the game and render other classes obsolete? Even though no wizards in fiction short of perhaps those in four-color comics ever came close to approaching the game-breaking behavior of D&D wizards?

That doesn't make any sense. Your argument is literally, "Wizards are only fun if they break the game."

Well, hell. Screw wizards. If wizards are only fun if they break the game, D&D is only fun if I can be a kobold divine minion 1/wizard 1/master of many forms 3 in every single game. Since breaking the game is the only way fun can be had, I'll have even more fun than you.

Temp
2007-11-02, 03:21 PM
I thought your position was that the game was broken even in core? Knowing the rules and communications between players and the DM won't change that. Houseruling some basic changes has the potential to help.
Don't hold me to viewpoints I don't expressly state. I said that core has just as many, if not more balance problems than the supplements.

That doesn't mean that DMs shouldn't know the rules. It doesn't mean players shouldn't know the rules. And it definitely doesn't mean that there shouldn't be communication regarding the power level of a campaign--nobody should ecclipse the rest of their group (unless it's been expressly discussed ahead of time). The reverse is also true; a Truenamer shouldn't expect to fit in with a Wizard, Cleric and Swordsage.

Yes, core has worse game balance than many of the supplements. That's why rules-comprehension and communication are neccessary. In a game founded on inequality, everyone should know where they--as a group--will stand as far as power is concerned. Nobody wants to be the Swashbuckler who's found herself completely useless because she thought Monkey Grip, Endurance and Diehard were the embodiment of "zOMG! Broken!."
Especially when her buddy's playing a core Druid with maxxed Wisdom.


And the supplements do contribute a large amount of material to balance the game. Complete Warrior and Tome of Battle boost non-spellcasting Warrior archetypes; Reserve Feats and Tome of Magic let spellcasters play down to a lower power level. Some, like Sublime Chord, can create imbalance in many groups--it just takes a basic understanding of the rules to realize and a basic level of communication to see if the rest of the group will be optimizing similarly.


[Edit:]
Why? Wizards are only fun if they dominate the game and render other classes obsolete? Even though no wizards in fiction short of perhaps those in four-color comics ever came close to approaching the game-breaking behavior of D&D wizards?
It looks like he's just saying that nobody should have randomized class features. I don't see how that means Wizards need to have the most powerful spells available to them.

Morty
2007-11-02, 03:33 PM
Why? Wizards are only fun if they dominate the game and render other classes obsolete? Even though no wizards in fiction short of perhaps those in four-color comics ever came close to approaching the game-breaking behavior of D&D wizards?

That doesn't make any sense. Your argument is literally, "Wizards are only fun if they break the game."

Well, hell. Screw wizards. If wizards are only fun if they break the game, D&D is only fun if I can be a kobold divine minion 1/wizard 1/master of many forms 3 in every single game. Since breaking the game is the only way fun can be had, I'll have even more fun than you.

It's not player's fault wizards are broken. Many players like the fact that wizard is extremely versatile and fixing the unbalances by changing that ruins the class.

elliott20
2007-11-02, 03:41 PM
When discussing this logicNinja wizard, you have to remember that it is at it's core, a theoretical construct. Such a character in real life would not actually be all that fun to play because... well... because you're going to be playing in an utterly selfish manner. Big monster comes up? I'll celerity+foresight+time stop+forcecage+whatever else. Ran out of spells? MMM for a couple hours.

That's not a character that is playing to the group. That's someone who just HAPPENS to have some people following him around and providing him with meat shields in case he gets into a jam. Chances are, games with people who play characters like this will quickly degenerate into the melee characters going, "well, we're done here, Batman's awake".

This, however, has not stopped people from playing in this fashion. Fact is, the system does support this kind of play quite easily. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have fighters who really are just not that good past a certain stage. (at least, not without spending most of his resources trying to come up with work arounds.) Here you have the opposite problem. they just don't have that much they can do after a while other than swinging a sword.

Temp
2007-11-02, 03:49 PM
When discussing this logicNinja wizard, you have to remember that it is at it's core, a theoretical construct.
What? No it's not, it's just a Wizard playing to his own strengths.

I fail to see how Rays, Buffs, Save-or-Sucks and Battlefield control are selfish or how they somehow obstruct team play.

Kaelik
2007-11-02, 03:50 PM
Why? Wizards are only fun if they dominate the game and render other classes obsolete? Even though no wizards in fiction short of perhaps those in four-color comics ever came close to approaching the game-breaking behavior of D&D wizards?

That doesn't make any sense. Your argument is literally, "Wizards are only fun if they break the game."

Well, hell. Screw wizards. If wizards are only fun if they break the game, D&D is only fun if I can be a kobold divine minion 1/wizard 1/master of many forms 3 in every single game. Since breaking the game is the only way fun can be had, I'll have even more fun than you.

No where did I say that the only source of fun is breaking the game. All I said was that just because something can break the game doesn't mean you should butcher the mechanics and whip out the nerf bat for no reason.

A)Broken games can be fun, especially when everyone that matters in the world (PCs and all important NPCs) are broken. (Broken being different then cheesy, though that can be fun too, though usually for a shorter time period.)
B)I am and always have been a proponent of DM/Player cooperation. I don't have problems with Wizards outshining everyone else, just as I make sure to not outshine everyone else. Wizards being broken does not have to be a bad thing.

My second statement was entirely a condemnation of DM whim (or luck, or both) being the primary determinant of class abilities. Players create characters. DMs create NPCs. That's the way it works. I never create characters for my players because then it ceases to be their character. I would never presume to dictate spell choices for anyone (especially not arcane casters who don't have a reason, "Nerull suggests that you might find AMF useful today" or the ability to repick tomorrow.)

elliott20
2007-11-02, 03:52 PM
The batman wizard assumes that you're paranoid individual and have a defense for every situation.

yeah, it *IS* a wizard playing to his strength. But it also describes a fairly narrow way of playing the wizard. And it describes a wizard who is quite frankly not that much fun to play WITH.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-02, 03:52 PM
It's not player's fault wizards are broken. Many players like the fact that wizard is extremely versatile and fixing the unbalances by changing that ruins the class.

Versitility is fine. Rogues are versitile.

Power is fine, too.

Overwhelming versitility combined with overwhelming power with effectively no tradeoffs after a certain point is not fine. Any players who "like the fact that" it's like that are not, at that point, really interested in doing anything other than dominating the game.

Here's where your argument logically leads:

It's not the player's fault Pun-Pun is broken. Many players like the fact that he's extremely versitile, and fixing the imbalances by changing that ruins the build.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-02, 03:56 PM
My second statement was entirely a condemnation of DM whim (or luck, or both) being the primary determinant of class abilities. Players create characters. DMs create NPCs. That's the way it works. I never create characters for my players because then it ceases to be their character. I would never presume to dictate spell choices for anyone (especially not arcane casters who don't have a reason, "Nerull suggests that you might find AMF useful today" or the ability to repick tomorrow.)

I wouldn't either, but what's wrong with:

"I'm sorry, but Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion does not exist in my gameworld. You'll have to select another spell to learn."

Or:

"Wizard is not available as a base class. If you want to play an arcane caster, you may select sorcerer."

Temp
2007-11-02, 03:58 PM
And it describes a wizard who is quite frankly not that much fun to play WITH.

Here' (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500)s a link. You might want to give it another look.

I think you're associating some of the absurd reasonings from the 'Wizards always win" threads to TLN's guide.

elliott20
2007-11-02, 04:08 PM
that could be a possibility.

Between watching Emperor Tippy talk about wizards and how they should be played, watching how other people talk about playing a wizard, and then seeing the theoretical tactics a wizard would take? Combining all of this together, all you get is just a wizard who is... pretty much a show stealer.

So yeah, it's possible that I'm talking mixing my references here.

But at it's core, my comment still stands. The system totally supports and does not punish a wizard who chooses to play the game in a solo glory hound fashion. There is nothing a wizard would need that he cannot provide for himself, given enough time to research. While the other classes have a clear dependancy upon other classes, the wizard once past a certain point does not. (Especially one played to it's true potential like many many of the threads have discussed)

Jayabalard
2007-11-02, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't either, but what's wrong with:

"I'm sorry, but Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion does not exist in my gameworld. You'll have to select another spell to learn."

Or:

"Wizard is not available as a base class. If you want to play an arcane caster, you may select sorcerer."Neither of those have anything to do with playing a wizard and getting randomly assigned spells, which is what Kaelik was arguing against (since that is what Kompera was originally suggesting).

Frosty
2007-11-02, 04:15 PM
The way to nref things like MMM and Rope Trick is to give lots of time-sensitive missions so the PCs don't have time to rest.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-02, 04:18 PM
The way to nref things like MMM and Rope Trick is to give lots of time-sensitive missions so the PCs don't have time to rest.

Or remove the spells in question. I personally remove rope trick, mage's magnificent mansion, contingency, celerity, greater celerity, and time stop.

Morty
2007-11-02, 04:18 PM
Versitility is fine. Rogues are versitile.

Power is fine, too.

Overwhelming versitility combined with overwhelming power with effectively no tradeoffs after a certain point is not fine. Any players who "like the fact that" it's like that are not, at that point, really interested in doing anything other than dominating the game.

But many wizard players don't want to dominate the game, they just end up doing so because wizard is broken. I like wizard's versatility, but unless I intentionally gimp my wizard, he's going to outclass my teammates.


Here's where your argument logically leads:

It's not the player's fault Pun-Pun is broken. Many players like the fact that he's extremely versitile, and fixing the imbalances by changing that ruins the build.

No, there's no logical conjunction between these two. Pun-pun is created intentionally picking on loopholes in rules and using obscure abilities to achieve ultimately broken charatcer. Situation when player who likes to play wizards ends up with overpowered character with no intention to do so is something utterly different.


I wouldn't either, but what's wrong with:

"I'm sorry, but Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion does not exist in my gameworld. You'll have to select another spell to learn."

Or:

"Wizard is not available as a base class. If you want to play an arcane caster, you may select sorcerer."

There's no problem with the former, as MMM is product of designer being high. Problem with the latter is that some people want to play wizard instead of sorcerer.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-02, 04:19 PM
Neither of those have anything to do with playing a wizard and getting randomly assigned spells, which is what Kaelik was arguing against (since that is what Kompera was originally suggesting).

Okay, yes ... I missed that. I saw Kaelik's comments but didn't realize that's what was being said before. My mistake.

In that case, I actually agree with Kaelik on this one, believe it or not. :smalltongue:

Kaelik
2007-11-02, 04:26 PM
"I'm sorry, but Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion does not exist in my gameworld. You'll have to select another spell to learn."

If that's your cup of tea, drink it down. I am just saying that allowing players to take MMM is equally as valid. I have never had a problem with MMM in any game. They can rest comfortably and get back to fighting in eight hours (or less, thank goodness for magical bedrolls) instead of me having to worry about a bunch of orcs with 5 class levels amongst the eight of them running into an ECL 17 party.


"Wizard is not available as a base class. If you want to play an arcane caster, you may select sorcerer."

I believe that I specifically suggested exactly that alternative to rolling randomly/DM fiat for spells. Removing the Wizard class was right there in the post you quoted.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 04:33 PM
But at it's core, my comment still stands. The system totally supports and does not punish a wizard who chooses to play the game in a solo glory hound fashion. There is nothing a wizard would need that he cannot provide for himself, given enough time to research. While the other classes have a clear dependancy upon other classes, the wizard once past a certain point does not. (Especially one played to it's true potential like many many of the threads have discussed)

It's not just wizards, it's all full casters, arcane and divine.

Severus
2007-11-02, 04:48 PM
We're a group of middle aged gamers and this doesn't come up. We all know we need to share the spotlight.

And I guess I never saw diplomacy as broken. Maybe we just don't try to break things any more, but it's a skill, not a magical ability. If people are open to having their minds changed, you can use diplomacy. If they aren't, you can't.

Saph
2007-11-02, 04:48 PM
that could be a possibility.

Between watching Emperor Tippy talk about wizards and how they should be played, watching how other people talk about playing a wizard, and then seeing the theoretical tactics a wizard would take? Combining all of this together, all you get is just a wizard who is... pretty much a show stealer.

Tippy's notorious for his unhealthy obsession with wizards, so I wouldn't take him too seriously if I were you. Remember that anyone with an internet connection can say that Class X "should" be unbeatable - it's not like anyone can prove them wrong.


But at it's core, my comment still stands. The system totally supports and does not punish a wizard who chooses to play the game in a solo glory hound fashion. There is nothing a wizard would need that he cannot provide for himself, given enough time to research.

Except that this doesn't take into account how D&D is actually played. The typical D&D adventure is: "You four-to-six people, all with PC classes of roughly the same level, have to accomplish goal X by going to place Y and solving problem Z, dealing with fights and problems and puzzles and NPCs along the way."

The wizard who insists on doing everything solo, spends 23 hours a day in an extradimensional space, and refuses to go anywhere that'll lead to any kind of risk is going to be "punished" by the fact that the rest of the party are going to do the adventure without him. If the wizard says "I'm not going into the dungeon, I need to spend 4 weeks getting spells and crafting items and scrying every possible ambush spot first", the rest of the party is going to say "then screw you, we'll do it ourselves." Most of the "paranoid wizard" stuff you see on this forum is completely useless, for this reason and others.

- Saph

Kompera
2007-11-02, 05:13 PM
I thought your position was that the game was broken even in core?

Don't hold me to viewpoints I don't expressly state. I said that core has just as many, if not more balance problems than the supplements.
I'm so sorry. I must have interpreted

Core is just as broken, if not more, than any other rule-set.
as meaning that you thought that core was just as broken, if not more, than any other rule set. How silly of me.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 05:18 PM
Except that this doesn't take into account how D&D is actually played. The typical D&D adventure is: "You four-to-six people, all with PC classes of roughly the same level, have to accomplish goal X by going to place Y and solving problem Z, dealing with fights and problems and puzzles and NPCs along the way."

The wizard who insists on doing everything solo, spends 23 hours a day in an extradimensional space, and refuses to go anywhere that'll lead to any kind of risk is going to be "punished" by the fact that the rest of the party are going to do the adventure without him. If the wizard says "I'm not going into the dungeon, I need to spend 4 weeks getting spells and crafting items and scrying every possible ambush spot first", the rest of the party is going to say "then screw you, we'll do it ourselves." Most of the "paranoid wizard" stuff you see on this forum is completely useless, for this reason and others.
- SaphThat the wizard isn't full paranoid only means he autowins 3 instead of the 4 encounters.

Saph
2007-11-02, 05:28 PM
That the wizard isn't full paranoid only means he autowins 3 instead of the 4 encounters.

Uh huh.

Given that you remind us about twice a week that you think D&D sucks and that you hate playing it, where does your experience come from again? :smalltongue:

- Saph

Temp
2007-11-02, 05:41 PM
[
How silly of me.
Perhaps I misspoke.

I thought your position was that the game was broken even in core?
When I responded, I read the "rules" a seperate entity from the "game." Apparently you didn't intend to write as such. Does it sound asinine to type now? Sure does, but it's the meaning I intended.

I took the "game" to mean the rules in practice.

Do people play Planar Shepards? No, so they're part of the rules, but not of the practical game. Do people actually take Skill Focus-Climb? No, so it may as well not be part of the game.

The rules are not at all balanced. The game usually is.

This is affected by communication and by rules knowledge. Knowing that the party will consist of an Artificer, a Druid, a Wizard and you, the Knight-archetype will usually mean you use a Warblade/Crusader/Cleric to portray your character. Knowing that the rest of the party will be a Swashbuckler, a Samurai and a VoP Fighter will probably mean you'll portray your Wizard-archetype with a Warlock or a Reserve-Feat spammer.

Kompera
2007-11-02, 05:42 PM
Accepting that arcane casters (or all casters, the truth) are unbalanced does not mean that you must attempt to change anything/seek balance.

And watch as the people willing to play the wizard dry up as they have precious little control, and therefore interest, in their character.
I'm not sure I understand this. So, it's broken, but there's no need to try to fix it? Or, it's broken, but if it gets fixed the players of the most broken class will lose interest in their character? If this is the case, those players need to learn to work and play well with others. If they can only be happy by being in the spotlight while the rest of the players do the clean up work for them, that points to some maturity issues.

As I said in an earlier post, I have never played in a game where the GM allowed free picks of spells for Arcane casters. And it has never been an issue. The casters have to be more creative with their more limited array of spells, but they get along just fine. And while they still have rather potent abilities, it's no where as severe a difference as it would be were they to be able to pick their spells for themselves.


Remove the "free access to all spells" (prevent Wizards from learning the spells they want to learn and have the power to learn) and you might as well just remove the Wizard class entirely. Wizards study magic in order to learn it's secrets and manipulate the powers of the cosmos. If you just want a DM slave who only does what the DM plans for him to do because he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have you could just grant a character spell like abilities.I'm getting the distinct impression that you have never been a DM. Your words "he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have" apply to every character in every game. Unless the DM is not very bright. What the players have must be under the direct control of the DM, as he is the one handing out treasures and allowing NPCs to perform services. Simply apply this same mechanic towards access to spells and the game suddenly becomes a lot more balanced. Not perfect, but much, much better.

There is no real difference between:
"DM: Hmmm, if I give the Fighter this +5 flaming, vorpal, admantite, holy, dancing sword, that will unbalance the party."
-and-
"DM: Hmmm, I've got a mostly overland campaign. Ready access to flight will make it much harder for me to develop credible challenges for the entire group. So I won't be handing out any flight items or allowing them to be commissioned and I'll need to ensure that the casters don't get any flying spells either."

Temp
2007-11-02, 05:54 PM
I'm not sure I understand this. So, it's broken, but there's no need to try to fix it? Or, it's broken, but if it gets fixed the players of the most broken class will lose interest in their character?Or C) It's broken, but that's not an effective fix. Horseboy's argument is more than fair.



I'm getting the distinct impression that you have never been a DM. Your words "he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have" apply to every character in every game.
But every other character in the game will know and understand at least a bare minimum of what their class abilities are going to be. Your Wizard won't.

Arbitrarity
2007-11-02, 06:04 PM
Hmm... an idea for making wizards more prone to adventuring, and limiting the power of that "2 free spells per level" might be to make a list of commonly available spells for those 2 per level, while retaining control over the rest of the spells, rather like a well-DM'ed archivist (i.e. cleric list, but can also find all divine spells, except instead limiting wizard spell list).

It's a bit of a pain to set up, but if it's consistient, wizards will know what they can get easily, and it will prompt them to go on adventures for knowledge of other spells.

Also, the list had better be, in some way, reasonably large and diverse. Editing it can be done per campaign, etc.

Kompera
2007-11-02, 06:13 PM
That (the suggestion by Arbitrarity) might strike an excellent balance, and address Temps valid point about a lack of known class mechanics due to an unknown spell list.

horseboy
2007-11-02, 06:16 PM
Uh huh.
Given that you remind us about twice a week that you think D&D sucks and that you hate playing it, where does your experience come from again? :smalltongue:
- Saph
Ah, to be known. :smallamused:
Well, as far as playtime, I did two modules from the new version of X-1 and a 9th level fighter LG Character. If you notice, I rarely bitch about anything outside of core. :smallwink:


I'm not sure I understand this. So, it's broken, but there's no need to try to fix it? Or, it's broken, but if it gets fixed the players of the most broken class will lose interest in their character? If this is the case, those players need to learn to work and play well with others. If they can only be happy by being in the spotlight while the rest of the players do the clean up work for them, that points to some maturity issues.No, it's broken and should not be allowed period. If a player can't have it, it shouldn't be in the game, because ultimately a player WILL find a way to get it. To force an arbitrary and random punishment on a player because of what he wanted to play and just dangle it at their nose and never give it to them is wrong.


I'm getting the distinct impression that you have never been a DM. Your words "he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have" apply to every character in every game. Unless the DM is not very bright. What the players have must be under the direct control of the DM, as he is the one handing out treasures and allowing NPCs to perform services. Simply apply this same mechanic towards access to spells and the game suddenly becomes a lot more balanced. Not perfect, but much, much better. Wow, well, let's see. Started DMing with my red box. DMed through 2nd edition. Then I started GMing with Rifts, Rolemaster, Traveler, Earthdawn, and Shadowrun. Never have I been forced to employ so heavy handed a tactic to try and keep my games under control. If it were in the core books, the players wanted it, it was allowed. Hell, even most supplements were allowed.

Temp
2007-11-02, 06:31 PM
Hmm... an idea for making wizards more prone to adventuring, and limiting the power of that "2 free spells per level" might be to make a list of commonly available spells for those 2 per level, while retaining control over the rest of the spells, rather like a well-DM'ed archivist (i.e. cleric list, but can also find all divine spells, except instead limiting wizard spell list).
That's not a bad quick fix if you're having problems. And if spells like Glitterdust were still given to Wizards after they've gone up a few levels, there wouldn't be complaints.

Under that sort of syutem, area Save-or-Loses should probably be delayed until higher levels and then shouldn't keep up with the Wizard's highest spell slots. Sheer versatility makes the Wizard more powerful than the Fighter, but it's the area "Win"-spells that actually make Fighters obscelete.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-02, 07:38 PM
Or remove the spells in question. I personally remove rope trick, mage's magnificent mansion, contingency, celerity, greater celerity, and time stop.

Yeah, that works.

You can play a buffing, debuffing, and crowd controlling wizard without upstaging the rest of the group. Unless one is the kind of player that naturally wants to upstage everybody else (which is a different can of worms) this is not really problematic.

Just lay off on the "I win" spells, there aren't that many uber spells and there's plenty of other spells that are fun to play with.

The MMM strategy explains why so many wizards seal themselves off from the world in those fancy magical trapped tower fortresses of theirs. This is only viable for player characters if they wish to retire from the campaign.

Snooder
2007-11-02, 07:45 PM
The wizard who insists on doing everything solo, spends 23 hours a day in an extradimensional space, and refuses to go anywhere that'll lead to any kind of risk is going to be "punished" by the fact that the rest of the party are going to do the adventure without him. If the wizard says "I'm not going into the dungeon, I need to spend 4 weeks getting spells and crafting items and scrying every possible ambush spot first", the rest of the party is going to say "then screw you, we'll do it ourselves." Most of the "paranoid wizard" stuff you see on this forum is completely useless, for this reason and others.

Sorry to disagree, but that's not quite true. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that the rest of the party can complete the objective fine by themselves. This usually isn't the case.

What happens is more like this, either the party realizes that they need the wizard and wait for him, or they go ahead anyway. Since the wizard represents 1/4 to 1/6 of the party they are at a disadvantage. Add in the relative strength of the wizard to other party members and his loss is even more weakening.

So if the party faces an encounter of the same difficulty that they faced with the wizard, they'll be badly outclassed. When the party "goes ahead" and gets creamed, they quickly realize that waiting for the wizard is the only option. Nothing like a few TPKs or PC deaths to get people to toe the line.

And if the DM downscales the encounter to adjust for this, it'll be pretty noticeable. Sure, when the wizard is there the party goes toe to toe with dragons, but when he's gone all they face is kobolds? Not to mention that this leads to uneven party experience gain and just makes things even worse for the DM.


I have to say that in most games I've played, when the caster announces he's running out of spells, the rest of the party usually begins heading back to town or shacking up for the night. The disparity between game and real world comes into play here because the party can usually just say, "We're resting" and skip the next 16 hours of in-game time in about 2 seconds. Trying to impose time limits on this, by forcing the players to complete a goal with a day for instance, just motivates the caster to do nothing. Having a PC be carted around like an object for most of the session until he unloads on the BBEG is fun for nobody. Neither for the player who might as well be asleep nor for the rest of the party who have to keep him alive.


That said, to OP, generally I've seen a marked power disparity at high levels and a smaller one at low levels. Perhaps its because casters are usually played by the more experienced and/or "powergaming" players. However, generally levels 1-4 have a slight balance toward the fighter/barbarian but the casters still contribute, and everyone tends to be equally weak. Levels 5-10 is pretty much equally balanced, but the casters, especially the clerics, tend to be the more important members of the party due to Vancian spellcasting and its impositions on the game. Levels 11 and above the casters are pretty much the game. Fighters and their ilk simply go from mobile shields to complete obsolescence.

Kaelik
2007-11-02, 08:32 PM
I'm not sure I understand this. So, it's broken, but there's no need to try to fix it?

Actually what I said was that if something is broken you should be able to trust your players to deal with the problem. If your players actually try to upstage everyone that is a maturity issue.


Or, it's broken, but if it gets fixed the players of the most broken class will lose interest in their character? If this is the case, those players need to learn to work and play well with others. If they can only be happy by being in the spotlight while the rest of the players do the clean up work for them, that points to some maturity issues.

Or if they lose control over their character then they will lose interest. Your solution is bad because:
A)It doesn't actually stop overpowered Wizards, just mix them up with a bunch of really crappy ones because of bad roles.
B)The player has no idea what to expect from his character and no control over his character.
C)It absolutely prevents any sort of themed wizards, making many feats useless for at least a period of time, and preventing blaster wizards and buff wizards as much as batmen.


As I said in an earlier post, I have never played in a game where the GM allowed free picks of spells for Arcane casters. And it has never been an issue. The casters have to be more creative with their more limited array of spells, but they get along just fine. And while they still have rather potent abilities, it's no where as severe a difference as it would be were they to be able to pick their spells for themselves.

You know who specializes in being creative with their limited array of spells? Sorcerers. They have a class for that. You know who specializes in using knowledge of many powerful spells in pre-planned combinations? Wizards.


I'm getting the distinct impression that you have never been a DM.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you can't deal with reasoned disagreement and feel compelled to resort to being a jerk.


Your words "he only has access to what the DM feels like letting him have" apply to every character in every game. Unless the DM is not very bright. What the players have must be under the direct control of the DM, as he is the one handing out treasures and allowing NPCs to perform services. Simply apply this same mechanic towards access to spells and the game suddenly becomes a lot more balanced. Not perfect, but much, much better.

Do you roll on a table to see what weapon the Barbarian gets to use? How often do the get daggers when you roll? Oh wait, you don't. What about when you roll for Fighter Feats? Skills for the Rogue to max? What about when they have weapon focus in seven weapons and can never get UMD but have to max Decipher Script? Oh right, you don't do that either.

I let my Wizards pick their own spells because if they want to get Glitterdust at level 3 they will see combat (both with a bunch of goblins and with a bat swarm) and if they choose Darkvision there will be an instance where they sneak up on something in a cave. (Unless everyone in the party already has Darkvision in which case they will be teleported to the Plane of Eternal Sun as punishment.)


There is no real difference between:
"DM: Hmmm, if I give the Fighter this +5 flaming, vorpal, admantite, holy, dancing sword, that will unbalance the party."
-and-
"DM: Hmmm, I've got a mostly overland campaign. Ready access to flight will make it much harder for me to develop credible challenges for the entire group. So I won't be handing out any flight items or allowing them to be commissioned and I'll need to ensure that the casters don't get any flying spells either."

Well A) I don't ever have weapons that powerful or customized in the campaign because the PCs can craft/commission there own weapons, and if they have the money for that they can create whatever they want.
B)If the wizard gets flight spells in my overland campaign I better figure out why flying Wizards haven't done whatever he is doing already. (Dispels/they have and that's what he has to deal with/Flying creatures/ranged weapons/stealth)


If the wizard says "I'm not going into the dungeon, I need to spend 4 weeks getting spells and crafting items and scrying every possible ambush spot first",

Actually, that's what a Wizard should do, and you should allow that and find something else for the other party members to do in the meantime (not the scrying, but a Wizard needs to prepare spells and Craft if he took feats. Of course in my campaigns he would be crafting for the party not just himself.)

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-02, 10:02 PM
Or remove the spells in question. I personally remove rope trick, mage's magnificent mansion, contingency, celerity, greater celerity, and time stop.

Contingency can be nerfed very easily to a more manageable level (if it's a problem) without actually removing it.

1) Clarification: Contingency has no precognition or extrasensory perception of any kind (You can't suddenly cast see invisibility when an invisible enemy approaches unless you are actually aware of them, for example) and cannot have situations worded in any metagame terms.

2) Alteration: Contingency requires an immediate action when the spell is activated.

3) Alteration: Contingency cannot be used with Shadow Evocation. Keep it the same, and it just becomes more of a reason to NOT drop evocation at the first chance you get.

As for celerity...
Celerity is trash. Drop it like Polymorph spells and Shivering Touch.

Gort
2007-11-03, 01:25 AM
No one uses Fear in my games anymore because the monster that goes off running tends to come back with his buddies and ambush the party. Almost have had a few TPKs that way.

Nice riposte.

I still find fear one of the best tactical spells. Especially if you a fighting organised soldiers.

Gort
2007-11-03, 03:58 AM
That's it exactly. There is and always will be class imbalance. There's really no way to design a complex game without it. The best kind of imbalance is a rock/paper/scissors type, where one class can do something well which the others can not, so each can shine in their own little sphere of influence. But any character who dominates makes for a less enjoyable experience for the rest of the players, and the class is irrelevant when this happens.

Ultimately it's up to DMs to balance the game.

Kalirren
2007-11-03, 04:39 AM
Mine seems to be a rather odd experience as I gather, but I often find that class balance is secondary to character balance. To rephrase more precisely, there are three generally distinct issues that are often conflated to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the type of game being run:

1) whether class A is overpowered relative to class B

2) whether the mechanics of class A promote/inhibit character expression more than the mechanics of class B do

3) whether the player of a character of class A ends up out-staging a player of a character of class B.

Take, for example, your average, tasteless, hack-n-slash loosely disguised under a veil of sparsely detailed world context. The wizards and clerics often end up just winning (point 1), the character expression doesn't matter at all, (point 2), and the stage time of the wizards and clerics is just significantly better spiced that that of the fighters (point 3).

However, the more context and interaction you add, the less important individual talents become in relation to group dynamics and world forces. In such campaigns, yes, the casters still have the same win buttons (point 1), but character expression becomes much more lively depending on skill points and spare feats (point 2), and the potential for one character to out-stage another becomes less dependent on class and more dependent on the degree of social interaction exhibited by that character (point 3).

To cite examples, I have seen a 6th-level Rogue with access to favors from higher-level casters play Batman. I have seen a pure fighter completely outstage the wizard solely because he was a drow in Xen'drik, and the same wizard failed to outstage the fighter even when he was a mage in his old university. This difference is attributable to player skill and character involvement alone, not to power level.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 06:01 AM
Wow, well, let's see. Started DMing with my red box. DMed through 2nd edition. Then I started GMing with Rifts, Rolemaster, Traveler, Earthdawn, and Shadowrun. Never have I been forced to employ so heavy handed a tactic to try and keep my games under control. If it were in the core books, the players wanted it, it was allowed. Hell, even most supplements were allowed.Ok, so you've DMed a lot. But this:

If a player can't have it, it shouldn't be in the game, because ultimately a player WILL find a way to get it.Proves my point. If as a DM you can't keep control, you're not doing your job well or even competently. Stating categorically that something that you, as the DM, don't want player to have but that you're helpless to keep it from them since they "WILL find a way to get it" is a completely baffling statement. What part of

Unless the DM is not very bright. What the players have must be under the direct control of the DM, as he is the one handing out treasures and allowing NPCs to perform services.
were you never able to manage to accomplish as a DM?

It's not hard.
Wizard Player: "I want the Fly spell"
DM: "It's not on the list of spells you can choose, and there is no other Wizard who can teach it to you."
Wizard Player: "I commission the creation of a pair of Winged Boots."
DM: "No one can make that for you."

Unless you allow:
Wizard Player: "I hold my breath until I turn blue unless I get the Fly spell."
to sway you, you've effectively managed to maintain control of your campaign world. How was it that you could not do this as a DM?

Kompera
2007-11-03, 06:22 AM
Or if they lose control over their character then they will lose interest. Your solution is bad because:
A)It doesn't actually stop overpowered Wizards, just mix them up with a bunch of really crappy ones because of bad roles.
B)The player has no idea what to expect from his character and no control over his character.
C)It absolutely prevents any sort of themed wizards, making many feats useless for at least a period of time, and preventing blaster wizards and buff wizards as much as batmen.
A) It does slow down overpowered Wizards, and I've provided the reasons for that previously.
B) The player knows he'll have spells to cast. True, the free choice of those spells has been removed. But that was a decision made during world construction, and was known the the Wizard Player before he made the choce of class. As I've also previously stated, I have never played in (or run) a campaign where arcane casters got free choice of spells, and it has never been an issue. Your mileage may vary, but I like proven track records of success better than angst and whining.
C) If I'm not mistaken, Feats are gained upon leveling, as are the spells gained per level. So the solution for the Wizard is simple. If you don't have the spells, don't take the Feats. And as for "themes"? The player will have spells, so this solution can't be preventing every one of those "themes" you've mentioned.


I'm getting the distinct impression that you can't deal with reasoned disagreement and feel compelled to resort to being a jerk.I can deal with reasoned disagreement, and even name calling. But what I'm seeing from you, besides the name calling, isn't reasoned disagreement. It's a clinging to a preconceived notion of how a Wizard "should" get their spells, rather than being willing to keep all options open in a discussion of what measures may help to balance the classes. If you have a better idea, feel free to present it. But simply arguing against mine is not productive if all you offer to the conversation is winging about how Wizards need their free choice of spells.



Do you roll on a table to see what weapon the Barbarian gets to use? [...] What about when you roll for Fighter Feats? Skills for the Rogue [...]Irrelevant hyperbole. Those classes are not being held up as unbalancing to the game, so their abilities don't need as much obvious attention and correction to help maintain game balance.

Telok
2007-11-03, 07:31 AM
....
B) The player knows he'll have spells to cast. True, the free choice of those spells has been removed. But that was a decision made during world construction, and was known the the Wizard Player before he made the choce of class. As I've also previously stated, I have never played in (or run) a campaign where arcane casters got free choice of spells, and it has never been an issue. Your mileage may vary, but I like proven track records of success better than angst and whining.
C) If I'm not mistaken, Feats are gained upon leveling, as are the spells gained per level. So the solution for the Wizard is simple. If you don't have the spells, don't take the Feats. And as for "themes"? The player will have spells, so this solution can't be preventing every one of those "themes" you've mentioned.
....

Problem: If a player wants to play a weather wizard then he's hosed. Such a wizard would ideally pick up on all the various cloud and wind spells, perhaps lightning spells and flight, such a character may well never take many of the various spells you have problems with. With randomized spells they are more likely to end up with a list looking more like say: Fireball, Web, Clairaudience, Mount, Summon Monster 4, Grease, and so forth.

Further I'm quite certain that you don't do the same thing with the cantrips. Back in the hoary old days of AD&D I played in a game with random spell assignment. That character did not know Read Magic. If you recall AD&D spellcasting rules that sort of put a crimp in the character's advancement, and still can too. Furthermore the only third level spell that the 11 AC, -1 to hit, 14 HP, wizard knew was Vampritic Touch. That character died on the second encounter without ever having gotten to cast any spells and was quickly replaced by a fighter who could actually contribute to the party.

There are problems with trying to run a bland core-style D&D game with purely random spells for the arcane casters. What I think you've done is make a campaign setting where spellcasting and the place of casters in society is very different from normal D&D settings. That can work. It could also be that you play a less hack and slash game than many people do, which would allow characters with essentially limit per day, random spell-like powers as thier main class feature to thrive. Some of us don't quite have that luxury. Local population spreads mean that some of us get to play with at least one person who blows things up if they go too long without a fight. We put up with this because, well he's fairly good comic relief (totally on accident on his part too), and we sort of there to be more than just two or three people to keep the game going on a regular basis.

Simply put the random spells this is not the standard, core, D&D game. Trying to play that sort of a wizard in a standard D&D game would cause problems for the player and probably quickly lead to having nobody willing to play wizards in your group.

Are wizards very powerful in core D&D? Yes, absolutely. Are they so over powered that they need to be hobbled in thier ability to even have any appropriate spells for a given encounter or situation? Not unless you let them.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 11:04 AM
Problem: If a player wants to play a weather wizard then he's hosed. Such a wizard would ideally pick up on all the various cloud and wind spells, perhaps lightning spells and flight, such a character may well never take many of the various spells you have problems with. With randomized spells they are more likely to end up with a list looking more like say: Fireball, Web, Clairaudience, Mount, Summon Monster 4, Grease, and so forth.
Most games I've played in are not all about keeping the players down. If someone wanted to run a weather wizard or any other decent character concept, that player and the DM would work out the details between themselves.

The random spells on advancement doesn't keep the player from writing other spells into their spell book when recovered from scrolls or enemy wizards or dragon hoards or learned from friendly NPC wizards, so while it might be limiting for a while things do tend to open up after some adventure. And it provides meaningful rewards for the GM to hand out for arcane casters, above any cash or magical loot they may obtain.

Arbitrarity
2007-11-03, 11:11 AM
Most games I've played in are not all about keeping the players down. If someone wanted to run a weather wizard or any other decent character concept, that player and the DM would work out the details between themselves.

The random spells on advancement doesn't keep the player from writing other spells into their spell book when recovered from scrolls or enemy wizards or dragon hoards or learned from friendly NPC wizards, so while it might be limiting for a while things do tend to open up after some adventure. And it provides meaningful rewards for the GM to hand out for arcane casters, above any cash or magical loot they may obtain.

I prefer my method. It requires a bit more work to set up, but it meaningfully restricts spells, provides the same potential rewards, and allows much greater player control.

Frosty
2007-11-03, 11:42 AM
I would never play a Wizard in a game where I get assigned 2 spells randomly at level-up. Freedom of choice is always imnportant. There are other ways to make wizards less broken.

horseboy
2007-11-03, 12:01 PM
Ok, so you've DMed a lot. But this:
Proves my point. If as a DM you can't keep control, you're not doing your job well or even competently. Stating categorically that something that you, as the DM, don't want player to have but that you're helpless to keep it from them since they "WILL find a way to get it" is a completely baffling statement. What part of

were you never able to manage to accomplish as a DM? No, your point, as you've expressed it, is that power is to be random and arbitrary. My point, as in the first line you quoted but ignored, is that if it's too powerful for your PC's it shouldn't exist in your game world. Period. It's unfair to the player.


It's not hard.
Wizard Player: "I want the Fly spell"
DM: "It's not on the list of spells you can choose, and there is no other Wizard who can teach it to you."
Wizard Player: "I commission the creation of a pair of Winged Boots."
DM: "No one can make that for you."

Unless you allow:
Wizard Player: "I hold my breath until I turn blue unless I get the Fly spell."
to sway you, you've effectively managed to maintain control of your campaign world. How was it that you could not do this as a DM?
Well, given that my main game has an entire race that flies at first "level" and it's not a problem because the game is actually written by non-stoned individuals, this would never be a problem I'd face.
But no, that is not an appropriate way to handle it. It should either be "Flight spells don't exist here." (Suspect in it's own right) or "Okay, but I've altered the move rate on it so it's not so broken." Or, of course, you can always play a game system with a lot fewer mechanical screw-ups.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 12:16 PM
My point, as in the first line you quoted but ignored, is that if it's too powerful for your PC's it shouldn't exist in your game world. Period. It's unfair to the player.
A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. That is not at all what you said. You said, paraphrasing this time since I have quoted you exactly before, that it shouldn't exist because the players WILL (your emphasis on exactly how helpless you are as a DM in managing your game) somehow manage to get access to it no matter how hard you, as the DM, tried to stop them. Which is clearly nonsense, since it's the DM who is the one who hands out or approves everything in his or her own created game universe.


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS


I prefer my method. It requires a bit more work to set up, but it meaningfully restricts spells, provides the same potential rewards, and allows much greater player control.I like your method quite a bit. I will use this or some close variation of this next time I run a game.

Winterwind
2007-11-03, 12:24 PM
Since it seems to have been missed by the main participants of this debate, I'd like to voice support for Kalirren's post.

Imbalance as in "different levels of power between the characters" is not a problem if everyone still can contribute equally much to the session and the story. If one character is vastly more powerful than the other, but that other character still is the one who negotiates with the king and manages to get him to agree to do whatever the PCs want him to do, or happens to be the one in position to inspire courage in the villagers preparing themselves for the enemy's assault, or whatever, the power difference does not matter - what matters is how much one character can influence the plot, and, as long as the plot doesn't consist of mechanical challenges mostly, that's rather a player/DM thing than some sort of class imbalance: A player thing, because the player goes out to talk the NPCs to influence them appropriately and generally uses the opportunities presented by the DM, and a DM thing, because the DM brings the character in question into a position where (s)he can influence the plot. If a player is timid or passive and does not actively seek time in the spotlight, that's when (s)he's going to get perpetually outshone.

Mechanical imbalance of any sort becomes only a major problem if the game is largely geared towards mechanical challenges.

This holds true for any system I know, and I'm pretty sure it would hold true for D&D as well.

Kaelik
2007-11-03, 01:31 PM
A) It does slow down overpowered Wizards, and I've provided the reasons for that previously.

No, it just mixes up equally as overpowered Wizards (who rolled luckily and got exactly the spells they wanted) with medium Wizards (Ones who only wasted half their class abilities at this level by getting one good decent spell) and completely useless ones (who got crappy spells.)

It decreases the frequency of powerful Wizards by occasioanly leaving them useless, that doesn't mean that it stops them, it just shunts the question over to luck. Luck is a poor way of balancing your campaign.


B) The player knows he'll have spells to cast. True, the free choice of those spells has been removed. But that was a decision made during world construction, and was known the the Wizard Player before he made the choce of class. As I've also previously stated, I have never played in (or run) a campaign where arcane casters got free choice of spells, and it has never been an issue. Your mileage may vary, but I like proven track records of success better than angst and whining.

I have never had to limit Wizard spell selection or been limited in it. It has never been an issue. I'll take a proven track record of success over arbitrarily removing player choice from the game.


C) If I'm not mistaken, Feats are gained upon leveling, as are the spells gained per level. So the solution for the Wizard is simple. If you don't have the spells, don't take the Feats.

And there aren't any feats that have pre-reqs. Or feats that provide a very minor benefit if the only spells they work with are level 1. "Hey look, I took extend spell at level 1 and now at level 18 I still have no long term buff spells above spell level 3. This sucks balls. I hate not having any control over what I can cast."


And as for "themes"? The player will have spells, so this solution can't be preventing every one of those "themes" you've mentioned.

I'm going to be a blaster wizard, only I can't cast and spells that do damage. I'm going to be a Enchanter, of wait, I don't have anything but Fireball and Lightning Bolt. I'm a buff oriented Wizard, only I have no buffs I can cast on anyone else. Why is this? Oh right, because I'm not allowed to choose my own class features.


I can deal with reasoned disagreement, and even name calling. But what I'm seeing from you, besides the name calling, isn't reasoned disagreement. It's a clinging to a preconceived notion of how a Wizard "should" get their spells, rather than being willing to keep all options open in a discussion of what measures may help to balance the classes.

I'm not clinging to anything except player choice. I am telling you that such a system is terrible, not because of how wizards should get spells, but instead because it removes player choice from characters and creates characters no one cares about. Even under that system, rolling the best possible spells I wouldn't give a damn about my character, because it isn't really my character.

I'm not discussing how to "help balance the classes" because that doesn't need to be discussed. Either you have players and a DM that don't suck and you don't need to balance the classes, or you have sucky players and/or DM and no changes are ever going to be enough.

If I wanted to "Balance classes" taking away player freedom is the las thing I'd ever do. I'd start by limiting everyone to 6th lvl spells. I'd shift their tables of spells per day so that they cap out at about lvl 15. Then I'd change the Archmage PrC so that it only adds caster level (like the divine version) and the abilities don't cost spell slots. I'd also change the divine casters because I'm not a retard. But I won't do that because the game doesn't need that, it's fine how it is.


If you have a better idea, feel free to present it. But simply arguing against mine is not productive if all you offer to the conversation is winging about how Wizards need their free choice of spells.

Oh look at that, I accidentally did present a better idea, and all without taking away my players freedom to actually play the game.


Irrelevant hyperbole. Those classes are not being held up as unbalancing to the game, so their abilities don't need as much obvious attention and correction to help maintain game balance.

A)I'm not holding anything up to be unbalanced because the game is just fine the way it is. Nothing needs correction to maintain game balance. Game balance is just fine under the current rules.
B)What you are suggesting does nothing to help anything. If something is too powerful, remove it. If that is the Wizard class just do it (granted you have basically killed the Wizard class in spirit by declaring that no arcane caster actually learns the spells they want, the gods just randomly throw spells at them, but kill it in body too instead.) If those are specific spells, remove them from the game, saying "roll this percentile, if you get a 100 you auto-win every encounter for the next three days, if you roll a 1 your character dies tomorrow" is not a good system for anything at all.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-03, 03:57 PM
Sorry to disagree, but that's not quite true. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that the rest of the party can complete the objective fine by themselves. This usually isn't the case.

What happens is more like this, either the party realizes that they need the wizard and wait for him, or they go ahead anyway. Since the wizard represents 1/4 to 1/6 of the party they are at a disadvantage. Add in the relative strength of the wizard to other party members and his loss is even more weakening.

So if the party faces an encounter of the same difficulty that they faced with the wizard, they'll be badly outclassed. When the party "goes ahead" and gets creamed, they quickly realize that waiting for the wizard is the only option. Nothing like a few TPKs or PC deaths to get people to toe the line.

And if the DM downscales the encounter to adjust for this, it'll be pretty noticeable. Sure, when the wizard is there the party goes toe to toe with dragons, but when he's gone all they face is kobolds? Not to mention that this leads to uneven party experience gain and just makes things even worse for the DM.


I have to say that in most games I've played, when the caster announces he's running out of spells, the rest of the party usually begins heading back to town or shacking up for the night. The disparity between game and real world comes into play here because the party can usually just say, "We're resting" and skip the next 16 hours of in-game time in about 2 seconds. Trying to impose time limits on this, by forcing the players to complete a goal with a day for instance, just motivates the caster to do nothing. Having a PC be carted around like an object for most of the session until he unloads on the BBEG is fun for nobody. Neither for the player who might as well be asleep nor for the rest of the party who have to keep him alive.


That said, to OP, generally I've seen a marked power disparity at high levels and a smaller one at low levels. Perhaps its because casters are usually played by the more experienced and/or "powergaming" players. However, generally levels 1-4 have a slight balance toward the fighter/barbarian but the casters still contribute, and everyone tends to be equally weak. Levels 5-10 is pretty much equally balanced, but the casters, especially the clerics, tend to be the more important members of the party due to Vancian spellcasting and its impositions on the game. Levels 11 and above the casters are pretty much the game. Fighters and their ilk simply go from mobile shields to complete obsolescence.



In my opinion, this is when the party simply asks someone with ranks in bardic knowledge/knowledge (local)/Lore/Cleric Divination Spells to help us find a wizard with more of a risk taker attitude.

As regards to spell selection, I usually make them "research" any spells they want to use outside of core. They can't simply buy scrolls of Celerity, etc. Yes, I know there are many broken spells in core.

Kantolin
2007-11-03, 04:14 PM
Imbalance as in "different levels of power between the characters" is not a problem if everyone still can contribute equally much to the session and the story.

I'll second this, but also add to it a bit. In my opinion, the different levels of power between characters is not a problem when:

A) The gulf is not too vast
B) The characters aren't identical or close to it
C) The characters get to do /things/, especially in combat.
D) There is no gloating or math done before, during, or after.

For example for A, if player A is power attacking with a greatsword, and player B is power attacking with a bastard sword (two-handed), technically, the greatsword weilder is strictly better than player B if everything else is the same (Or slightly moreso if player B spent a feat on his bastard sword). But either way, the difference of a few points up or down isn't going to leave player B feeling useless - the luck of the dice means both players won't feel left out.

Of course, this is to the exception of B. If you have two players who are both focused on charging at your enemy and dealing damage, and one went for the leap attack / shock trooper combo while the other went for weapon specialization... then the latter player will feel behind the curve after a time. But when one player wants to stab things very well, and the other person (who could possibly stab things as well if not better) is forced to spend a precious action stabalizing the -9 wizard who was the victim of an unlucky critical hit with a healing spell... it gives the stabby player the feeling of 'Hey, I'm doing my Schtick, he's doing his. Yay'

Now, this itself depends on C. If every battle begins with the wizard autowinning all the enemies, leaving the others for cleanup, that's bad... to a point, if it still allows the frontliners to do things at all.

Now, if the combat shows up, the wizard utterly incapacitates two of the enemies, but the frontliners are capable of getting up front, taking/blocking some hits, and rolling some dice... then it doesn't usually matter at the end that the wizard has the higher kill count or was more overall useful; everyone got to do something, thus fun can commence. Especially when you (say) have that enemy who seems geared around "Ah, the party's monk can take them out" or "Ah, that's something for the rogue to feint".

And last, D. If you sit around comparing average damages at each other, and average use in combat, then some classes/characters will fall out. If you, however, don't do that and leave things to the dice, then even people with relatively sub-par abilities can have a blast - especially if there's more to the roleplay than rolling dice. I mean, sure the wizard could do everything himself, but instead of spending the spells, he could just accept that he's got a fighter buddy and a rogue buddy and let them go for their schticks, leaving himself to do other things.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this helps class balance - not everyone plays the same way, and a lot of people (it seems) get irritated at sub-par builds due to enjoying extremely difficult encounters on a routine basis. But hey, somehow despite all of the imbalances, D&D is great fun, and most people play teams of 'Frontliner'/'Healer'/'Sneak'/'Caster', and even if the 'healer' could outdo the frontliner as well, or the 'caster' is a warmage... it still tends to end up being fun for everyone.

So hey.

Pironious
2007-11-03, 06:38 PM
Can people play Fighters or Bards or Monks or even CW Samurai and have fun and actually contribute?
.

I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread yet, but have you ever seen a Monk who took Vow of Poverty (BoED) at 1st level? Especially if they have good int and go into Duelist at level 11.

"Hi. You can't hit me. Also, every time I hit you, my fists are treated as +2 magic weapons. If you're evil, you also need to make a DC13 fort save every time I hit you or contract what is effectively a dex poison. I have really good saves which get even better against death effects, as well as about twice as many bonus feats than actual feats. Oh, and as I level up I get bonuses to my ability scores."

It's so broken it's scary.

Temp
2007-11-03, 06:48 PM
I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread yet, but have you ever seen a Monk who took Vow of Poverty (BoED) at 1st level? Especially if they have good int and go into Duelist at level 11.

"Hi. You can't hit me. Also, every time I hit you, my fists are treated as +2 magic weapons. If you're evil, you also need to make a DC13 fort save every time I hit you or contract what is effectively a dex poison. I have really good saves which get even better against death effects, as well as about twice as many bonus feats than actual feats. Oh, and as I level up I get bonuses to my ability scores."

It's so broken it's scary.

Look up any "VoP Monks r teh br0k3n" thread on these boards. They aren't.

Everyone else, we already know.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59707) a pretty civil and rational thread on Vow of Poverty.

Disaster and derailment averted? Only time will tell.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 07:42 PM
I'm going to be a blaster wizard, only I can't cast and spells that do damage. I'm going to be a Enchanter, of wait, I don't have anything but Fireball and Lightning Bolt. I'm a buff oriented Wizard, only I have no buffs I can cast on anyone else. Why is this? Oh right, because I'm not allowed to choose my own class features.I love the Internet. Nowhere else will you find people so willing to pound their own pulpit while selectively ignoring any other piece of information which they have read in prior posts.

You claimed that rolling spells prevented all themes. I said that this is incorrect, since the wizard does get spells. Those spells by their simple existence will support at least one theme. So, rather than simply repeating that rolling prevents themes (which, since repetition seems to be vital in a conversation with you, it demonstrably does not), how about restating that you might not get the theme you want right away? That at least would be an honest statement. Your position also assumes that no other spells are ever gained other than the two rolled ones, which is absurd. You've selectively ignored at least two posts which describe how wizards can expand their spell repertoire after they have gained their 2 random spells. Unless you never allow wizards to gain any spells other than those they earn by leveling? Your theme may be delayed a bit, but delaying a bit is the whole point of the "roll for spells" house rule.


I'm not discussing how to "help balance the classes" because that doesn't need to be discussed. Either you have players and a DM that don't suck and you don't need to balance the classes, or you have sucky players and/or DM and no changes are ever going to be enough.

A)I'm not holding anything up to be unbalanced because the game is just fine the way it is. Nothing needs correction to maintain game balance. Game balance is just fine under the current rules.Oh, hell, why didn't you just say so from the beginning? If you think all is fine and dandy and that no house rules are necessary to maintain class balance, I'd not even bother having a conversation on the subject with you at all.
After you've stated an opinion which I find to be hopelessly naive and out of touch with reality, there is no longer any point in trying to debate methods with you. Clearly, if you find that all is flowers and unicorns and sugar cookies and that the game is just fine the way it is, there is no need for a discussion with you on class balance.

And the irony of your stating that things are just fine the way they are, and also laying down limits to 6th levels spells, etc... Choice. You do understand that by removing 7th+ spells you have indeed limited the exact freedoms you claim to not be taking away? Consistency doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

So which is it? You have me very confused. Did you accidentally present a better idea, or would you not implement that idea because things are just fine the way they are? I dinna think ya can have it both ways, laddie.

Temp
2007-11-03, 07:49 PM
You claimed that rolling spells prevented all themes. I said that this is incorrect, since the wizard does get spells. Those spells by their simple existence will support at least one theme
But the theme is entirely out of their hands.

Do you make non-spellcasters roll randomly to see whether their next level will be in Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Knight or Monk?

Giving Wizards randomized class abilities is the same thing.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 10:18 PM
But the theme is entirely out of their hands.

Do you make non-spellcasters roll randomly to see whether their next level will be in Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Knight or Monk?

Giving Wizards randomized class abilities is the same thing.This is a fairly tired protest by now. I think it's been covered at least three times previously.

Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion isn't valid. They aren't broken.

The wizards will eventually manage to come up with more spells. It just won't happen at their most optimum pace. This is a balancing factor which can be used to lessen the degree of unbalance between wizards and non-casters. If you don't like the option, suggest your own. But protesting against it is fairly pointless if you don't have a suggestion of your own to offer.

MeklorIlavator
2007-11-03, 10:53 PM
This is a fairly tired protest by now. I think it's been covered at least three times previously.

Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion isn't valid. They aren't broken.

The wizards will eventually manage to come up with more spells. It just won't happen at their most optimum pace. This is a balancing factor which can be used to lessen the degree of unbalance between wizards and non-casters. If you don't like the option, suggest your own. But protesting against it is fairly pointless if you don't have a suggestion of your own to offer.

But this is like saying guns are dangerous(which they are), so now you can only by clips with a random number of bullets. That really doesn't make guns less dangerous overall, it just means that they are a bit more situational.

Kaelik
2007-11-03, 11:08 PM
I love the Internet. Nowhere else will you find people so willing to pound their own pulpit while selectively ignoring any other piece of information which they have read in prior posts.

And nowhere but the internet will you find people who begin every post by insulting the poster. (Check you last three addressing me. Never DMed/Name calling/Pulpit. Way to go.)

Now since sarcasm and indirect hints have failed so far, try this: Please do not dedicate any part of your posts towards condescension or insults directed at other posters unless it is funny.


You claimed that rolling spells prevented all themes. I said that this is incorrect, since the wizard does get spells. Those spells by their simple existence will support at least one theme.

If you want to call any collection of crap a theme that's fine, however, my point was (as it has been every time) that you rob players of character choice. Now instead of being able to play any of hundreds of different types of Wizards they get to play one kind, that based on random choice isn't going to be the one they wanted to play.


Your position also assumes that no other spells are ever gained other than the two rolled ones, which is absurd. You've selectively ignored at least two posts which describe how wizards can expand their spell repertoire after they have gained their 2 random spells. Unless you never allow wizards to gain any spells other than those they earn by leveling? Your theme may be delayed a bit, but delaying a bit is the whole point of the "roll for spells" house rule.

I've ignored "other methods for gaining spells" because either they A)fit the same pattern as the first, or B)become a way to cover for the inherent failure of the rolling system.

Either the DM doesn't let you choose the spells you want in which case you still have no control over you character, or he lets you buy scrolls/the chance to copy spells from some other Wizard freely. In which case that is the first and most important priority of every Wizard and now they have a couple spells they didn't really want that they also need to fit on their character sheet next to the ones they care about.

In my worlds Wizards need to do a bit of work to get more spells (especially weird ones, everyone can fly, but how many people really want to be able to throw orbs of acid?) But all the wizards do it anyway because it is an important function of their class. If your players don't do that and you want to force them to just remove those two spells gained from the game. Now they'll go out of their way to do it.

If on the other hand (as I suspect is the case) you actually just want total control over their spell selection and you decide what spells go in their spell book by handing out specific spells in loot, or only allowing them to find specific spells in town, then you are a bad DM. You are limiting player choice, and worse, you are lying about it. If your players are never going to get access to the spell Fly just say, "Flying magic does not exist in my game world." Don't stealth ban things by never letting any NPC have it/and or not allowing it in loot.

And if they are going to get access to fly then let them choose it from the beginning so that they can make the character they want.


Oh, hell, why didn't you just say so from the beginning? If you think all is fine and dandy and that no house rules are necessary to maintain class balance, I'd not even bother having a conversation on the subject with you at all. After you've stated an opinion which I find to be hopelessly naive and out of touch with reality, there is no longer any point in trying to debate methods with you. Clearly, if you find that all is flowers and unicorns and sugar cookies and that the game is just fine the way it is, there is no need for a discussion with you on class balance.

Okay, lets go through this again, maybe you've never seen it and maybe it was in a different thread, but I've addressed this enough times that it starts to annoy me.

1) My DMs (and myself when I DM) and my Players (and me when I play) are not retards.
2) My DMs and my Players want to have fun.

Because of these facts we don't play characters that make the game not fun. I don't send Beholders at level 1 parties, and they don't build a Wizard that kills of everything I send at them when they have a Fighter in the party.

My players play optimally, which does not mean as powerfully as possible. It means that there might be an Uttercold Assault Necro build and a Cleric of Nerull with Tomb-Tainted Soul who casts Prot Energy often. And sometimes it means a Factotum and a Ubercharger. And sometimes it's a party of the four of them.

But no matter what they play, I don't have to take away their class abilities, or much worse, assign them randomly, in order for us all to have fun.


And the irony of your stating that things are just fine the way they are, and also laying down limits to 6th levels spells, etc... Choice. You do understand that by removing 7th+ spells you have indeed limited the exact freedoms you claim to not be taking away? Consistency doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

A) I don't take away 6th lvl spells. I would only do that if I had to balance the game, which is something I would only do if my players where too stupid to take care of themselves.
B) Limiting the power of something is different from limiting the options. Save-or-Die on one enemy or Save-or-Die on 20 it's still the same tactic, just more effective.
C) Even assuming that limiting spells to 6th level is limiting freedom (in some senses it is) my point is that my system limits what they can do in a way that balances them with other classes, but still allows them to play whatever character they want, and does not arbitrarily define their character in a way they don't want.


So which is it? You have me very confused. Did you accidentally present a better idea, or would you not implement that idea because things are just fine the way they are? I dinna think ya can have it both ways, laddie.

See A, above.

Kaelik
2007-11-03, 11:18 PM
This is a fairly tired protest by now. I think it's been covered at least three times previously.

Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion isn't valid. They aren't broken.

It's not a tired protest if you never properly address it. Non-Spellcasters are being used as comparison because they clearly show that taking away player choice leads to not having fun without giving you the cop out of "they can learn spells later."


The wizards will eventually manage to come up with more spells. It just won't happen at their most optimum pace.

And how will they decide what spells they get later? Will it be by DM choice, thus continuing to give them a character that is really just a DMs NPC that he is allowing them to control? Or will they be given free choice? In which case all you are doing is delaying them.

If all you are doing is delaying them, then really do it. Just remove those granted spells entirely, or change the spell acquisition rate, or something that doesn't add unnecessary book keeping and tells the players that the DM gets to write whatever he wants on their character sheet just because he feels like it.


This is a balancing factor which can be used to lessen the degree of unbalance between wizards and non-casters. If you don't like the option, suggest your own. But protesting against it is fairly pointless if you don't have a suggestion of your own to offer.

1)Unless of course you don't think that anything needs changing or
2)If you don't think it helps at all.

Just because you don't have your own suggestion for balance doesn't mean you can't look at someone else's and see that it doesn't help anything, but does hurt things. And if you see that, you should point out that it is a bad idea.

Kompera
2007-11-03, 11:44 PM
And nowhere but the internet will you find people who begin every post by insulting the poster. (Check you last three addressing me. Never DMed/Name calling/Pulpit. Way to go.)

Now since sarcasm and indirect hints have failed so far, try this: Please do not dedicate any part of your posts towards condescension or insults directed at other posters unless it is funny.
You have an uncanny ability to rewrite history.

"Never DMed" - You led me to that conclusion with your insistence that a character having only what the DM allowed him to have equated him to a slave. When in fact every character in every competently run campaign has only what the DM allows.

"Name calling" - Yes, you did call me names. Thanks for bringing that up. Please drop the hypocrisy and follow your own orders.

"Pulpit" - I didn't just throw that out at you. I detailed how you led me to that characterization. Pulpit isn't a pejorative, but if you wish to take it that way that's your prerogative.

Way to go, indeed.

Sarcasm doesn't convey well in a written medium. And indirect hints are even less communicative.

Was that funny enough for you?

Starbuck_II
2007-11-03, 11:52 PM
Well, given that my main game has an entire race that flies at first "level" and it's not a problem because the game is actually written by non-stoned individuals, this would never be a problem I'd face.
But no, that is not an appropriate way to handle it. It should either be "Flight spells don't exist here." (Suspect in it's own right) or "Okay, but I've altered the move rate on it so it's not so broken." Or, of course, you can always play a game system with a lot fewer mechanical screw-ups.

Nor the move speed: the Fly type: From good to Poor would be a nerf. Enough that Fly would be iffy to use (though he an still fly poorly).

Jannex
2007-11-03, 11:53 PM
This is a fairly tired protest by now. I think it's been covered at least three times previously.

Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion isn't valid. They aren't broken.

I think it's entirely valid, as it's an analogy that speaks to a very important point: what is and is not fun.

I'm not saying that "having all the most broken spells and winning at D&D" is what's fun. I'm saying that having agency over the creation and advancement of one's own PC and making the character that you want to play is fun. Let me elaborate on how I envision agency.

Example 1
DM: Okay, guys, level up. Wizard, I'm disallowing the following spells from your set of options: Time Stop, Celerity, Foresight, Contingency, the Polymorph line, Shivering Touch, any spell with the [Evil] descriptor, the entire contents of the Spell Compendium, and all spells beginning with the letter "M." You may choose any two spells you like from the remaining options.

Agency: Yes.

Example 2
DM: Okay, guys, level up. Wizard, roll on this chart to determine which two spells you get.

Agency: No.

Are wizards broken? Yes, most certainly. Should they be fixed and houseruled? Sure. But I would steer away from fixing them in a way that also removes player agency and destroys the fun of playing them. Because fun doesn't have to be about getting all the win-buttons. Maybe a player thinks that Reflective Disguise sounds like an interesting spell, and wants to try it out.

Randomizing a character's class features saps the fun out of a character. In some cases, randomizing spells can be as bad as denying them completely. Imagine a wizard who's the sneaky type, and wants to focus on stealth spells and subtle Enchantments. When he rolls, he keeps getting things like Fireball and Sound Burst and other big, flashy, attention-drawing spells. He'll never use them. What if you've got a wizard who's pyrophobic, and he randomly rolls Burning Hands? He'd might as well not have gotten a spell at all.

Maybe, to you, playing Arcane Roulette every level makes for a fun roleplaying experience. To many people here, it seems that it would not. It certainly wouldn't for me. Preferable options include: banning or altering broken spells, reworking the Wizard class or the full caster progression entirely, or just playing a different system altogether.

Kompera
2007-11-04, 01:45 AM
And that's great. I've posted previously that I like Arbitrarity's suggestion so much that I'd adopt either it or something very similar to it the next time I run a game. Your suggestion of simply banning certain spells also has a lot of merit and addresses the core issue of imbalance. Those with whom I seem to be going around and around with to no good purpose either seem to feel that there is no problem at all, or that the problem can't be possibly solved by randomizing spells obtained upon leveling despite the fact that this has worked in every game I've ever either played in or run, and despite the fact that they have no alternatives to offer up. * Randomizing spells does work to effect balance, I've seen it work in action, so no amount of protestation that it's just wrong will change that fact. It's not required that everyone like it, but shouting it down as not working is a failed position.

Frankly, thinking that there is no problem or agreeing that there is a problem but clinging to a preconceived concept of how a wizard should get their spells are both equally misguided.

* Or as it has occurred to me, perhaps they just like to argue repetitively without ever addressing any countering points.

Temp
2007-11-04, 01:59 AM
Those with whom I seem to be going around and around with to no good purpose either seem to feel that there is no problem at all, or that the problem can't be possibly solved by randomizing spells obtained upon leveling despite the fact that this has worked in every game I've ever either played in or run, and despite the fact that they have no alternatives to offer up. *

I think there've been "no alternatives [offered] up"* because simply removing the offensive spells works pretty well--better, in fact, than your solution because the cheese is gone rather than unlikely. On top of this, choosing spells lets a player build their own characters. Most players like doing that.


*I neither have time nor do I care to check the validity of this statement. You get the benefit of the doubt.

Kaelik
2007-11-04, 02:22 AM
Those with whom I seem to be going around and around with to no good purpose either seem to feel that there is no problem at all, or that the problem can't be possibly solved by randomizing spells obtained upon leveling despite the fact that this has worked in every game I've ever either played in or run, and despite the fact that they have no alternatives to offer up. *

Ignoring for the moment the offered alternatives and the several explanations of why nothing needs changing (because players police themselves). What on Earth makes you think anything needs changing?

By your own omission you have never played a single game with free choice granted. You have absolutely zero basis to judge whether or not that system works (it does.)


Randomizing spells does work to effect balance, I've seen it work in action, so no amount of protestation that it's just wrong will change that fact. It's not required that everyone like it, but shouting it down as not working is a failed position.

A) You haven't seen it work in practice because you have never played with free choice to see if that is less balanced then random.
B) It is wrong, not because it doesn't effect balance (everything effects balance in some way, you theoretically have a 50-50 chance of effecting it in the right direction) but instead because it deprives players of control over their characters.
C) No one is shouting it down. We keep presenting evidence for why it doesn't guarantee they will be more balanced (could still roll what they want or could obtain brokenness slightly later) and why it makes the game less fun for the player in question by taking him out of the game. You in response claim that we are "shouting you down" and proceed to ignore everything posted.


Frankly, thinking that there is no problem or agreeing that there is a problem but clinging to a preconceived concept of how a wizard should get their spells are both equally misguided.

No one is clinging to a "preconceived concept of how a wizard should get their spells." All we are doing is clinging to the preconceived concept that a player should build their character, not a DM.

Saying that you can compensate for your flawed idea by getting spells you want later does not justify changing the game in such a way as to remove player choice, especially not when just removing spells on level up would accomplish the same thing and actually be enjoyed more by most players.


* Or as it has occurred to me, perhaps they just like to argue repetitively without ever addressing any countering points.

I appreciate you holding the insult to an asterix at the end instead of making it the very first thing typed.

Armads
2007-11-04, 02:46 AM
Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion isn't valid. They aren't broken.


Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion is valid. Game balance or imbalance rises from the different power levels of different classes, and how they contribute. If every single PC was a batman wizard, then the party members would contribute equally, and no one would complain that a PC is dominating the game and making it unfun for the other players (unless they all choose not to use Celerity and one of them has a huge initiative mod over the others).


Randomizing spells does work to effect balance, I've seen it work in action, so no amount of protestation that it's just wrong will change that fact. It's not required that everyone like it, but shouting it down as not working is a failed position.

Okay, it WILL affect balance. Giving fighters free +1 greatswords at level 1 does affect balance. Inventing a new spell "I Win" for paladins only affects balance. Everything affects balance. So you're right in the sense that it Affects Balance. But does it affect balance is a fun way? Lets say, there's an unlucky wizard. He rolls:

Level 1: Ooh, I got a disguise self and a tenser's floating disk!
Level 2: Hey, now I got a magic missile and an endure elements!
Level 3: Awesome! Now I'm able to cast magic mouth and obscure object.

This continues, the wizard continually rolling for useless spells. Maybe he gets a few good ones, like fear and enervation. So he's going to continually use the only spells he has that are effective. He will also have to take 'generic' feats to not shortchange himself, since if he commits himself to taking, Spell focus (necromancy), it's likely that he will never get any good necromancy Save-or-Dies, since he'll roll for his spells.

Another Example: There are 42 1st level wizard/sorcerer spells in core. 14 of them are useless (like Erase, Comprehend Languages, Hold Portal, Ventriloquism, Detect Undead, Unseen Servant). There are 4 good ones at level 1 (color spray, sleep, enlarge person, grease), unless your enemies have a continuous detect magic, which would make nystull's magic aura good. The rest of the spells are okay, but not worth using at level 1 (like true strike, identify, mage armor, shield, burning hands). There is a much higher chance that the wizard who rolls randomly gets gimped, since he probably gets 7 1st level spells in his spellbook. Will the game be balanced if the wizard rolls and gets horrible spells?

Later on, the poor wizard reaches level 9. He rolls randomly again for his 2 free spells. There are 43 5th level spells. He has the same chance of getting Baleful Polymorph as Mirage Arcana or Sending. How is this balanced?

EDIT: Oh, and nothing really happens once the wizard has enough money to buy scrolls. Now he just buys the scrolls of the spells he wants, unless you ban him from acquiring them normally. But then, won't it be more efficient to just get the spell for free from leveling up?

Kompera
2007-11-04, 06:09 AM
Bringing non-spellcasters into the discussion is valid. Game balance or imbalance rises from the different power levels of different classes, and how they contribute. If every single PC was a batman wizard, then the party members would contribute equally, and no one would complain that a PC is dominating the game and making it unfun for the other players (unless they all choose not to use Celerity and one of them has a huge initiative mod over the others).Your example makes no sense to me. I'll try again to explain why throwing the non-casters options at the DM is not a valid argument to use when he limits a casters options.

So, in your example we're all Batman Wizards. The DM is tired of the group running nova for 3 encounters and then hiding in a Rope Trick for the rest of the day. DM adjusts Wizards spells. Wizards scream "But, but, Fighters can use SWORDS!!! (can freely select their Feats, whatever)" And that makes brining up Fighters valid......how? Answer: Not at all. No one cares about Fighters in this example, it's Wizards which need adjusting.

Or, not your example but more realistic: Group of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Wizard dominates. DM adjusts Wizards spells. Wizard screams "But, but, Fighter can use SWORDS!!! (can freely select his Feats, whatever)". And that makes brining up Fighters valid......how? Answer: Not at all. No one cares about Fighter in this example, it's Wizard who needs adjusting.

Again, and hopefully finally, bringing non-casters into a discussion of how to limit the power of casters is irrelevant.


But does it affect balance is a fun way? Lets say, there's an unlucky wizard. He rolls:

Level 1: Ooh, I got a disguise self and a tenser's floating disk!
Level 2: Hey, now I got a magic missile and an endure elements!
Level 3: Awesome! Now I'm able to cast magic mouth and obscure object.

This continues, the wizard continually rolling for useless spells. Maybe he gets a few good ones, like fear and enervation. So he's going to continually use the only spells he has that are effective. He will also have to take 'generic' feats to not shortchange himself, since if he commits himself to taking, Spell focus (necromancy), it's likely that he will never get any good necromancy Save-or-Dies, since he'll roll for his spells.More repetitive failed positions. You've missed all of the posts which discussed that gaining spells upon leveling up is not the only source of spells for the wizard.

And as for fun, whose fun are we talking about? The wizard has a lot of fun when his character is Batmen, I'm sure. The rest of the players, DM included, not so much. So fun isn't a valid concern either, unless it's a discussion of the fun of the group as a whole. If the wizard player can only have fun by being Batman, the wizard player has maturity issues.

And then there are all the posts you've missed where other spell limiting options were discussed, which don't involve random spells upon level up but which also prevent Batman. These seem to be preferred by some as being more fun for the wizard since they still allow for free choice of spells within a limited list.


EDIT: Oh, and nothing really happens once the wizard has enough money to buy scrolls. Now he just buys the scrolls of the spells he wants, unless you ban him from acquiring them normally. But then, won't it be more efficient to just get the spell for free from leveling up?This has also been covered more than once in the thread. The competent DM maintains control of his game universe. So yes, just because the wizard player has a few spare golds doesn't mean he can find someone to train him in any prohibited spells. Just because any character has a few golds to rub together, it's still the DM who hands out rewards or allows NPCs to provide services such as training or crafting.

Grynning
2007-11-04, 07:07 AM
Getting back to the main topic of the thread, I can say from experience that the class imbalance between casters and melee definitely can come into play in "regular" D&D game. We played an epic campaign, where we had no Batman, but I was the only primary melee character in a group (VoP Cleric, Sorcerer/Sandshaper, Favored Soul/Sorcerer Theurge, Mounted Combat Pally, Throwing Rogue). The main problem I encountered was simple: mobility and range. Without boots of flying or teleportation or something similar, and sometimes even with, my poor Fighter simply couldn't get close enough to baddies to whack them half the time, either because they were A) flying themselves, B) Huge or bigger, which means I had to move through a bunch of AoO's to get a hit in, even with my home-brewed super-flail reach weapon, and if I did, I would only get one full attack off before the thing was blasted into oblivion. Even with full Power-Attack/Weapon Supremacy going, I couldn't really keep up damage-wise. Mind you, this is with casters who aren't optimized, aren't using batman tactics and aren't spamming save-or-lose spells.
Now, some of this could be blamed on my not considering my equipment and feat choices better. Some could be blamed on the fact that I refuse to use ToB for my melee characters because I think it's silly. Some could be blamed on the DM for never giving me a chance to fight the way I was meant to, against humanoid opponents at close range. But a lot can be blamed on the mechanics. The simple fact that casters can dominate almost any encounter makes playing anything else somewhat disappointing at high-levels. D&D favors casters immensely in combat, and most arguments otherwise seem to be from people who either always play casters, or who play with groups of mostly non-casters. Hell, just flipping through the Spell Compendium we just got, there's a bunch of spells that aren't necessarily "abuse-able" but still out-power any kind of damage output from non-casters at the appropriate levels (Charge builds and TWF rogues possibly excluded).
Ok, rant over. Just had to vent about that epic-level frustration from my only epic game.
Anyways, I personally think magic should have more downsides to it. Many other d20 fantasy games (CoC and Conan RPG, for example) have magic that is punishing to wield, and that is limited by things other than spells-per-day. The fact that spells are simply able to be shot off like ammo from a gun (ammo that can have pretty much any effect on reality that you want) is what makes magic overpowered in D&D.

Kompera
2007-11-04, 07:30 AM
Getting back to the main topic of the thread, [...] The simple fact that casters can dominate almost any encounter makes playing anything else somewhat disappointing at high-levels.

I personally think magic should have more downsides to it. Many other d20 fantasy games (CoC and Conan RPG, for example) have magic that is punishing to wield, and that is limited by things other than spells-per-day. The fact that spells are simply able to be shot off like ammo from a gun (ammo that can have pretty much any effect on reality that you want) is what makes magic overpowered in D&D.
This is exactly what the 5 pages of discussion has been about. While I agree with you, I'm not seeing any "getting back" in your post.
Having penalties for casting was suggested once previously in the thread, I believe. And it does fit in with a lot of fantasy fiction. L.E. Modesitt, Jr. has at least two separate fantasy series (Recluse and Spellsong) where exerting casting power drains the strength from the caster and requires a lot of rest and food and drink to recover from. Using some of their more potent abilities has caused several main characters to fall into a coma like state for hours or days. Temporary blindness, splitting headaches, temporary loss of the ability to use any magic powers and even permanent blindness and death have happened to magic wielding characters in his stories. These ideas can be limiting to the power of D&D casters, and could be worth exploring. But they are radically different in concept from the current arcane spell casting mechanics, and limiting spell selection is a far more easy solution to implement than some system which would need to be designed from the ground up or at the very least translated into D&D from some other game system.

Grynning
2007-11-04, 07:34 AM
I meant no offense. It just seemed the thread had de-railed into "Should you make casters random roll for their spells" rather than "are casters actually balanced."

Blanks
2007-11-04, 08:20 AM
I have never played a highlevel D&D campaign, and have therefore limited experience in high level spells.

BUT:

In 2nd edition the mage could easily outshine a fighter at high levels. My group always thought that this was only fair since it only took one foe close to the mage to make him **** his pants and offer endless blowjobs to the fighter if he would just kill the foe quickly before he shredded the wizard...

Apart from the "im invincible-batman supermage who will teleport away and always has every defensive spell cast", isn't the case almost the same here?
The Wizard is like a cannon, at a distance he is powerfull, if you get close he is toast ?
In second edition it took a highlevel fighter something like 2 rounds (max) to drop a caster if he got close :smallcool:

The way i see it, it is a lot about providing encounters that don't favor the wizard too much (big mooks, in small corridors that the fighters keep at bay is wizardfodder...). An invisible stalker or big rooms where the enemy can get close to the wizard is much more deadly to the wizard.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-04, 10:11 AM
I have never played a highlevel D&D campaign, and have therefore limited experience in high level spells.

BUT:

In 2nd edition the mage could easily outshine a fighter at high levels. My group always thought that this was only fair since it only took one foe close to the mage to make him **** his pants and offer endless blowjobs to the fighter if he would just kill the foe quickly before he shredded the wizard...

Apart from the "im invincible-batman supermage who will teleport away and always has every defensive spell cast", isn't the case almost the same here?
The Wizard is like a cannon, at a distance he is powerfull, if you get close he is toast ?
In second edition it took a highlevel fighter something like 2 rounds (max) to drop a caster if he got close :smallcool:

The way i see it, it is a lot about providing encounters that don't favor the wizard too much (big mooks, in small corridors that the fighters keep at bay is wizardfodder...). An invisible stalker or big rooms where the enemy can get close to the wizard is much more deadly to the wizard.

Repulsion would keep enemies away from the wizard if need be...

Dausuul
2007-11-04, 10:29 AM
Yes, I've seen class balance become a problem, usually when the game gets beyond 10th level or so. My current party is 11th and 12th level (some people have fallen behind for various reasons), and the two arcane casters--a wizard and a dread necromancer--are already outperforming everyone else.

Oddly, the problem seems to be worse when the characters have come up from lower levels. Our 18th to 20th-level campaign was much better balanced; as our resident caster player, I knew I'd make everyone else look pathetic if I went all-out, so I deliberately limited myself by designing a blaster-and-utility sorceror with a healbot favored soul cohort. But when you start at low level, casters and non-casters are much better balanced, so you don't want to gimp yourself as a caster; with the result that your well-balanced caster at low levels becomes a god on earth at high levels.

Sir Giacomo
2007-11-04, 11:43 AM
Hi everyone,

in a rare moment of calm from reallife workload, some comments of mine...(for those who know me from a different thread...still working on a core monk build to take on druid without polymorph spell use...it's a tough one...:smallwink: )

I'm one of those rare animals on these boards who believes actually the core classes are quite fairly balanced. Still, I try to come up with an explanation why so many believe the full casters are way up the power scale, in particular at higher levels.

The problem in my view is that there is simply no real life equivalent to magic and its effect on society, much less the effect it would have on stories and/or challenges to keep things consistent. Someone able to fly, teleport, read thoughts, turn into fabulous creatures, speak to the gods etc. simply at face value IS more powerful than even the best fighters, burglars, monks or rangers.

Now. What the designers of the core game did was to introduce stuff to limit the powers of spellcasters. And funnily, those get ignored time and again on these boards. Here is a short summary of what I already found in the rules - plenty of stuff for a DM to balance casters if he or she feels they are too powerful/challenges get too easy. For instance, no need to resort to random spell picking here.
1) Most of the powerful spells need targets. If the caster cannot see the target, he cannot cast. And there are tons of ways in the game (even non-magical) to get concealment and/or cover.
2) The spellcaster needs components to cast. Verbal components? Grapple/pin, silence spells, magic items all do the trick. Somatic components? Grapple, entangling, manacles, etc. Material components? Sleight of hand, disarm, sunder.
This is not to say that casters cannot overcome these obstacles with some feats - but they are fairly restrictive and need to be taken first (hurting coveted feat choice like improved initiative or item creation)
3) Spellcasters need to refresh their spells. Some have even to use the same hour per day to get the spells back. Adventures should ALWAYS be set in such a way that rest is not assured- otherwise you give up suspense. Again, spellcasters have sometimes ways to get rest with magical protection (rope trick etc.). But then they have to prepare those instead of deadly combos. Plus, intelligent enemies may thwart their efforts. At all levels. And yes, that includes the MMM/'Private sanctum combo.
4)There are only very few hour/lvl spells and even rarer longer-lasting spells. Intelligent opponents will make use of this and simply wait until the most powerful buffs are over. PCs, of course can use this tactics, too!
5) Most spellcasters - except for sorcerer and bard who are considered weakest for a reason - are dependent on outside sources for their magic. A higher force for divine casters, the spellbook for the wizard. A fighter without his sword fights on. The wizard without a spellbook is nearly useless (giving a reason for a spell mastery feat and money for spare spellbooks, another balancing factor).

What might be the reason that these disadvantages of spellcasters are not in use often enough to prevent the majority of posters here actually believing that the core classes are severely unbalanced?

Probably it is for two reasons
1) Using the above disadvantages is felt as "nerfing" by many caster players. In my view they have a deep misunderstanding of a group game. No fighter or rogue player ever feels "nerfed" if he gets disarmed or that sneak does not work. Apparently, players choosing casters somehow get disappointed more easily if the stuff that their characters are supposed to do does not work all the time. Maybe it is because it is fantasy game and the moment a spell fizzles somehow destroys the atmosphere more than if the rogue gets discovered while hiding. Still thinking about it.
2) It is more challenging for a DM to come up with a convincing, "realistically" feeling way to obstruct PC magic casting than with, say, stopping a barbarian's charge. Magic is more of a normal thing to the core rules than many with their respective fantasy experiences would give it credit. Magic has to be special - and if the BBEG uses a simple dispel magic to stop the rope trick, the PCs will think it is "DM fiat" or some such, and not a consistent use of magic like all weapons at the disposal of the NPCs, monsters etc.

- Giacomo

Morty
2007-11-04, 11:46 AM
/snip

For all of this, there's one response: for everything you come up to screw caster player over for choosing the "wrong" class to play, there's at least one way to make non-casters useless. Of course, what you listed aren't balancing factors, but rather ways to render caster useless if DM wants to.

Leon
2007-11-04, 11:54 AM
Ive not seen this Mythical "OMGPEWPEW" Wizard in any of the games ive played. The wizards ive played with be useful but never really broken, last High level game that i was in (ended at 18th lvl) with a Wiz17/Ari1, Ranger16 (i had a +2 LA), Fighter/Rog (cant rember what its lvls were) and a Paladin/Holy Liberator/Cleric combo (total of 18 Levels)

The wizard was almost always the center of attention, not for spell casting but for political reasons. when it came to combat he could handle himself well enough but it fell to Holy Warrior and Ranger to dish out the major pain.

Most potent magical act the Wiz performed was the capstone event of the campagin - Dysjunction on a Major Artifact, i'll say that Contingent Teleports are a good thing to have laid on you when the room goes BANG!!


Currently: im playing a Cleric and a Druid (10th & 5th respectivly), Cleric doesnt realy dominate that much - aside from the fact that there is 3 in the party, i was the secondary beater but have now moved up to 1st due to the death of the minotaur. being the highest in the party means i have more responsibilty to keep the lower levels up and running as i have the better spells to do so.

Druid: Non standard druid is a blast, im filling 3 roles in the part as one class - Caster, Scout and Secondary melee (Although i could be Primary Tank due to my High AC), all without the crutch of Wildshape, Spont Summons or a Pet, i dont do much healing - we've a water cleric for that, but i can still pick up what she cant handle and still toss out the hurt or Buff up or provide battle control.

Our Soulknife is the Melee DPS of the party, the Psion (even with a +2 LA) is a formiable mind (but not body) to cross.
Our Wilder Blows minds and cracks heads like nothing else (Kill Leader with Mindthrust and Morning Star).

The only one who is kinda lacking is the ranger and that is cos he is kinda outshone by his mount but once he gets a couple more levels under his belt he'll pick up into a good fire support role.

The Cleric is a Powerhouse of healing - Cure light wounds is a 11-18 guarenteed heal with assorted other abilities, he doesnt need to be a melee monster as he has the rest of us to do that (and keep up)

Kompera
2007-11-04, 12:19 PM
I meant no offense. It just seemed the thread had de-railed into "Should you make casters random roll for their spells" rather than "are casters actually balanced."I take no offense. I have a very thick skin. And I meant no offense to you, either. You're right, I should stop defending random rolls for spells and broaden it into "lower wizard's spell options through one of several means", of which several have been discussed:
Random rolls;
Eliminating offending spells;
Free selection from DM constructed lists;

If I've missed anyones suggestion along these same lines, I apologize. I did not include the suggestion of using drawbacks to magic use for the reasons I stated in my prior post.


By your own omission you have never played a single game with free choice granted. You have absolutely zero basis to judge whether or not that system works (it does.)I've got plenty of basis for this view, and I've described it previously in this thread. You've just chosen, again, to ignore anything which doesn't let you try to poke holes or winge about how things should be done, or run on about how the game is not unbalanced.
Even though I've not played with free spell choice, I have played in games where Wizards became very potent, game breaking potent, even with random spell rolls upon leveling.
Again, since you like repetition, random rolls for spells slows down wizards. It does not keep them from ever becoming unbalanced with regards to the rest of the party. They will still eventually rule the roost, this method simply tends to slow that inevitable outcome down a bit.

So without ever having played in a D&D game with free spell choice, I can say with confidence that it is broken, because even in games without free spell choice it is broken. See the logical basis there by which I judged whether or not that system works (it does not.)?

Ah, but let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Can you say with confidence that requiring a random roll (or otherwise limiting spell selection as stated above) will fail to help balance the game? Have you ever played in a game using such a system?

Since you have stated on more than one occasion, including your quote above, that the system is not broken, and I think that you've said you would not play a wizard if you had to roll for your spells, I would guess that you can not.

So clearly it is you who have no logical basis.

Kaelik
2007-11-04, 12:57 PM
You've just chosen, again, to ignore anything which doesn't let you try to poke holes or winge about how things should be done, or run on about how the game is not unbalanced.

Seriously, I don't really mind that you insult me, but every time you do so it gives the impression that you have nothing else to say. Which isn't true because of all the text below this. You should stop accusing other people of "whining" (I assume) and actually address their valid points. Fitting several backhanded insults into every post doesn't make your argument better.

Same statement applies to the repetition comments below.


Even though I've not played with free spell choice, I have played in games where Wizards became very potent, game breaking potent, even with random spell rolls upon leveling. Again, since you like repetition, random rolls for spells slows down wizards. It does not keep them from ever becoming unbalanced with regards to the rest of the party. They will still eventually rule the roost, this method simply tends to slow that inevitable outcome down a bit.

You have no evidence that free choice is worse then the rolling you have used because. Free choice allows the players to choose whatever they want, and any player who isn't an idiot doesn't want to overshadow the rest of the party.

If you have non-crappy players, then the system works fine because they make sure to not be unbalanced. Period. That's all. The system works fine.


So without ever having played in a D&D game with free spell choice, I can say with confidence that it is broken, because even in games without free spell choice it is broken. See the logical basis there by which I judged whether or not that system works (it does not.)?

You have a faulty premise. Rolling for spells does not "slow a Wizard down", it slows some Wizards down. It also make some Wizard much more powerful.



Can you say with confidence that requiring a random roll (or otherwise limiting spell selection as stated above) will fail to help balance the game? Have you ever played in a game using such a system?

Are you really suggesting that we should institute every single change that we can't say with confidence will fail to help balance? That completely ignores every criteria for changing something.
A)Does it need to be changed?
B)Will this make it more fun?
C)Are we sure it will work?

C is important because there are thousands of changes that might work. Just because we can't say for sure that it doesn't, isn't a reason to change something.

Also B is pretty damn important.

And please stop claiming that people who want free control of spell choices feel like they have to be Batman. Most people don't want to play Batman, but they want to choose who they want to be.

I personally would absolutely play in a game where Wizards did not gain spells on level up. I would never play one in which they are rolled randomly. This is because:
1) I want control of my character.
2) My Wizards would only know certain spells, I don't want other things in my Spell book.
3) When I play a Wizard it is not for the power, it is for the feeling. If I wanted to play an Arcane Caster who got powers out of nowhere/heritage/amazing ability I'd play a Sorcerer.

I play Wizards so that I can play a character who learns to conquer the universe through study. As such, without granted spells on level up, it forces the DM to do a better job of letting me roleplay my studying/learning of spells. I get a better chance to be who I wanted.

If it where rolled randomly, I would have to make up a cheep justification for why I have discovered spells totally unrelated to my fields of study.

horseboy
2007-11-04, 01:31 PM
Now. What the designers of the core game did was to introduce stuff to limit the powers of spellcasters. And funnily, those get ignored time and again on these boards. Here is a short summary of what I already found in the rules - plenty of stuff for a DM to balance casters if he or she feels they are too powerful/challenges get too easy. For instance, no need to resort to random spell picking here.It's not that they're ignored, it's that they are at best trite and arbitrary.

1) Most of the powerful spells need targets. If the caster cannot see the target, he cannot cast. And there are tons of ways in the game (even non-magical) to get concealment and/or cover.All attacks need targets. This is not something that's particularly just caster. Indeed, comparing a human fighter and a human caster the caster has a better chance of over coming the obstacle than the fighter. This curbs casters how?

2) The spellcaster needs components to cast. Verbal components? Grapple/pin, silence spells, magic items all do the trick. Somatic components? Grapple, entangling, manacles, etc. Material components? Sleight of hand, disarm, sunder.
This is not to say that casters cannot overcome these obstacles with some feats - but they are fairly restrictive and need to be taken first (hurting coveted feat choice like improved initiative or item creation)The problem here is that wizards are ranged damage dealers. To use an old adage: "If you can get to the wizard, you deserve to win."

3) Spellcasters need to refresh their spells. Some have even to use the same hour per day to get the spells back. Adventures should ALWAYS be set in such a way that rest is not assured- otherwise you give up suspense. Again, spellcasters have sometimes ways to get rest with magical protection (rope trick etc.). But then they have to prepare those instead of deadly combos. Plus, intelligent enemies may thwart their efforts. At all levels. And yes, that includes the MMM/'Private sanctum combo. Eh, there's only so many times you can give the group 24 hours to save the world. Hell look at the show 24. Those are professionals writers and they're running out of fresh ideas. Too many times and the players are going to be hound-dogging you about the cliech'e of it all. Personally, I really dislike clich'es.

4)There are only very few hour/lvl spells and even rarer longer-lasting spells. Intelligent opponents will make use of this and simply wait until the most powerful buffs are over. PCs, of course can use this tactics, too!Which requires NPC metagaming. You start throwing that around too much and you have no excuse when players return in kind.

5) Most spellcasters - except for sorcerer and bard who are considered weakest for a reason - are dependent on outside sources for their magic. A higher force for divine casters, the spellbook for the wizard. A fighter without his sword fights on. The wizard without a spellbook is nearly useless (giving a reason for a spell mastery feat and money for spare spellbooks, another balancing factor).A fighter without his preferred weapon is as useful as a wizard with his crossbow.


What might be the reason that these disadvantages of spellcasters are not in use often enough to prevent the majority of posters here actually believing that the core classes are severely unbalanced?

Probably it is for two reasons
1) Using the above disadvantages is felt as "nerfing" by many caster players. In my view they have a deep misunderstanding of a group game. No fighter or rogue player ever feels "nerfed" if he gets disarmed or that sneak does not work. Apparently, players choosing casters somehow get disappointed more easily if the stuff that their characters are supposed to do does not work all the time. Maybe it is because it is fantasy game and the moment a spell fizzles somehow destroys the atmosphere more than if the rogue gets discovered while hiding. Still thinking about it. If you are constantly sundering/disarming the fighter's weapon, then yes, he will complain just as much as the wizard where they encounter "every night" some guy with ranged sunder/disarm.

2) It is more challenging for a DM to come up with a convincing, "realistically" feeling way to obstruct PC magic casting than with, say, stopping a barbarian's charge. Magic is more of a normal thing to the core rules than many with their respective fantasy experiences would give it credit. Magic has to be special - and if the BBEG uses a simple dispel magic to stop the rope trick, the PCs will think it is "DM fiat" or some such, and not a consistent use of magic like all weapons at the disposal of the NPCs, monsters etc.

- GiacomoIt's not so much that the dispelling rope trick is "DM fiat" (Especially given that rope trick is only 1 hour/level, not really useful until 9th level) but if it's a constant "every night" thing. Once or twice a campaign you can get away with it, but too much more and it's blindingly obvious you're metagaming.

Kompera
2007-11-04, 02:07 PM
Seriously, I don't really mind that you insult me, but every time you do so it gives the impression that you have nothing else to say. Which isn't true because of all the text below this. You should stop accusing other people of "whining" (I assume) and actually address their valid points. Fitting several backhanded insults into every post doesn't make your argument better.Winge is a word. It is the word which I intended to use. I have not yet insulted you, even if you may be offended at some of the things I have had to say about your faulty logic and your propensity to ignore things which are inconvenient to you. You on the other hand have insulted me. So as I asked before, please knock off the hypocrisy.


You have no evidence that free choice is worse then the rolling you have used because. Free choice allows the players to choose whatever they want, and any player who isn't an idiot doesn't want to overshadow the rest of the party.

If you have non-crappy players, then the system works fine because they make sure to not be unbalanced. Period. That's all. The system works fine.We may actually be getting somewhere now. If I'm not mistaken, and I am not, you are now adding qualifiers to your previous position that the game is balanced.
So, now the game is balanced if:
Your players aren't idiots;
Your players are non-crappy;
They (the players) make sure to not be unbalanced.

(as an aside, for someone who is so sensitive on the subject of insults, you just threw around a bunch, even if not directed at any individual. Kinda sets the trend though.)

So let's explore. Is a game in which the players must make sure to not be unbalanced balanced? I say it is not balanced. You say it is balanced if the players decide to keep it balanced.

The logical conclusion here is: The game is not balanced. It can be played in a balanced way, but the rules system is not balanced in and of itself.

A system which relies on the good graces or good nature or sportsmanship or any avoidance of capabilities or possible combinations of abilities by the players to be played in a balanced fashion, is not balanced. There are many other formats for play than some hypothetical close group of old friends who are very aware of how broken the system is but who work hard to maintain their characters equality out of a sense of fair play. Conventions, tournaments, any introduction of a new player, all of these play formats and more should be inherently balanced and not merely able to be played in a balanced manner, but if and only if conditions X, Y, and Z are met.


You have a faulty premise. Rolling for spells does not "slow a Wizard down", it slows some Wizards down. It also make some Wizard much more powerful.What's that again? The rolling system you so object to might make a wizard even more powerful than the free selection method to which you cleave? Please explain how. Use small words, I'm not sure I'll be able to understand you otherwise.


Are you really suggesting that we should institute every single change that we can't say with confidence will fail to help balance?I've never said that. I have said that in the absence of any other option, shutting down one which works is a poor choice. But that's about as far down your hypothetical as I've ever gone. I've said that a lot of other posters ideas in this thread were good and valid. You and I have gone around and around only because you insist that rolling is horribly wrong and continually attack it while both offering up no other options and in fact while claiming that there is no need for other options because the game is balanced. A position which you've reversed yourself on now.

I believe our debate is over. You may have whatever last words you find necessary to make, the qualifiers you added above make your real position on balance (i.e that it is voluntary, not built in) quite clear.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-04, 02:27 PM
But the theme is entirely out of their hands.

Do you make non-spellcasters roll randomly to see whether their next level will be in Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Knight or Monk?

Giving Wizards randomized class abilities is the same thing.

Oh, absolutely. There will be no powergaming at my table.

Kaelik
2007-11-04, 03:09 PM
Winge is a word. It is the word which I intended to use.

That's nice, I don't know it, as evidenced by my assumption that you where using another word. If you really cared about me knowing what you are (ostensibly) saying to me, you would have told me what it means in your last post, unless of course what you meant is close enough to whining that it the differences, to you, are not worth pointing out.


I have had to say about your faulty logic and your propensity to ignore things which are inconvenient to you.

Why don't you try saying things like that to people and see if they are insulted. The answer is yes.


If I'm not mistaken, and I am not, you are now adding qualifiers to your previous position that the game is balanced.

You are mistaken because my point has always been that the system does not need changing, not that it is balanced. But that is a subtle point that undoubtedly I have made less clear across the assortment of posts in this thread.


What's that again? The rolling system you so object to might make a wizard even more powerful than the free selection method to which you cleave? Please explain how. Use small words, I'm not sure I'll be able to understand you otherwise.

I am leveling up. I would like to choose Major Image and Dark Way as my spells for this level with my Illusionist character. Well look at that, I rolled and got Glitterdust and Levitate. Now I must choose between ending most fights in the first round or making myself invulnerable. And if I play my character according to his high Int I can't even use them when the other one would be smarter.


I've never said that. I have said that in the absence of any other option, shutting down one which works is a poor choice.

And I have said that you must first determine what you mean by works, and whether or not you want that. You definition of "works" appears to be, "makes some casters weaker while making the game less fun." My definition would be "makes the game more fun for everyone, or at least has net increase in fun." So I support things that allow other players to keep up with spellcasters, but do so without depriving the spellcasters of the ability to play their own character.


while both offering up no other options and in fact while claiming that there is no need for other options because the game is balanced.

Actually, I presented several options:
1) Revamp the entire spell system to limit caster to 6th level spells.
2) Remove spells that hurt the game.
3) Remove spells granted on level up to Wizards.
4) Remove the Wizard class entirely.
5) Give free choice to spells, but police your players.
6) Change nothing.

Some of those I find better then others. Sometimes the order changes. All the time I find all six options better then yours.


I believe our debate is over. You may have whatever last words you find necessary to make, the qualifiers you added above make your real position on balance (i.e that it is voluntary, not built in) quite clear.

Excellent finish. A backhanded insult. But much better then the other ones. Insulting me for future actions that I take is really the epitome of style.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-04, 03:38 PM
Probably it is for two reasons
1) Using the above disadvantages is felt as "nerfing" by many caster players. In my view they have a deep misunderstanding of a group game. No fighter or rogue player ever feels "nerfed" if he gets disarmed or that sneak does not work. Apparently, players choosing casters somehow get disappointed more easily if the stuff that their characters are supposed to do does not work all the time. Maybe it is because it is fantasy game and the moment a spell fizzles somehow destroys the atmosphere more than if the rogue gets discovered while hiding. Still thinking about it.

Actually, I Knight had his sword and shield sundered by a Frost Giant: his did feel nerfed.


2) It is more challenging for a DM to come up with a convincing, "realistically" feeling way to obstruct PC magic casting than with, say, stopping a barbarian's charge. Magic is more of a normal thing to the core rules than many with their respective fantasy experiences would give it credit. Magic has to be special - and if the BBEG uses a simple dispel magic to stop the rope trick, the PCs will think it is "DM fiat" or some such, and not a consistent use of magic like all weapons at the disposal of the NPCs, monsters etc.

- Giacomo

It would be DM fiat unless the BBEG someghow knows the exact spot. Plus, he loses line of effect/sight when rope is pulled in. Meaning he needs Transdimensional metamagic added to Dispel Magic which is uncommon.

Temp
2007-11-04, 03:40 PM
Komepera, listen to your argument:

-1-I've only played with randomly rolled spells on the Wizard's spell list. (post 144)
-2-Even with that rule, I've seen casters become overpowered. (post 144)
-3-Because this system has occassionally worked for my group, spell lists should be rolled randomly. (post 144)
-4-Merely restricting the spells available will not work because the DM has to actually restrict the spells available. (post 147)

Do you not see the flaw here?


The logical conclusion here is: The game is not balanced. It can be played in a balanced way, but the rules system is not balanced in and of itself.
Correct. The DM also does have the power to make sure the game is played in an approximately balanced way by simply dropping the cheesy spells and by communicating with the players.

-----------------
As a side note, Batman Wizard =/= Nova/Narcolepsy Wizard.

MeklorIlavator
2007-11-04, 04:47 PM
Winge is a word. It is the word which I intended to use. I have not yet insulted you, even if you may be offended at some of the things I have had to say about your faulty logic and your propensity to ignore things which are inconvenient to you. You on the other hand have insulted me. So as I asked before, please knock off the hypocrisy.

Can you define it? Because its not on dictionary.com or in the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, so I have to wonder about it.

Temp
2007-11-04, 05:58 PM
Can you define it? Because its not on dictionary.com or in the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, so I have to wonder about it.

It means "to whine" with fairly equivalent connotations. It's not an uncommon phrase in the Northwestern U.S.

Kompera
2007-11-04, 08:01 PM
Komepera, listen to your argument:

-1-I've only played with randomly rolled spells on the Wizard's spell list. (post 144)
-2-Even with that rule, I've seen casters become overpowered. (post 144)
-3-Because this system has occassionally worked for my group, spell lists should be rolled randomly. (post 144)
-4-Merely restricting the spells available will not work because the DM has to actually restrict the spells available. (post 147)

Do you not see the flaw here?The flaw may be in my ability to follow your chain of events. 1 & 2 I've definitely said. The part of 3 before the comma I've said, with the exception that I'd replace "occasionally"(forgive my spelling correction) with "always". The part of 3 after the comma is a description of how groups I play in do things and a suggestion for a fix, the word "should" is out of place.

4 I don't follow at all. I re-read my post, and I did not say anything which approximates your point 4. Thanks for the post numbers, by the way. They made the search very much easier in a 6 page thread. I have said several times that there were other suggestions made for limiting wizard unbalance which were very good and valid. I even said that I planned to adopt one of them the next time I ran a game. That suggestion involved the DM creating a custom set of spells from which the wizard could select upon leveling up, rather than a random roll.


Correct [referring to "The game is not balanced. It can be played in a balanced way, but the rules system is not balanced in and of itself."]. The DM also does have the power to make sure the game is played in an approximately balanced way by simply dropping the cheesy spells and by communicating with the players.That's a fine solution, as I have allowed several times within this thread. I'm not irrevocably married to the random roll. I've said as much by accepting Arbitrarity's method as being superior. I am irrevocably married to the idea that balance must be imposed from without, as it does not exist within they system as it stands.


As a side note, Batman Wizard =/= Nova/Narcolepsy Wizard.I'm not familiar with that notation. I believe you use it to mean not equal to, which I am familiar with being represented as !=. But both Batman and Nova/Narcolepsy Wizard are unbalanced, so I'm not sure I can appreciate the difference, in this context. Both are examples of the need to attempt to impose balance.

MeklorIlavator
2007-11-04, 08:31 PM
Unless you really cheese it out too the the max, blaster wizards are hardly unbalanced. In fact, they're weaker than normal melee in most instances, so its not bad.

Kompera
2007-11-04, 08:32 PM
Why don't you try saying things like that to people and see if they are insulted. The answer is yes.I'm saying them to you in a more...direct...way than I would to someone else, because you've repeatedly presented faulty logic and incorrect statements and mistaken assumptions and now you've even finally admitted that you've failed to make yourself clear.

But that is a subtle point that undoubtedly I have made less clear across the assortment of posts in this thread.Yeah, it's not my fault if you fail to make yourself clear. And it's not an insult to point out that you're not being clear.

It is not an insult to inform you that you're wrong, either. If your math teacher corrects your faulty calculations, are you insulted? If you're having a conversation with a friend and you say "That last D&D game we played on Wednesday was excellent!", and he replies "That was actually Tuesday", do you feel like you've been insulted? I sure hope not.


A backhanded insult. But much better then the other ones. Insulting me for future actions that I take is really the epitome of style.Again, not an insult. And again, you're a hypocrite. That's not an insult either, it's a statement which is verifiable by your own actions. Since you have posted direct insults, you have no moral high horse to mount here.

It's not my fault if you have a thin skin and can't accept when you debunk your own position with your own words. It's not insulting to point that out to you. It's factual.

Kaelik
2007-11-04, 08:44 PM
I'm saying them to you in a more...direct...way than I would to someone else, because you've repeatedly presented faulty logic and incorrect statements and mistaken assumptions and now you've even finally admitted that you've failed to make yourself clear.
Yeah, it's not my fault if you fail to make yourself clear. And it's not an insult to point out that you're not being clear.

It is not an insult to inform you that you're wrong, either. If your math teacher corrects your faulty calculations, are you insulted? If you're having a conversation with a friend and you say "That last D&D game we played on Wednesday was excellent!", and he replies "That was actually Tuesday", do you feel like you've been insulted? I sure hope not.

Again, not an insult. And again, you're a hypocrite. That's not an insult either, it's a statement which is verifiable by your own actions. Since you have posted direct insults, you have no moral high horse to mount here.

It's not my fault if you have a thin skin and can't accept when you debunk your own position with your own words. It's not insulting to point that out to you. It's factual.

I really can't address most of your post since you seem to be living in an entirely separate universe from me. That said however:


Yeah, it's not my fault if you fail to make yourself clear.

I did not say it was, however I made myself perfectly clear in my first post, it was only later, dealing with your position that I made comments which, when viewed other then in the context of my original position, imply that.

And as a general rebuttal to most everything else you've said. You are exceedingly confused if you think that anything we have talked about is objective or concrete enough for you to claim that anyones logic is faulty, or that anyone is incorrect.

Abstract subjective discussions lead to disagreements. Period. One person is not right in those disagreements. I have no idea why you think yourself qualified to judge such issues in such absolute terms.

Temp
2007-11-04, 09:21 PM
Thanks for the post numbers, by the way. They made the search very much easier in a 6 page thread.Quoting section by section tends to give a more hostile impression than I intended. Hostility is generally counter-productive to an argument.

I can use the direct quotes if it makes things significantly easier, though:


Even though I've not played with free spell choice, I have played in games where Wizards became very potent, game breaking potent, even with random spell rolls upon leveling.

-1-I've only played with randomly rolled spells on the Wizard's spell list. (post 144)
-2-Even with that rule, I've seen casters become overpowered. (post 144)
-3-Because this system has occassionally worked for my group, spell lists should be rolled randomly. (post 144)

The part of 3 before the comma I've said, with the exception that I'd replace "occasionally"(forgive my spelling correction) with "always".
...

...the word "should" is out of place.

I'm not sure I understand this. So, it's broken, but there's no need to try to fix it? Or, it's broken, but if it gets fixed the players of the most broken class will lose interest in their character?
The fact that you disregarded the thought that simply banning the cheese would be a reasonable fix--because it isn't your group's solution--strongly indicates a "should." As does the aggression you've displayed each time it's been stated that merely removing the trouble-causing spells would be a superior fix--rather than an equivalent solution--to allowing them to appear arbitrarily.

And perhaps it's because you've only played this sort of game--I don't know--but you don't seem to realize that many (from my experience, most) players enjoy building characters to do something particularly: Some might want to play blasters, some might want to play support buffers, some might want to play battlefield controllers, some might want to try to be the Batman; it doesn't matter. That's why feats like Augment Summoning and Spell Focus exist. It's why classes like the True Necromancer and Unseen Seer exist. These players don't necessarily want the most broken characters possible, but they do want to play their own character that they built. Randomization would drastically detract from the fun of the game for all of them. That's why it keeps being repeated that your randomized-spell solution would be inferior to simple spell removal in most groups.

-4-Merely restricting the spells available will not work because the DM has to actually restrict the spells available. (post 147)

4 I don't follow at all. I re-read my post, and I did not say anything which approximates your point 4.

A system which relies on the good graces or good nature or sportsmanship or any avoidance of capabilities or possible combinations of abilities by the players to be played in a balanced fashion, is not balanced. There are many other formats for play than some hypothetical close group of old friends who are very aware of how broken the system is but who work hard to maintain their characters equality out of a sense of fair play.
You seem to be implying (with the term "hypothetical" and the specification that only a "close group of old friends" could create game balance) that it's much more difficult for a DM to restrict the spells available than it is for him to just write a list of problem spells and classes and to say "Don't use these."

You've also shown the belief that only players who wanted to break the game wound have any desire to choose their own spell lists, which is simply untrue.

I'm not familiar with that notation. I believe you use it to mean not equal to, which I am familiar with being represented as !=.
Potato/Potato. One method (=/=) tries to emulate the standard "equals sign with a diagonal line struck through it" notation for inequality, one (!=) gives it up as futile.

But both Batman and Nova/Narcolepsy Wizard are unbalanced, so I'm not sure I can appreciate the difference, in this context. Both are examples of the need to attempt to impose balance.I was pointing out a misuse of the term "Batman Wizard," which has been happening more frequently lately. Improper terminology does nothing to help internet communication, which apparently is difficult enough already.

levi
2007-11-04, 09:26 PM
Everytime caster balance comes up in a discussion, I think of a quote that I feel has the real aswer:


Casters aren't broken. Spells are broken.

This is a very true statement. While most other classes have many inbuilt abilities that effect balance, full casters do not. A caster's power, especially wizards, depends entirely on the spells on it's spell list. Even if the entire magic system is compleatly borked such that casters inevitably rule (I'm not saying it is, just hypothosising), I belive it could be fixed without changing the caster classes at all.

Spell selection makes a mage what it is. To be batman or a nova blaster type, there are specific spells required to do so. The wizard class isn't broken. In fact, it's proablly the easiest class to build poorly. In my early DnD days (3.0 had just come out), I played a rouge/wizard. I really liked the idea, but my spell selection was poor. I still had fun, but I almost always do.

Perhaps I'd played too much Final Fantasy, but I took more blaster type spells than a sneaky mage should really have. I've also run straight-class casters and had the same issue. Some spells are not that good. Some are great. Both really need to be addressed.

However, it's also possible to build a "cheesy" wizard by accident the same way. For instance, some newbie decides to play a caster and decides that "Nova" sounds pretty cool. Perhaps he doesn't even know the system well enough to know that it's unbalanced. It definetly sounds cool, "nova", as in "supernova" a.k.a. an exploding star? That's Cool. (Honestly I don't even know what book Nova is in or what it does, but it seems to be belived problematic by many posters in this thread.)

Or take baleful polymorph as another example. I really like the spell. While I appreciate it's high power and show stopping potential, that's not the real reason I like it. I like it (a lot), becaus it's an archtypal wizard ability: Turning people into frogs! Great stuff.

But if a caster player takes these two and a handful of other "broken" spells, they will build a "cheesy" character, even when not intending to. I'm not saying that all powergamed wizards are made this way. In fact, I'm sure many of them, especially the worst abusers, aren't; but it can, and does happen.

The problem is with the spells. And not to abuse a dead equine, but randomization wouldn't solve the issue. For instance, if I roll balefull polymorph as one of my random spells, I'll proably use it, unless my character is so specific that s/he wouldn't. In that case, I'm out a spell.

The key to balancing casters is DM control. Of course, that can be said of all balancing issues, but in casters there is a special case. While adjusting the balance of other classes can involve tricky homebrew, tweaking full casters is easy. If nova is a problem, ban it. Problem solved.

The DM controls what's allowed in the game. There are some general baselines, like most people allow all of core (except perhaps a few pet peeves), but beyond that, it's up to the DM. Some allow core only, some allow core + compleat, some have a list of books allowed, other allow anything they have the book for, some allow anything the player can provide access to the book for, some (like me) do things on a case by case basis, other allow anything wizards has published, some go so far as to allow practically any d20 material out there.

Perhaps that long datribe about how DMs control the content of the game is getting away from the point, but I included it for a reason. The DM runs the game, the DM decides the rules, the DM can include or exclude anything. That's rule zero. Balancing casters is simply a matter of applying rule zero to the spell lists. It's that simple.

Ok, now on the the original point of this thread. The only time I've seem balance become a real issue in actual gameplay is when I ran poor builds and my more experianced buddies didn't. This isn't to say that they where running freaks of nature off the CO boards or anything. Mostly just that I didn't know the system that well. However, it wasn't really an issue, because I game to have fun and I don't let the system determin whether I enjoy myself.

I don't doubt that there are real imbalences in the system. Any system as complex as DnD will have balance issues, but I've never really seen them become a problem in an actual game.

Except for one thing, Level Adjustments. They don't work. They overpenalize, mostly in the HP department and at higher plusses render a character useless. Sure, you may have super abilities of one sort or another, but if you die in one hit from anything supposedly balanced to challenge you, what good do they do you?

Neon Knight
2007-11-04, 09:33 PM
However, it's also possible to build a "cheesy" wizard by accident the same way. For instance, some newbie decides to play a caster and decides that "Nova" sounds pretty cool. Perhaps he doesn't even know the system well enough to know that it's unbalanced. It definetly sounds cool, "nova", as in "supernova" a.k.a. an exploding star? That's Cool. (Honestly I don't even know what book Nova is in or what it does, but it seems to be belived problematic by many posters in this thread.)


Nova is not a spell. Nova as used here seems to refer to the play style of unloading all of your magical firepower in a short time period, usually a single encounter, utterly decimating it, and then waiting a day to regain that power in full. This is in contrast to the expected style of using one's spells sparingly and strategically, attempting to make them last over multiple encounters.

Nova isn't that much of a problem, really. Save or Die and battlefield control spells that negate encounters with one spell slot used up are much more problematic in my opinion.

Temp
2007-11-04, 09:34 PM
(Honestly I don't even know what book Nova is in or what it does, but it seems to be belived problematic by many posters in this thread.)
"Nova" isn't actually a spell; it's a play-style of burning through all of a character's most powerful resources in a very short time.

When Wizards/Other Vancian spellcasters do this, they usually disrupt game momentum with infamous 1 hour workdays followed by 23 hours resting to restore spells.

Your points are generally accepted. It's the details of them that are discussed so often.

[edit:]Bah. Ninja-ed.

Kompera
2007-11-05, 02:30 AM
The fact that you disregarded the thought that simply banning the cheese would be a reasonable fix--because it isn't your group's solution--strongly indicates a "should." As does the aggression you've displayed each time it's been stated that merely removing the trouble-causing spells would be a superior--rather than equivalent, which it is not--fix to allowing them to appear arbitrarily.Yeah, here's where you lose me. I've never been hostile to a solution which used merely removing trouble causing spells. I've been hostile to not fixing things at all simply because the proposed fix ran against some peoples concepts of how a wizard should get their spells. Or because some people have insisted that the system is balanced and had no need to be fixed. The quote you used of mine was, as taken in context, an expression of bewilderment that someone could either: Agree that it was broken but take no steps towards a fix, or agree that it was broken but not take a step which does work to help correct the problem, regardless of the desires of the players and in the absence of any other suggestion for a fix.

Here is but one example of where I've expressed solutions presented in this thread which I think would do well towards starting or trying to balance wizards against the other classes:
"lower wizard's spell options through one of several means", of which several have been discussed:
Random rolls;
Eliminating offending spells;
Free selection from DM constructed lists;

In other posts I hadn't specifically enumerated these solutions, but I did praise others for suggesting the second and third options and agreed that they would be fine attempts to solve the core issue.


Quoting section by section tends to give a more hostile impression than I intended. I don't take it that way, and I was sincere and not at all sarcastic when I thanked you for providing the post numbers. On other message boards I don't tend to quote as much, but on this one with it's quite incredible posting volume I've found that I could very easily end up 4+ posts down from the post I was responding to, and so I started quoting much more often in order to try to maintain the flow of the conversation, since a reader's natural inclination would be to read my response as being to the post immediately above mine, rather than the post to which I had intended to reply.

Jack Mann
2007-11-05, 02:55 AM
Randomized spell lists would just mean that only lucky wizards would dominate the game. It would make it happen less often, but it would still happen. And it removes some of the choice that makes the game fun. Since it doesn't really fix the problem, and makes the game less fun even for those who aren't munchkins, it is a bad solution.

Kompera
2007-11-05, 05:03 AM
The randomization is only for the spells earned on level up. The wizards are still free to seek out NPCs to buy spells from, the GM will hand out scrolls and spell books as rewards, etc. The purpose is to slow down the path to the unbalancing of the game. It does not stop it, but it does a good job of preventing it from happening at the same pace as it could in a RAW game. The random chance of the wizard getting exactly the two most broken spells at any given level is vanishingly small.

I've seen some wizards in the games I've run in kvetch a bit about not having a terribly potent 2nd level spell when they hit 3rd level (or whatever, that example happened in our last play session), and that initiates some role play to try to track down more spells (unsuccessful in this case, but next time we hit a town or other settlement that will be other chances given), but there's never been any protest against the roll system. So for some, at least, it's not much of an impediment to fun. I could argue that it actually adds to fun, as it promotes role play and both short and long term character goals to pursue. But that is relative to my own gaming group and their attitudes towards the game, and may not convey to all groups or individuals.

Edit:
Has there been any FAQ or other clarification of this part of the Wizard class in the SRD?

At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.Because wile the SRD text is clear that the spells the wizard starts the game with at 1st level are of free choice, the text above does not make any statements about how the wizard gains their new spells upon leveling, just how many they get. It may be this ambiguity which originally led to the way things are done in my gaming circles, but that's lost in antiquity and I can't say for certain one way or the other.

Kaelik
2007-11-05, 05:07 AM
The randomization is only for the spells earned on level up. The wizards are still free to seek out NPCs to buy spells from, the GM will hand out scrolls and spell books as rewards, etc. The purpose is to slow down the path to the unbalancing of the game. It does not stop it, but it does a good job of preventing it from happening at the same pace as it could in a RAW game. The random chance of the wizard getting exactly the two most broken spells at any given level is vanishingly small.

I've seen some wizards in the games I've run in kvetch a bit about not having a terribly potent 2nd level spell when they hit 3rd level (or whatever, that example happened in our last play session), and that initiates some role play to try to track down more spells (unsuccessful in this case, but next time we hit a town or other settlement that will be other chances given), but there's never been any protest against the roll system. So for some, at least, it's not much of an impediment to fun. I could argue that it actually adds to fun, as it promotes role play and both short and long term character goals to pursue. But that is relative to my own gaming group and their attitudes towards the game, and may not convey to all groups or individuals.

But your entire post could be addressing my solution, granting 0 spells on level up, and it would be equally or more true. The only difference would be players being more in control of what goes on their character sheet.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-05, 05:26 AM
Two personal expeciences I had:

Once I made an evoker wizard, that, according to the forum, is "suboptimal" and "weak". He dominated the whole campaign with his fireballs and lightning bolts. And I was not trying to optmize, just trying to get though, getting wands of fireball and bracers of defense.
Then he become a blood magus. Since blood magus doesn't give full progression to casting, he is considered a bad PrC. Still, with 1 spellcasting level behind for the ability to auto-stabilize and scribble scrolls on my skin, I was still the group's glass cannon, with enough power to protect myself (since he become a blood magus he didn't forget his protection spells).
His prime was when we invaded a castle. We fought several monsters (he still had charges on his wand). In the last chamber, the druid used a spell to build a bridge to the treasure. We walked our way there avoiding all the traps. When we grabbed the treasure (a large gem), my wizard used a staff with a teleport spell in it (it was 3.0, so my wizard could still use it) and we zapped back to the city before more monsters could show up. Our DM was furious.
Funny note: The guy that played the druid used to play "heal-bot", and never optmized his druid in the way people here does. He never replaced the fighters in battle or all that jazz. Yet, he was powerful like heck whenever he tried to put some effort in it.
So, an "un-optmized" wizard stole the spot light several times. And don't get me started on what I did in the pirate ship.

The second was recently, after reading the topics here about how to be an "effective" caster. I played a beguiler. First combat, a bunch of goblins atop some tress, shoting us with arrows. I used sleep on them, and made half of them sleep and fall from the trees. The DM said that the battle was designed to last 3 times as long as it lasted.
Later he used dazle to keep the last goblin from fleeing, while the group's ranger killed it with an arrow(and the ranger was the only non-caster in the group that actually contributed).

So, two examples on how a caster (or two, in the first example) can disrupt a game.