What was originally thought to be the function of each class?

[Particle_Man]

The 3.0 phb came out and pretty soon players did stuff with the classes that the designers had not planned on. Eventually we got the linear fighter quadratic mage and the tier system and CoDzilla and Batmanwizard and the Tippyverse.

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?

For bonus points: If one were designing classes with those intended original class functions in mind, how would one do it, knowing what we know now?

[Quentinas]

Maybe (and I repeat maybe) some hints of this can be seen in Enemies & Allies with the typical NPC build (Jozan, Lidda , Mialee, Tordek and so on) I know that it's not the best because there aren't each level only 5 10 and 15 but as far as I know they were used to playtest?

[Saradominist]

Maybe I'm not seeing this with the depth you'd like, but...

The four base classes are as you'd expect:
-Rogue: Stealthy skill-based character that is only good in combat when with allies
-Fighter: Front-line warrior, meant to steadily fight toe-to-to with an enemy and wittle them down (probably 10-30 damage per successful attack even at higher levels, instead of ubercharger types)
-Wizard: Primarily a blaster (with all the focus they put on Evocation), launching spells that deal far more damage than the fighter's average swing (in their imagination), and with only a few useful support spells
-Cleric: Healing and buffing the rest of the group, while potentially a back-up meleer because of armor and hp

As for a few others:
-Paladin: Kind of a "tank", with Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, etc; less martially useful than the fighter but with special powers vs evil
-Monk: A more defensive kind of combatant, with AC and mobility; despite Unarmed Damage progression, not meant to deal as much as fighter
-Bard: The quintessential support character

[Aracor]

I mostly agree with Saradominist - bard class is intended to make everyone else a little better between Inspire Courage, Competence, etc. Plus have a few spells (though decent ones) and they're expected to be able to fight in melee - not necessarily win, but maybe hold their own long enough for someone more damage-oriented to help them.

Barbarian is intended to be a more offensive variant of the fighter.
Druid is supposed to be a different flavor of healer. Slightly worse at healing, but getting a "pocket fighter" as recompense.
Ranger is intended to be a jack of all trades that can compare to a fighter against their favored enemies, but less useful in combat against anyone else. In exchange, they're supposed to get a weak pocket fighter, a bit of magic, and decent skills.
Sorcerer is supposed be basically the same as a wizard.

[Kurald Galain]

This recent discussion (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637525-Origin-amp-Evolution-of-Player-Classes) may be relevant here, too.

[Fizban]

There are only a few edge cases that aren't readily apparent, the bigger question being how much of the discernable backboard features were super intended and what the expected roles are. The expected roles may have been something more like fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, but some things aren't apparent without a trigger. Grapple monsters are oh so scary, except the standard party has a sneak attacker, and a monster in a grapple can be sneak attacked with impunity (also you might never encounter them). The Druid is totally just as as good at Clericing as a Cleric, until you actually look at all the things they have delayed past when they were needed based on enemy abilities (which you may never encounter). You need a bajillion skills to do anything, except actually the only skills the game requires are search/disable to deal with auto-kill traps (which you might never encounter). And so on. And since you're stating 3.0, there are the 3.0 to 3.5 changes to consider, including more non-obvious things like the entire "Animal Companion system" and "Animate Dead." Those changes are some of the best evidence for what things were supposed to be, since there apparently needed a change.

Rogue is obvious, but what about the other "skilled" classes? The only required skills are search/disable, but getting skills must come at a cost to other things, so what's the point of the classes that trade combat for skill without getting those two skills? That's the Ranger and Monk (and Bard). The Ranger was already obviously a nature-ish mirror of the Paladin's mechanics, and its update added bonus feats. This suggests it should be a "combat" character, but "combat" actually means "meatshield," and the Ranger is not actually good at this. Similarly the Monk is about the closest of combat, but fails due to the basics of the AC system.

Bard is specifically designed to not actually fill a role as a "jack of all trades." It doesn't have the Rogue-only skills, which means it can't substitute for the Rogue. It can barely heal and can't blast so its partial casting doesn't infringe on either of the two main casters, it has no hit points or armor or BAB to compete with the "combat" character. It has a buff ability which is not actually accounted for in any math and just kinda hopes it works. Its update made it clear that they should be allowed to wear light armor, but they gutted a bunch of the "dabbler" spells and focused it on enchantment and illusion, making them less jack of all trades and more. . . their own flanderized "Bard" concept.

And that's it. Sorcerer, Druid, Paladin, Barbarian are obvious swap-ins to the standard party. The original expected function of Ranger and Monk were "combat," because even a no-feature Warrior is capable of combat, and the Bard is deliberately "whatever use you find for it."

If I were designing the classes? This is essentially a call for everyone who's made a fix list to present their fixes. In short form rather than just posting the whole list:

Monk needs a scaling AC bonus to match armor so the dodgy unarmed combatant actually dodges.
Ranger is low-armor higher skills with situational damage: give it Trapfinding to fit the role it actually occupies (and actually have more than one core class for the role!).
Abolish the Bard. "Buffing" is not compatible with a game where you're expected to be able to use stock monsters and modules, and that's the only unique thing the Bard has. Replace it with a new core mage with 6th or 7th level which has broader spell access (while still avoiding the theft of spells that are big deals for the two main roles, for the "jack of all trades."
Make the Druid a spellcaster. As in, it doesn't have a giant pile of extra zomg Druid features. It's defined by its spell list, which is expanded just a smidge so it can actually fill the "Cleric" role, but remains strictly a bit worse in exchange for the added Druid stuff. Wild Shape (long-term shapeshifting into "natural" forms) comes from a prestige class, and Animal Companions should either be a feat or a PrC or a spell (any is fine as long as the game gets consistent about it), but not a major feature on a full spellcaster since full spellcasting is the major feature.
I would actually consider nerfing the Rogue's skill points. The massive gap leads to a expectations of way more skills than anyone is really supposed to have, let alone need. Knocking them down to 6 would be just fine.


But of course, you must remember that my fixes are deliberately minimalist, because I already liked the game. I don't need a giant redesign because that's not 3.5, that's a separate game that's pretending it can still use a bunch of the same stuff.


This recent discussion (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637525-Origin-amp-Evolution-of-Player-Classes) may be relevant here, too.
Reading that thread, I find it hilarious people dogpiling on 3.x for making sneak attack not work on things, when the AD&D version required *humanoid* construction, which is far more limiting than "discernable anatomy." Naturally I would make no changes to 3.x sneak attack because I'm already fine with it (or if you prefer, 3.x is already my baseline). Problems of Rogues getting too many attacks are problems with access to too many attacks/ease of sneak attack, while the fact that SA dice don't apply to everything is a feature, not a bug. 3.x actually has more points of simulation than the other editions: sudden surprise, hiding and spotting skills that actually work, flanking (and the allowance of Sudden Strike which doesn't work with flanking), various other ways to deny Dex.

[Maat Mons]

I have a suspicion that the designers expected the game to be very damage-focused. So they would have been considering classes largely in terms of their ability to deal damage, heal damage, and withstand damage.

I'm also pretty sure some of the classes were included not because the game needed them, but rather because the authors were infatuated by specific fictional characters. "We need special classes for Conan, Tumnus, Radagast, Aragorn, and Tarjun. They're too special to be represented as specific options on a generalized chasis."

Actually, I'm not sure if Tarjun is the most famous Wizard in the writings of Jack Vance. I've never read any of his books. Also, I feel like the Paladin class was probably created as an homage to someone specific, but I'm not sure who.

Thematically, rather than mechanically, it looks to me like they wanted to establish "nature," "holy," "arcane," and "martial" as different sets of classes. Actually, I have an as-of-yet-unfinished suite of 12 homebrew classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?617018-Class-Suite) based on those 4 themes and 3 different spots on the "tough to squishy" spectrum.

[Harrow]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer. Poor regular AC, but good touch AC, all good saves, evasion, still mind, and spell resistance. Speed bonus, so he can move behind enemy lines. Gets an extra attack, but takes a penalty to attacks at low levels. By the time this penalty disappears, their medium base attack bonus progression has hit them hard enough to make up for it. This means they're great at dealing a lot of damage against targets with low armor.

There are two problems with making a class that's a dedicated Wizard-killer. First; they are Wizards. They have too many options to be able to shut down all possible Wizards. If they aren't flying, they're invisible. If they haven't buffed themselves to the gills, they've summoned bigger, meaner friends. I'm not saying rules couldn't theoretically be made for a class that could do it, but "high saves and touch AC" just ain't gonna cut it.

Second; open up the Monster Manual. How many creatures in there are just Wizards? Oh, sure, there are a few creatures that are also Wizards. Dragons, for example, get arcane spellcasting. But, they get that on top of being big, with tough scales and pointy teeth. The vast majority of campaigns do not have you coming across enough arcane spellcasters for "Wizard-killer" to be a viable base class.

[Darg]

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?

Barbarian: a charge in and take names character with some skill flavor. Uncanny Dodge makes them ideal for providing flanking bonuses
Bard: a party buffer, face, performer, support caster, knowledge junky. Has a lot of options in what ever way one wants to build them
Cleric: divine caster with a frontline kit.
Druid: divine caster with an animal companion and utility from wild shape
Fighter: meant to stand against what is in front of them toe to toe. Tower shield proficiency provides tactical protective options while bonus feats allow them to adopt different fighting styles.
Monk: capable of disabling targets, fast movement around the battlefield, resistant against being shut down with 3 good saves, deals excellent damage in a grapple.
Paladin: frontline kit, resistance to being inconvenienced thanks to divine grace and immunities, can spoil ambushes with at will detect evil, and LoH is excellent for stopping bleeding.
Ranger: gets 3 bonus feats at level 1, good skill selection, and some really niche favored enemy bonuses
Rogue: skill monkey, trapfinding, and sneak attack.


For bonus points: If one were designing classes with those intended original class functions in mind, how would one do it, knowing what we know now?

Barbarian: Rage uses increased by wisdom/charisma bonus.
Fighter: 4 skill points per level, free weapon focus or specialization every odd level beyond 1st.
Monk: AC bonus gives a +1 at level 1 to +5 at level 20, Flurry usable as part of a standard attack, Abundent step becomes at will, UAS is treated as one handed weapon or two handed if both hands are free for the purpose of special attacks (like disarm), BAB = Class level for special attacks (like grapple), never provokes when making special attacks.
Paladin: bard casting progression/caster levels, 4 skill points per level
ranger: bard casting progression/caster levels, capable of TWF in medium armor, free action sheathing of ranged weapons, 6 skill points per level

[rel]

I feel like most of the classes were ported from second edition without a lot of thought. And most of those 2e classes were themselves ported. And so on and so on, all the way back to those first role plays in the 70's.

As such, the original function of all the classes was probably

'provide the existing fans with a familiar version of their favorite character so they don't run off to play VtM'

[Kurald Galain]

Also, I feel like the Paladin class was probably created as an homage to someone specific, but I'm not sure who.
Sir Galahad, of Arthurian myth. He specifically has "the strength of ten, because [his] heart is pure."

[Kurald Galain]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer.
I don't buy that, because (as you say), very few creatures in the MM are just Wizards. Instead, the monk is pretty obviously inspired by certain wuxia movies, and has such a hodgepodge of class features because it is based on numerous unrelated movies.

For instance, quivering palm is from Fist of the North Star, but most monk abilities are from different sources.


Reading that thread, I find it hilarious people dogpiling on 3.x for making sneak attack not work on things, when the AD&D version required *humanoid* construction, which is far more limiting than "discernable anatomy."

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance). Surely this principle is based on forum complaints about 3E. It's unlikelt that the majority of 3E players feel that way, but I guess some of them were very vocal about it back when WOTC had forums.

[hamishspence]

Sir Galahad, of Arthurian myth. He specifically has "the strength of ten, because [his] heart is pure."

I think it also owes a good deal to the protagonist of 3 Hearts and 3 Lions.




It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance).

4e Red dragons don't have fire immunity, but lots of fire resistance instead. I think MM3 Volcano Dragons might have fire immunity though - I'd have to check. Same with "purely fire" elementals having fire immunity - it was, from memory, the hybrid fire/Something Else 4e elementals that only had resistance, and not always much of that.

[Khedrac]

I don't buy that, because (as you say), very few creatures in the MM are just Wizards. Instead, the monk is pretty obviously inspired by certain wuxia movies, and has such a hodgepodge of class features because it is based on numerous unrelated movies.

For instance, quivering palm is from Fist of the North Star, but most monk abilities are from different sources.

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance). Surely this principle is based on forum complaints about 3E. It's unlikelt that the majority of 3E players feel that way, but I guess some of them were very vocal about it back when WOTC had forums.
I'd say that all of your above looks true except for the example!

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!

[Kurald Galain]

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!

That's interesting, I didn't know quivering was in 1E. I suppose there is probably a monk film (or manga) that is the inspiration for both FOTNS and Quivering?

[Malphegor]

I have no quotes or any direct evidence really, but I suspect the Monk class was made to be a Wizard-killer.

This would fit with a couple of the ACFs for a monk being based around fighting arcane casters, namely one boosts to saves vs savrs and one replaces evasion with spell reflection which is pretty badass for those Yoda Vs Palpatine style ‘oho you think you are the master of magic but in truth it is I’ wuxia feeling madness fights.


Something in this line of logic must have then inspired the Arcanopath Monk prestige class from Dragon Compendium Vol 1 of 1 which was intentionally designed to fight spellcasters with the capstone of ‘slap your memorised spells out of your fool head’ but I dunno if that was because there already was a design plan somewhere for monks to be anti-wizards or just coincidental

[Saint-Just]

That's interesting, I didn't know quivering was in 1E. I suppose there is probably a monk film (or manga) that is the inspiration for both FOTNS and Quivering?

It is an old martial arts myth. I think the most widespread name in the West is Cantonese "dim mak" but there are many others. It can denote any sort of "death attack" where you somehow kill the opponent with an extremely precise strike regardless of its' strength (one possible explanation is interrupting the flow of qi) but even the delayed version existed for quite a while - you can find conspiracy theories that Bruce Lee was killed (in 1973) by the delayed "hand of death".

Most likely nobody invented the idea as such, it just "grew up" like other myths about martial arts.

[noob]

Druid is supposed to be a different flavor of healer. Slightly worse at healing, but getting a "pocket fighter" as recompense.
In the playtests the druid did nearly not use the companion and nearly not use wildshape because both of those were complicated.
So I am not sure they are supposed to be getting a pocket fighter.

[hamishspence]

It seems that one of the design principles of 4E is that all characters must be at peak capacity all the time and must have all their abilities work on everything they encounter (to the point where 4E's fire elementals don't even have fire resistance).

Turns out you're right and my memory's fooling me - MM3 elementals and dragons have no elemental resistances at all. There are fire-immune creatures, but they're mostly in earlier books.

Efreeti in 4e MM1 are completely fire immune, as are Blazewyrms and Pyroclastic Dragons (Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons).

[Lans]

In the playtests the druid did nearly not use the companion and nearly not use wildshape because both of those were complicated.
So I am not sure they are supposed to be getting a pocket fighter.

Shillelagh or flame blade casting s is myg guess

[Remuko]

Shillelagh or flame blade casting s is myg guess

playtest druid threw scimitars iirc. almost exclusively.

[Lans]

playtest druid threw scimitars iirc. almost exclusively.
Did they only do one play test? I'm assuming they rolled stats, an above average strength, a few items and a little luck could go a long way to match a core 3.0 fighter.

[Zanos]

I'd say that all of your above looks true except for the example!

Quivering Palm comes from the AD&D monk (1977) if not before (I don't know what abilities the original Dragon Magazine version of the monk had, but it probably included Quivering Palm and would be earlier).
According to Wikipedia Fist of the North Star is from 1983, so if anything it got Quivering Palm from AD&D!
IIRC the monk is actually based on a series of now obscure western martial arts novels about an American special forces operative who is trained in a fictional Asian martial art.

So it's a knockoff of a knockoff.

[Fizban]

Did they only do one play test? I'm assuming they rolled stats, an above average strength, a few items and a little luck could go a long way to match a core 3.0 fighter.
As far as I know the information we "have" about the playtests comes from a few mentions in posts on the old (now long gone) WotC boards (presumably by accounts that could be verified as actually being who they claimed they were, and maybe one or two mentions in sidebars or maybe an article in Dragon Mag. As such while I'm willing to believe that the Druid player didn't actually use Wild Shape or Animal Companion for combat, more aggressive claims are likely exaggeration.

However, we do have the book Enemies and Allies (3.0, book of NPCs), which includes what it says are the playtest character sheets at 5/10/15. I see no reason to disbelieve the claim of this published book, and reading those sheets and understanding that there was almost zero change in monster stats between 3.0 and 3.5 and they're indeed meant to be fully compatible- it really dispels any illusions about what was "totally intended." When you consider not just the playstyle they used, but the characters for which the edition was written, forum expectations are just. . . wow. They also all use the Elite Array so no, it's not wacky rolled stats.

And it is true that the Druid statblock there has a throwing+returning scimitar and a bunch of feats for it, rather than spellcaster feats. There are also no animal companion statblocks, because in 3.0 they were completely normal animals you "befriended" with a spell that only worked if you "truly wanted to be their friend," a phrase which rather allows the DM to prevent you from treating them as disposable (unlike 3.5)- and you could buy the spell in ring form. I think Jozan may have been allowed a bunch of extra magic items due to crafting feats, but I've never audited him in detail. And it would seem the assumption is that anyone who can learn Haste, does, and the Sorcerer's low spells known are clearly still sufficient to "hit all the bases" as it were since the example Sorcerer has in fact picked a solid list (that there is so little room for variation will of course be no concern of the sorcerer-hater).

[Zanos]

For the curious, here is one example of play vs a CR 20 monster:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a

The wizard inflicts the most damage to the balor with quickened true strike, manyshot, and a holy bow. Which is an...interesting use of 5th level spell slots, in my opinion. In other cases the party was a bit smarter than I expected, using greater spell immunity on everyone to guard against the balors nastiest abilities aided by the party wizards sky high knowledge modifier, hero's feast because it's just good, and some other unlisted buff spells, but moment of prescience is used as well.
The cleric heals, and even goes so far as to have a vow of nonviolence. The barbarian deals damage. The fighter deals some damage and dies, but is noted as being mostly ineffective. The fighter/elocator is useless, because even on internal tables it seems like every party has someone trying out a build that just doesn't have anything going for it.

An interesting read regardless. The wotc wizard was not stacking up Greater Spell Focus to blast the balor with evocations, at least.

[Biggus]

But what was the original function of each of the 3.0 phb classes intended to be?


For the martial classes, someone said on here a while ago (can't remember who, sorry):

The Barbarian is supposed to be very strong when in rage
The Fighter is supposed to be very strong with their specialised weapon
The Paladin is supposed to be very strong against evil opponents
The Ranger is supposed to be very strong against their favored enemies

[vasilidor]

Using true strike? in a fight against a Balor? when your party members need a buff badly? poor form. These guys really did not know what they were doing. I am pretty certain that with the same character sheets the people on this forum could have trounced the Balor with much greater ease.

[Telonius]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.

Barbarian: You want to play the Arnold version of Conan. Key tactics: "Grar! Smash!"
Bard: You want to play Fflewdurr Fflam or Luthien. Key tactics: "I seduce them!"
Cleric: You want to play White Mage. Key tactics: "Heal!"
Druid: You want to play Beorn. Key tactics: "Grar! I eat you!"
Fighter: You want to play Gimli. Key tactics: "Axe to the face!"
Monk: You want to play Bruce Lee. Key tactics: "Hi-yah!"
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
Ranger: You want to play Aragorn. Key tactics: "He went that way!"
Rogue: You want to play Bilbo Baggins. Key tactics: "I steal his pants!"
Sorcerer: You want to play Tim the Enchanter. Key tactics: "Fireball!"
Wizard: You want to pay Gandalf. Key tactics: "Fireball, thoughtfully!"

[Particle_Man]

Nice list? So when things did not go as planned the game designers later created the warmage to meet one’s Tim the Enchanter needs? :smallsmile:

[noob]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.

Barbarian: You want to play the Arnold version of Conan. Key tactics: "Grar! Smash!"
Bard: You want to play Fflewdurr Fflam or Luthien. Key tactics: "I seduce them!"
Cleric: You want to play White Mage. Key tactics: "Heal!"
Druid: You do not want to play Beorn. Key tactics: "I throw my scimitar! Because wild-shaping is too complicated to use."
Fighter: You want to play Gimli. Key tactics: "Axe to the face!"
Monk: You want to play Bruce Lee. Key tactics: "Hi-yah!"
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
Ranger: You want to play Aragorn. Key tactics: "He went that way!"
Rogue: You want to play Bilbo Baggins. Key tactics: "I steal his pants!"
Sorcerer: You want to play ???. Key tactics: "Haste!"
Wizard: You want to pay Gandalf. Key tactics: "Shoot an arrow with true strike: As an angel you ought to not miss"



That is closer to how the playtests went.

[Thane of Fife]

I don't think most of the classes had much vision beyond "Update the 2e class," but we can look at what changed with 3e, and what they say in the Hero Builder's Guidebook (sold almost as a strategy guide) to get some idea.

Barbarian: There is no core barbarian class in 2e (though there was a fighter kit that didn't change much relative to the base fighter, and a supplement book that I'm not familiar with that probably had a class), but 1e's Unearthed Arcana had a barbarian that looks pretty similar to the 3e one. D12 hit die, fast movement, back protection - that's all there. That barbarian's skills have been converted to above average skill points with 3e (nearly every AD&D class without thief skills gets 2 points per level in 3e). They've taken out that barbarian's inability to use magic items or work with spell casters, removed an armor class bonus, added rage, and added damage reduction. Not surprising they ditched the mistrust of magic, which would have made barbarians hard to play with, and I think the AC for DR trade was probably just intended to make the barbarian feel different from other martial characters. The rage is probably part of a general attack boost to martial characters (feats for fighters, smite for paladins, rage for barbarians). In as much as there is an intent beyond converting the earlier class, I would suggest that the class is intended to be a bit more mobile and maybe slightly harder hitting, but also slightly squishier (relative to the fighter). The HBG points to human bonus feats like Alertness, Track, and Power Attack, which I don't think tell us much beyond re-emphasizing skills a bit.

Bard: The bard is interesting in that 1e and 2e both had bards that were already pretty different, and this one is another shift still. I think the main changes are the bard now has a unique spell list, that they are now spontaneous casters, and that bardic music has been reworked. I think the spontaneous casting thing is easy - they wanted them based on charisma, so they gave them sorcerer-like casting. Bardic music is easier to use but more limited in how often you can use it. I think the spell list is most interesting; the 1e bard casts like a druid, the 2e bard like a mage, and the 3e bard like a wizard/cleric hybrid. Most notably, the bard has a lot of important healing spells, like remove curse and remove disease, in addition to the cure wounds line. My guess would be that they had two purposes with the 3e bard:
1. Make it actually use charisma, and
2. Make it actually stand in for a class, rather than serve as a fifth wheel jack-of-all-trades.
Specifically, I think that the idea with the bard was probably that if you replaced a wizard/sorcerer, cleric, or rogue with it, you wouldn't be obviously missing anything important.

Cleric: The cleric looks a lot like the 2e cleric, but with spontaneous curing and domains. I think domains are just a way to make clerics feel more distinct by deity, so spontaneous curing is probably the main change. Some people have said that they thought the intent was for the cleric to just heal everyone, but I think that spontaneous curing suggests the opposite - the designers wanted to ensure that the cleric could prepare and cast other spells without needing to so carefully balance their ability to heal. I would suggest that the cleric is supposed to be generally fighting on the front line, casting only as necessary, with most buffing or healing done between fights. I think the HBG backs me up here by recommending Martial Weapon Proficiency, Power Attack, and Combat Casting as good bonus feats for a human cleric.

Druid: The 3e druid honestly looks a lot like the 2e druid. Some are mocking the playtest druid for fighting with a scimitar, but core 3e doesn't have natural spell, and I'm pretty sure the expectation is that you weren't supposed to be using magic items in animal form, so I think it's fairly reasonable that a druid would often be better off in human, spellcasting form, with their items, rather than shaped into an animal without them. This puts the druid in kind of an awkward spot. They don't have a cleric's armor proficiency to fight on the front lines or a wizard's offensive combat power. Animal Friendship is set up more for a bunch of small friends rather than one beefy companion, and as said, I don't think wildshape was really intended to be especially powerful in combat. What we can say is that the druid is the only class with no thief skills in AD&D that gets more than 2 skill points per level. So my reading is that the expectation was for it to be kind of bard-like - you may not have any great abilities, but you will probably always have some useful ability given that you have so many. We can also see some of that in the sample builds near the back of the HBG: the two that mention druids (the Sneak and the Friar) both refer to using their special abilities in a skill-like sense rather than for combat.

Fighter: This is basically the AD&D fighter + bonus feats. I think the intent here is that it's a customizable combatant class. Even apart from the obvious armored warrior, the HBG uses it to build an archer and a swashbuckler.

Monk: Again, this is basically an update to the 1e monk class. I'm not sure that there's really much point beyond cramming as many martial arts tropes into one character as possible. The character's attack power looks significantly reduced (the 1e monk has a chance to stun, or even kill, on every attack, for example). That said, the AD&D monk is required to have high ability scores, but is largely prohibited from benefiting from them, whereas the 3e monk can. The 3e monk also gets some new abilities, like Timeless Body, Ki Strike, and Abundant Step, but I'm not sure I see much pattern to them. The HBG points us to some two-weapon fighting feats, as well as dodge and mobility. I might speculate that the vision of the monk here is a character who would be pretty good if you rolled up really fantastic ability scores (as you would have needed to play one in AD&D at all).

Paladin: The 3e paladin gains smite evil and aura of courage relative to the 2e paladin, but loses their aura of protection. They also gain divine grace and earlier casting. I would guess that the smite is the paladin's version of the barbarian's rage or the fighter's bonus feats, intended to give them a bit of a combat boost. The divine grace is probably just there to give them another reason to boost charisma. HBG recommends both mounted and normal combat feats. I would say they tried to make the paladin into a bit more of a gish rather than just a fighter with some passive bonuses.

Ranger: The ranger gets spells sooner and gains multiple favored enemies, but loses heavy armor proficiency. Other than that, mostly unchanged. The HBG recommends mostly ranged combat feats. Interestingly no new combat ability (unless you count getting more and broader favored enemies), so I'd guess they felt that the two-weapon stuff and favored enemies were enough. I'm thinking they expected the ranger to use stealth skills, a bow, and spells, and then follow up with two weapons once it comes to melee fighting.

Rogue: Main difference in the rogue, besides the name change, is that sneak attack became much easier to use. Now it's more of an every round thing rather than a maybe one per fight thing. Evasion, uncanny dodge, and the rogue special abilities are also new. HBG points to two-weapon fighting feats, dodge, mobility, and expertise (I assume they left out weapon finesse because they're recommending human bonus feats and a rogue wouldn't qualify). I think the intent here was pretty obviously to take the skill-based AD&D character and make them more flexible and more competent in a fight. Rogues definitely needed the boost because they were pretty bad in AD&D.

Sorcerer: Sorcerer is the new class in 3e, so we can't compare back. The feats recommended by HBG are pretty generic (improve initiative, toughness, etc), so that doesn't help too much either. But at the end of the day, this is clearly supposed to be pretty much an alternate wizard.

Wizard: The wizard gets bonus feats now, and can learn any number of spells rather than the limited number permitted in AD&D. The bonus feats are presumably there to replace the automatic ability to create magic items gained in previous editions. They also get bonus spells for high intelligence, though they also get fewer low level spells at high level, so the intent might be to balance things out with more spells at low level but not as big of a difference at high level. Though they do get lots more high level spells at high levels, so who knows. HBG recommends weapon focus (rays) or combat casting. Of the builds in the back that involve wizard, most recommend spell focus, spell penetration, and spell mastery, so I think we can assume that there was an expectation that many of their important spells would be cast directly at enemies. If we compare the bard and wizard spell lists, we might say that the bard gets a lot of the buff and debuff spells, but comparatively few of the direct damage or more esoteric spells (e.g. water breathing, teleport, or rope trick). So we might speculate that buffs and debuffs were considered part of the wizard's "role" (and thus would be potentially replaceable by a bard), but the direct damage and such was more linked to the wizard (and sorcerer) as a class.

[vasilidor]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.
Snip
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
SNIP

I read that in the voice of Minsc.

[Akal Saris]

That 'Tactics and Tips' article was fascinating - there's this really bizarre mix of 'strong' decisions (greater spell immunity was the I-win button for the team, and revivify and fortunate fate seem like wise picks), and mystifying ones, like the archer wizard - even though he seems to have been about half the party damage!

I also appreciate how, reading between the lines, the party was like 'elocator/fighter, you kind of suck, one of us doesn't get spell immunity and it's you'.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Idk about original function, but the base Paladin is so atrocious... the spells are barely functional. Honestly since the Cleric gets armor the entire design of Paladin could've just been a prestige class for Clerics that changes flavor slightly. More meleeish less spell ish.

As much **** as I'd get.. I'd probably delete a ton of classes or just turn them into PrCs and trim the base class list down a ton. I think the broad design of some of the classes takes on to much while others got nothing. **** even WoWs monk is better designed than D&Ds at least they have some variety to their capability rather than. "Me stick who punch that it."

The utility design of Spells is just to varied to have a functional game where 1 guy can have a book of options and the other players option is Me smash, or me smash or me smash. Wow that's some variety there bud go whack it with your Sword or Axe. ToB resolved this slightly.. So honestly any surviving non casters should be ToB characters so they have an option beyond I hit with sword. I enjoy when playing, or DMing seeing players think and play tactically. I personally feel like I have to play monsters as dumb as crap vs a mostly martial party because if I don't it's just an RNG simulator on dice with vary little effecting it otherwise.

VS instead seeing ToB/Caster groups I have to step my game up the players have more options than i can keep track of sometimes.

You have to wonder atrociously their test of the classes was. To think Monk, Fighter, Ranger etc functioned "ok". **** even Barbarian is mostly function right now due to splat not OG release.

[Gavinfoxx]

You have to wonder atrociously their test of the classes was. To think Monk, Fighter, Ranger etc functioned "ok". **** even Barbarian is mostly function right now due to splat not OG release.

It wasn't atrocious. It was non existent. They hadn't conceived of the idea that classes should be especially functional in the rules they created or the idea that they should be balanced against one another as a concept, especially. They didn't playtest in the way we think of running simulations of abilities or running through scenarios to test for effectiveness or anything like that at all.

[Scots Dragon]

*snip*

Is there a name for the fallacy where there’s an assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

[Seward]

Is there a name for the fallacy consisting the assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

I don't know a name but I just as an excercise to re-familiarize myself with 3.5 after much Pathfinder, I just did a basic party with very basic gear from 1-15. I did do noncore stuff, but nothing fancy or especially unusual.

cleric, wizard, paladin, monk, all LG Most WBL was spent on attribue +2-6 items and resist 1-5 items, plus spellbook/boccob's book for Wizard, boots speed for monk and basic golfbag of weapons, none enhanced past +1, armor also only at +1, wizard's mithril buckler did get pushed to +5 but that's about it.

Cleric was built as a decent buffer, medeocre fighter and ok Healer, was party face using high int, human and Able Learer to cover bases.

Wizard was a conjurer with banned enchantment and necromancy that did long duration buffs and area zaps, plus teleportation-style tricks, and was party know-it-all. Both did summon monster primarily for utility actions, not in combat.

Monk was built with high strength but without power attack and with good hide and spot (backed by cloak of elvenkind and eyes of eagle, serving as party scout and paladin was a boring old spirited charge dude who added improved shield bash at L6 and power attack at L12 and no out of combat utilty other than detect evil and handle animal.

This party had no trouble with any of the content. System mastery and working as a team more than copensated for basic choices that are hardly considered optimal. (eg, cleric and wizard worked together to get GMW, magic vestment and/or greater mage armor up 24x7 on anybody who it helped. All 4 bought a lsr rod of extend to help with that, wizard added extend and chain spell to help with buffing in higher levels.)

Searching for loot was done with detect spells or interrogation backed by detect thoughts. Traps were just healed through if not ignored by Monk or sprung by summons sent ahead to scout. This was not a subtle party. All but Monk ran Daylight 24x7, considered a silence spell "being stealthy" and were mildly lawful stupid as they shared a religion that included "inflexibility" in the portfolio.

Turns out not too many challenges can't be beaten with a tank that does solid full attack damage or charge damage, a monk who does solid flurry damage and can stick a stun half the time vs appropriate targets, a wizard who copes with long range challenges or obstacles by either blasting it or bypassing it via teleport type spells putting a monk or paladin in position to whomp the opposition...and a cleric who plays utility outfielder, doing nothing well but able to help out in almost any situation, filling nearly any role adequately till the primary party member gets around to helping. I did almost no battlefield control, but this party was quite good at bypassing battlefield control of others and it had no "squishies" - all had solid hitpoints, armor class, saves ranging from decent to exellent. That was to some extent a consequence of picking two martial classes that were unusually good at saves and mobility most of the time, with wizard who was laser focused on undoing attempts to interfere with them.

Where parties fail is when the players fail to find effective uses for their actions, or are locked out of their best action because the party member who should be setting them up for success does something useless instead (eg, a bard who shoots his bow instead of using his bardsong or a spell in first round of combat, in a situation where his max expected damage won't do meaningful damage. extra annoying when that guy also blocks charge lanes for his more dangerous allies or draws fire he can't handle after drawing attention to himself with that action)

(edit...I am not saying core Monk or Paladin are well designed classes, or that in campaigns where PCs are normally active picking time to fight rather than reactive that prep casters aren't stupidly flexible and strong. I am saying that the core classes can form 4 person parties that beat normal content from 1-20 without needing to go nuts on optimization. Just put a strong score in offense attribute (always strength for a martial who isn't relying mostly on sneak attack, yes even archers although they also need dex to hit, and for casters, their casting stat), don't dump con and keep up with your attribute boost items, saving throw items and for frontliners, armor class. Don't pick useless spells as a spont caster or prep them as a vancian caster. That's it. If you have 4 players that don't waste their actions they'll do fine)

[Darg]

Well said. As a party game that is designed for party members to be party members, some of the actions done by some party members may be overweighted to an extreme is in full purview of the DM to keep in line. It isn't even all that hard to do so as well if you can spot the handful of trouble spells or adjust the reward for trivial encounters. The DMG suggests that only 20% of encounters should ever be "easy if handled properly." If it turns out 50+% of encounters aren't burning enough resources, there is generally a common theme causing the issue. Many times it is caused by dysfunctional encounter design, liberal interpretation, or meta knowledge and familiarity. I personally find the last one the most common in my circles so putting a healthy check on that from the outset resolves many of the issues before the game starts. How does some one know to use fire resistance against a red dragon? They encountered one, gathered information, recalled a random bit of information, or have a good excuse that their character believes that red means fire.

[Seward]

I did most of my 3.5 in Living Greyhawk, an environment where 3ish el+3 encounters were the norm and 1-2 are initiated by bad guys barring party scout types or similar noticing them coming. Parties were randomly mustered so class balance was rare and party members might vary from average level by +/-2 levels. Any combat encounter that wasn't just flavor fluff was serious business. This style was comfortable to me as it was similar to a lot of Hero System games I played with college buddies in 80s-90s where we were never sure who would show up.

That was pretty different from dungeon crawls with a steady group (my 3.0 experience was in a campaign where about 2/3 of it was published mega-modules) where we had the initiative and could plan the action but were screwed if the bad guys found our home base or we pushed farther than we should have on a given day. Most fights were easy till the opposition got its act together, then the goal was to do as much damage that couldn't be fixed as possible while disengaging cleanly. That was how back in the day we did AD&D tournament modules of the GDQ type.

The former required more self-sufficient characters (and everybody bought a wand of CLW at minimum to help with party healing, and most had consumables to cover their own buffs in a pinch if no caster slots could be spared. Martials with pearls of power or rods of lesser extend to lend to buffers got their money's worth). The latter you got to know your team really really well and buffs and teamwork got highly evolved (I did 3.0 to about L13 in a party with nobody that had an AC higher than 20, but we were very mobile and were really good at interfering with monster offense, and with setting up ambushes)

[Zanos]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization. I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play. I'll take a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

[Fizban]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization.
Which, as you note-

I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play.
Can often include the "optimizers" themselves. Even someone who's played their build can still fail on this account because they're too focused on playing their build to work with the party, or force playing a certain build that specifically clashes with the party.

I'll talk a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.
Ah, how my Red Hand of Doom campaign ended: the new Battle Sorc refused to cast spells until it looked like they were going to lose- and they were paranoid about being taken alive, so they Scintillating Sphere'd on self enough times to almost kill all the enemies. Almost like doing that on the enemies before they were losing would have been a good idea.



I don't think most of the classes had much vision beyond "Update the 2e class," but we can look at what changed with 3e,
A better way of phrasing it, and a better starting point if one is properly familiar with 2e.


Bard: The bard is interesting in that 1e and 2e both had bards that were already pretty different, and this one is another shift still. I think the main changes are the bard now has a unique spell list, that they are now spontaneous casters, and that bardic music has been reworked. . . Bardic music is easier to use but more limited in how often you can use it.
How did bardic music work in 2e?

I think the spell list is most interesting; the 1e bard casts like a druid, the 2e bard like a mage, and the 3e bard like a wizard/cleric hybrid. Most notably, the bard has a lot of important healing spells, like remove curse and remove disease, in addition to the cure wounds line. . .
2. Make it actually stand in for a class, rather than serve as a fifth wheel jack-of-all-trades.
The even weirder part is that a bunch of those healing and wizard spells disappeared for 3.5, as they apparently changed their idea of what Bard was supposed to be again, with a mid-edition change, and making it even less capable of standing in for anything.

Specifically, I think that the idea with the bard was probably that if you replaced a wizard/sorcerer, cleric, or rogue with it, you wouldn't be obviously missing anything important.
This is where I really wish we had more context on those playtest character sheets, since we have no idea how they actually used the alternate classes. Was the bard actually used as a 5th wheel, or as a stand-in, and if so then what for? Did they use them with an otherwise standard party, or did they actually run out something like Monk/Bard/Ranger, and how did they run it if they did?


Cleric: . . . Some people have said that they thought the intent was for the cleric to just heal everyone, but I think that spontaneous curing suggests the opposite - the designers wanted to ensure that the cleric could prepare and cast other spells without needing to so carefully balance their ability to heal.
Indeed. I'm certain it's on record somewhere that the changes/buffs to the Cleric were specifically so people wouldn't have to feel like heal-bots, and IIRC one of the most common pieces of advice even in the 3.0 books is to *use* that ability to prepare anything you want without worrying about being unable to rescue someone.


Druid: . . . I'm pretty sure the expectation is that you weren't supposed to be using magic items in animal form,
No doubts about it, the 3.0 version of Polymorph (and thus Wild Shape) was very clear about what happens to magic items, transforming them if the form taken uses items (which one can tell by reading the monster entry), and merging them if it doesn't, while further providing a list of expectations for each creature type.


Monk: . . . I might speculate that the vision of the monk here is a character who would be pretty good if you rolled up really fantastic ability scores (as you would have needed to play one in AD&D at all).
This is something I've noticed/seen mentioned before, and it rings pretty true. For all that the Elite Array exists and is used for all NPCs and the playtest characters, rolled scores are still presented first, and all the "MAD" core classes are fine if you just. . . only use them when you roll ridiculous ability scores. It's bad design as far as I'm concerned (since random ability scores are bad design), but it does make sense in the transition.


Paladin: . . . I would say they tried to make the paladin into a bit more of a gish rather than just a fighter with some passive bonuses.
On the one hand, they have very, very few spell slots. On the other hand, those spell slots can still be filled with Cures if nothing else, which in addition to Lay on Hands means the Paladin has way more hit points per day than any other character with full BAB. And having a tough horse that pops in an out of existence also gives them a situational damage ability, which by Alhandra's sheet we can see she's definitely supposed to be using.


Ranger: . . .The HBG recommends mostly ranged combat feats. Interestingly no new combat ability (unless you count getting more and broader favored enemies), so I'd guess they felt that the two-weapon stuff and favored enemies were enough.
Ahhhh, found it. Apparently you are correct, the 3.0 Ranger did have TWF stuff. It's just not on the table or the text, instead being hidden in the proficiency section. So the big 3.5 change there was being able to trade that for ranged feats instead, and not needing to spend a feat for ITWF.


Rogue: Main difference in the rogue, besides the name change, is that sneak attack became much easier to use. Now it's more of an every round thing rather than a maybe one per fight thing.
And I will note that's supported by basic skill use, not wacky feats or magic or even requiring flanking (let alone TWF flanking). Normal-to-full attacks from combat characters compare to a single sneak per round just fine.

HBG points to two-weapon fighting feats, dodge, mobility, and expertise (I assume they left out weapon finesse because they're recommending human bonus feats and a rogue wouldn't qualify).
I will note that while TWF is suggested there, Lidda goes Improved Init into Precise Shot and then into Spring Attack.


Wizard: The wizard gets bonus feats now, and can learn any number of spells rather than the limited number permitted in AD&D.
I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

They also get bonus spells for high intelligence, though they also get fewer low level spells at high level, so the intent might be to balance things out with more spells at low level but not as big of a difference at high level. Though they do get lots more high level spells at high levels, so who knows.
This is notable in 5e, where you get only base slots and the high levels are very clearly and obviously cut down- but is also more noticable than you'd think in 3.x: If you build an Elite Array PHB wizard NPC from 1st, you'll find that you can't keep those high level bonus slots going for your highest level of spells, and PC WBL just barely allows it if you've got a Headband as strong as possible under the 1/2 max WBL limit (and are later allowed to buy at least +2 in ability score tomes).

[Scots Dragon]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization. I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play. I'll take a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

It's interesting how few of the old CharOp guides actually talk about playing a class, and instead they're almost exclusively about how to create an 'optimal' build.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

I can answer that. A 1E/2E wizard has no base or guaranteed spells. They get whatever they can find (usually from defeating enemy wizards and taking their spellbooks) and have to make a check to learn each spell. In addition to this, they have a strict maximum of spells (per level) that they can know.

Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

[Darg]

Ahhhh, found it. Apparently you are correct, the 3.0 Ranger did have TWF stuff. It's just not on the table or the text, instead being hidden in the proficiency section. So the big 3.5 change there was being able to trade that for ranged feats instead, and not needing to spend a feat for ITWF.

Interesting to note is that rangers got medium armor proficiency even though they lose their TWF capabilities if they wear it. I think the end goal was that ranger would get mithril medium armor and not suffer non-proficiency. 3.0 vs 3.5 2h weapons weren't so vastly superior so it was a worthy trade (power attack was just a straight up 1:1 trade; like if they removed the special section on the feat).


I can answer that. A 1E/2E wizard has no base or guaranteed spells. They get whatever they can find (usually from defeating enemy wizards and taking their spellbooks) and have to make a check to learn each spell. In addition to this, they have a strict maximum of spells (per level) that they can know.

Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

[Particle_Man]

About the wizard’s (well, magic-user back then) spell limit in 1st edition, it was keyed to intelligence. You had a maximum number of spells per spell level that you could have in your spell book. With the exception of the few randomly determined starting spells known at first level, you had a percentage chance to learn (copy into your spell book) a spell you came across (usually in a dead enemy’s spell book) and if you failed you had to wait to try again until you gained intelligence (harder to do in 1st edition) or somehow came across and tried to copy *all* magic-user spells of that spell level and failed enough of the spells per level that you could try failed spells again because your spells known now fell below your minimum spells known per level limit. So if you were a wizard of intelligence 9, I think it went minimum 6, maximum 9, percentage 35%, while at intelligence 18 you had something awesome like minimum 11, maximum 18, chance to know 85%. Oh and since illusionists needed intelligence 15, and their spell lists were shorter, it was easier to know most of the illusionist spells if one could only find them to copy.

[Zanos]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

That's correct. As far as I recall, those books and Wish spells are the only way to increase your int score, in 1E/2E.

[Seward]

.
Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

Indeed. Burne, the NPC wizard in Village of Homlett didn't have "sleep" on his spell list and we made that the reason for his name (we imagined he used burning hand and oil in baby levels instead of sleep like every other AD&D magic user).

As in 3rd edition, statbumps happened in late teens as the statbump books became available/affordable or you just cast Wish on your own if you were a wizard. For most classes you didn't need them unless you had something like 15 con and lucked into a Con book. Several stats had no purpose for many classes, those that did had identical effects between about 8 and 14 and the most important martial stat, strength, was always boosted by str replacement items, not str buff items (or spells in lower levels, most set str to a value or capped it at 18/00, 18 for non-fighter types)

[noob]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

It is not required but really high int could(was random) give bonus spells for your spellbook on level up in some older dnd edition.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Is there a name for the fallacy where there’s an assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

It's not hyper optimization to create a generic human wizard and pick a half dozen decent spells. But by doing so you're more useful and better to have in a party than a generic fighter or Barb with power attack which is the equally assumed optimization level. Whats the fallacy for assuming that players have to not optimize to properly play the game? There's a difference between a tippy hyper optimization universe and people who just play and build smart. Your problem is you aren't realizing that the games function starts to erode at either level.

[Thane of Fife]

How did bardic music work in 2e?

A 2e bard has three effects comparable to 3e's bardic music:
1. An ability mostly equivalent to counter-song (but save rather than skill-based),
2. Inspiration. If the bard knows the exact nature of an upcoming threat, then they can sing or orate or whatever for three rounds to give nearby people a small buff for 1 round/level (comparable to 3e's Inspire Courage). It can't be used during combat - only before it (or if somewhat leaves combat, they can get it again),
3. The bard can try to shift a group's attitude by one level (kind of like a 3.5e diplomacy check), but only out of combat.


On the one hand, they have very, very few spell slots. On the other hand, those spell slots can still be filled with Cures if nothing else, which in addition to Lay on Hands means the Paladin has way more hit points per day than any other character with full BAB. And having a tough horse that pops in an out of existence also gives them a situational damage ability, which by Alhandra's sheet we can see she's definitely supposed to be using.

The 3e paladin has the same number of slots as the 2e paladin (plus bonus for wisdom, I guess - 2e paladins don't get that), but they start getting them 3-5 levels earlier. Also, I don't think the 3e paladin's mount pops in and out - that's a 3.5 thing.


I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

Numerous other people have already answered this, but to say it my way: AD&D wizards have a maximum number of spells known per spell level. It ranges from 6 spells at intelligence 9 to all the spells if you manage to get a 19. This is the maximum number you can know. 1e also has a minimum number of spells known per level, but I think 2e took that out (note that minimum meant that, if you attempted to learn every spell of level 1, say, you were guaranteed at least that many, not that you immediately gained that many spells).

In terms of guaranteed spells, 1e magic-users gain one spell every time they gain an experience level. 2e mages do not, and must find or research all of their spells. 2e specialist wizards get one spell of their specialty school every time they gain access to a new spell level. Core 2e may have deliberately made it very difficult to gain new spells. I think later 2e books rolled that back.


I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

There are, but you can only benefit from each one once.

[Darg]

The 3e paladin has the same number of slots as the 2e paladin (plus bonus for wisdom, I guess - 2e paladins don't get that), but they start getting them 3-5 levels earlier. Also, I don't think the 3e paladin's mount pops in and out - that's a 3.5 thing.

3.0 it's basically like any other mount, but with special abilities. In 3.5 it becomes a calling SLA that can be dismissed as free action.

[Particle_Man]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

For first edition, you needed int 10 to cast 5th level magic-user spells, 12 for 6th, 14 for 7th, 16 for 8th and 18 for 9th (for illusionists the point was moot as they needed int 15 to be illusionists and there were no 8th or 9th level illusionist spells).. For clerics and druids you needed wis 17 for 6th level spells and 18 for 7th level spells (there were no 8th or 9th level cleric or druid spells). Oh and a wisdom below 13 gave a percentage chance failure on cleric/druid spells.

To be fair the ability score requirement to cast spells of a certain level carries over into 3rd edition, but given most chargen methods is less punitive (barring significant ability score damage or drain to one’s casting stat). And metamagic could be used in 3rd edition as a workaround to use those high level spell slots with some extra oomph.

[Darg]

And metamagic could be used in 3rd edition as a workaround to use those high level spell slots with some extra oomph.

Not true. Metamagic spells are still "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell."

[Particle_Man]

Not true. Metamagic spells are still "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell."


From the description of metamagic feats: “ Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.”


A fireball in a third level spell slot is saved against as a third level spell. A maximized fireball in a sixth level spell slot is also a third level spell and is saved against as a third level spell. Heightened spell is the only core metamagic feat that explicitly raises the spell level of a spell.

Not that this is optimal as usually a higher level base spell is better than a metamagic-laden lower level spell in a higher level spell slot. But if you are stuck with a low casting stat, you can at least make do with what you have.

[Aquillion]

I do think that people overestimate the extent to which the wizard was intended to be a blaster. They obviously overestimated how strong the blaster would be, and underestimated other builds; and some of this was probably due to blasters being over-represented in playtests.

But the wizard had eight schools of magic, not just evocation, and was intended to be able to choose one of them; enchanters and illusionists were 100% part of the core design of the class. I think that they honestly, genuinely recognized that wizards were going to be overpowered at high levels and were fine with it - this was not some new or strange thing; it had been true in every prior edition and (given what happened the one time they took a stab at changing it) will probably be true to some extent or another in every future edition.

I think that "wizards start weak and get strong" was not some sort of accident - they knew. It was inherent to the spells they inherited, and they didn't change things in any way that really suggested they were trying to get away with it.

People on optimization-focused boards tend to discuss the game in terms of balance, and to see design primarily through the lens of balance - hence, the explanation that wizards were primarily supposed to be blasters came to be accepted as the reason for why they're imbalanced (it is not totally untrue, just an exaggeration.)

But I don't think that that was at the top of the minds of the designers. Their goal was to make wizards that felt like wizards, not to balance wizards against fighters - as long as the overall game was fun, that was enough. And while we have plenty of horror stories about games with severe tier differences, for the most part, they succeeded - 3.5e was one of the most successful versions of the most successful tabletop game of all time, balance issues or not.

Anyway I got a bit off-track. My point is that I think that feeling powerful at higher levels was actually part of the wizard's function; related to this, wizards were intended to be immensely varied. I think the only thing they were really not intended to be able to do was heal others.

Obviously, another central part of the Wizard's design and theme was that you get to be really powerful, but only a limited number of times a day, vs. classes that get to be powerful all day long.

[Darg]

From the description of metamagic feats: “ Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.”


A fireball in a third level spell slot is saved against as a third level spell. A maximized fireball in a sixth level spell slot is also a third level spell and is saved against as a third level spell. Heightened spell is the only core metamagic feat that explicitly raises the spell level of a spell.

Not that this is optimal as usually a higher level base spell is better than a metamagic-laden lower level spell in a higher level spell slot. But if you are stuck with a low casting stat, you can at least make do with what you have.

There are several references that spell is prepared and cast as a higher level spell with all that entails. It doesn't mean the spell operates as a higher level spell once cast however.


Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher level spell.


Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spell caster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.


Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat).

Just because a spell is a lower level spell, doesn't mean that the effort to cast it doesn't increase. We'll just have to agree to disagree if this isn't convincing.


Obviously, another central part of the Wizard's design and theme was that you get to be really powerful, but only a limited number of times a day, vs. classes that get to be powerful all day long.

All day long classes are balanced so that they are capable all day long, but they are only powerful when backed up by that almighty wizard who has the power to turn the tide when you "look to the east." When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.

[Seward]

I do think that people overestimate the extent to which the wizard was intended to be a blaster. They obviously overestimated how strong the blaster would be, and underestimated other builds; and some of this was probably due to blasters being over-represented in playtests.


I think actually it was more that wizards were expected to be the party member with spells to deal with large numbers of weaker enemies (and swarms) most often. They expected it to pack routinely a few such spells at as high a power level as they could manage, just as they (and druids) are the go-to for battlefield control. Cleric options come later and are less flexible. They are a backup. Martials are stuck with splash weapons if they want to help out.

The idea that a wizard would sneer at blasting spells didn't occur to them. Honestly, no primary caster should have zero direct damage spells if they are actually optimized, barring actually being good at melee or ranged combat routinely, such as a druid in a combat oriented and prebuffed wildshape form 24x7.

Dead is the best "condition" and a zap to reliably finish off a badly wounded enemy is almost always the best action possible (which is why magic missile is still prepped by most wizards, sometimes quickened for just that role and finds its way into many sorceror lists, and why most clerics fit in a flame strike somewhere. At minimum wand or scroll options in this area are carried). It just isn't always the best approach to STARTING a fight, unless you are so optimized for blasting that you can kill some of the opposition outright with that first action (as my Pathfinder wizard who called herself an "arcane archer" could do. With scorching ray cheese she could reliably simulate in-tier archer full attack performance for a few rounds, enough to almost always kill something on her first action unless the encounter was only 1 or maybe 2 tough opponents). For most primary casters some form of battlefield control, partywide buff or perhaps area debuff significant enough to remove some enemy actions in early rounds is usually a better call.



When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.

Otherwise known as Teamwork.

At L15+ it is almost always more effective from action economy standpoint to prebuff a party, the whole party, including weapon and armor basic buffs like GMW and Magic Vestment that last all day, then have a caster use their action to move a martial into full attack range (via teleport maybe, or a wind blast, or just clearing obstacles to vision from an archer) then to take any direct action with a std action spell. Whatever you set up to be a victim in that way will be too dead to bother you. If your party has a rogue or similar, getting them from no meaningful damage to a sneak attack full attack is usually even better use of your time, if your opposition can be attacked in that fashion.

The only action that really competes (other than move ALL party martials into position with one action, possible with dim door, whirlwind air elemental, certain chained spells) is high tier battlefield control which chops the el+3 encounter into two or more easy el+0-1 actions.

[Darg]

Otherwise known as Teamwork.

Be careful with that word around here. People have gotten offended because using such a thing makes casters comparitively less overwhelmingly powerful at high levels and they believe that supporting a team is less efficient than handling everything yourself by burning spell allotment on drum solos.

On another note, throwing an empowered maximized fireball into a group softens them up. Disabling spells are quite powerful, but they also generally have a good chance to do nothing. Damage spells most of the time still do some damage even on a save. Say you surprised a clutch of juvenile black dragons, an empowered maximized fireball on average would take out 70% of their HP, or 35% on a successful save. If you did the elite array adding your levels and have +4 bonus the fireballs on average have a 50% chance of doing full damage which would take out a total 50% of their entire HP pool. Quicken it with a rod and you likely ended the encounter single handedly. If not, your party can easily mop up without much threat.

[Zanos]

All day long classes are balanced so that they are capable all day long, but they are only powerful when backed up by that almighty wizard who has the power to turn the tide when you "look to the east." When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.
I don't think balance comes into the equation, but I do think if you're the kind of wizard player that polymorphs into a war troll to kill people with your big strength score when there's a fighter standing right next to you that you could cast polymorph on, and let him go kill people with a big strength score, and his full BAB, and his better hit dice, and his magical armor and weapons, and his combat feats, then you're not roleplaying your intelligence score. And, OOC, you're being a jerk.

[Harrow]

Be careful with that word around here. People have gotten offended because using such a thing makes casters comparitively less overwhelmingly powerful at high levels and they believe that supporting a team is less efficient than handling everything yourself by burning spell allotment on drum solos.

Is this true? The sense that I got hanging around here is that "Haste does more damage than Fireball", which I don't think is accomplished by the wizard hitting themselves with it and going to town with a crossbow. I also frequently see the advice that party buffs are good for optimizers, both because of the aforementioned "Haste does more damage than Fireball" and because it "hides" the optimization. If you optimize dealing damage, you'll kill things without the rest of the party contributing, which isn't fun. If you optimize debuffing, then the rest of the party become glorified janitors, cleaning up after the messes you make. But, if you optimize for party buffing, then that just makes everyone more awesome.

[Kurald Galain]

Is this true? The sense that I got hanging around here is that "Haste does more damage than Fireball",

As I recall, one of the most popular optimization guides for 3E wizards repeatedly states that all other classes are utterly useless and the wizard has to do everything by himself. This may have been intended as hyperbole or sarcasm, but because of Poe's Law it's hard to tell.

Another popular wizard guide is big on teamwork, instead. So it depend on who you ask, really.

[Darg]

Is this true? The sense that I got hanging around here is that "Haste does more damage than Fireball", which I don't think is accomplished by the wizard hitting themselves with it and going to town with a crossbow. I also frequently see the advice that party buffs are good for optimizers, both because of the aforementioned "Haste does more damage than Fireball" and because it "hides" the optimization. If you optimize dealing damage, you'll kill things without the rest of the party contributing, which isn't fun. If you optimize debuffing, then the rest of the party become glorified janitors, cleaning up after the messes you make. But, if you optimize for party buffing, then that just makes everyone more awesome.

Sorry, it was a sarcastic joke. Only a handful of people have argued with me about it. The Haste vs Fireball isn't really the issue, but more of the single target buffs taking up their spell slots. Like throwing the monk a mage armor and owl's wisdom/bull's strength/cat's grace, or give the fighter/barbarian an enlarge person. Because you can't say it directly benefits the whole party, it isn't worth preparing and helping your party member. They should be spending their WBL to do those things instead. It usually devolves, like many internet discussions, into the martial party member is being a waste of space by not being a full caster.

[Scots Dragon]

Is this true? The sense that I got hanging around here is that "Haste does more damage than Fireball", which I don't think is accomplished by the wizard hitting themselves with it and going to town with a crossbow. I also frequently see the advice that party buffs are good for optimizers, both because of the aforementioned "Haste does more damage than Fireball" and because it "hides" the optimization. If you optimize dealing damage, you'll kill things without the rest of the party contributing, which isn't fun. If you optimize debuffing, then the rest of the party become glorified janitors, cleaning up after the messes you make. But, if you optimize for party buffing, then that just makes everyone more awesome.

It's also not true. You could haste a decently built fighter even and they wouldn't do enough damage to match a single fireball's ability to set fire to a lot of people.

A lot of these optimisation rules rely on assumptions about encounters that just don't hold up.


Sorry, it was a sarcastic joke. Only a handful of people have argued with me about it. The Haste vs Fireball isn't really the issue, but more of the single target buffs taking up their spell slots. Like throwing the monk a mage armor and owl's wisdom/bull's strength/cat's grace, or give the fighter/barbarian an enlarge person. Because you can't say it directly benefits the whole party, it isn't worth preparing and helping your party member. They should be spending their WBL to do those things instead. It usually devolves, like many internet discussions, into the martial party member is being a waste of space by not being a full caster.

It's a wrongheaded way of thinking about things, and comes off like a whole lot of this is centred around spherical rothes.

[Particle_Man]

There are several references that spell is prepared and cast as a higher level spell with all that entails. It doesn't mean the spell operates as a higher level spell once cast however.







Just because a spell is a lower level spell, doesn't mean that the effort to cast it doesn't increase. We'll just have to agree to disagree if this isn't .

Yeah but the “effort to cast it” means “uses a higher level spell slot”. So the 11th level wizard Carmella the Unlucky got int drained to 13 int. So she prepares fireball (a third level spell) in her third level spell slots. If she has no metamagic feats, she also prepares fireball (a third level spell) in a sixth level spell slot. If she has maximize spell she prepares maximized fireball (a third level spell) in a sixth level spell slot. If she has heighten spell, she prepares heightened fireball (a sixth level spell) in a sixth level spell slot.

Meanwhile her 5th level nephew George the Obsequious can prepare fireball in a third level spell slot but he cannot prepare maximized fireball in a sixth level spell slot. The effort to cast that is beyond a level 5 wizard so even with the spell and the feat he just doesn’t have the power (ie the sixth level spell slot). And somehow maximized ray of frost doesn’t seem that great a choice to use with a third level spell slot. :smallsmile:

[Fizban]

I think it should be noted that the intended answer is that the Sor/Wiz casts Haste and Fireball, as found on every one of the playtest sheets. It's not either/or, it's both. And they have plenty enough spell slots to do it if they're not spending 3/4 of them stacking splatbook buffs on themselves to survive the attacks of foes the meatshield didn't meatshield and "solve problems" that could have been solved without magic, or layering unecessary amount of debuffs or fluffing save-negates.


Is this true? The sense that I got hanging around here is that "Haste does more damage than Fireball", which I don't think is accomplished by the wizard hitting themselves with it and going to town with a crossbow. I also frequently see the advice that party buffs are good for optimizers, both because of the aforementioned "Haste does more damage than Fireball" and because it "hides" the optimization. If you optimize dealing damage, you'll kill things without the rest of the party contributing, which isn't fun. If you optimize debuffing, then the rest of the party become glorified janitors, cleaning up after the messes you make. But, if you optimize for party buffing, then that just makes everyone more awesome.
You probably read threads where people have asked how to optimize their caster "without 'overshadowing' the party" then. In threads that don't hold that caveat, and particularly in threads that start evaluating "power" or ranking things into "tiers," the masks come off, as it were. Sometimes it's not even so much the caster problem as it is the RAW-is-god and rocket tag problems, where any character or class that doesn't follow or play into those ideals is trash (or suggestion that's not how the game is meant to be played is wrong) because "that's how the game works."

Bonus points for how the so-called "god" wizard's buffing doesn't actually hide the char-op at all, to any player (or DM) who's paying attention to the giant pile of numbers they're being told to add. If anything it's even more insulting to deliberately create a game state where the other players know their characters cannot succeed without you because the enemy's numbers are simply too high or their own numbers don't matter because you could make a slug win the fight, but they still have to put themselves in danger or do all the rolling for "cleanup," than it would be to heavily or even cripplingly damage a foe that the rest of the party could still fight normally their actual characters without you, or to insta-kill some enemies and leave the rest untouched for the others to fight. While 5e's "bounded accuracy" that keeps the percentage gap weirdly small through the entire game isn't right, doing away with most number buffs and limiting those that exist so the gap between un-buffed and buffed isn't a farce, is a good idea.

As I mentioned earlier regarding the Bard, there is no "buffer" role. Not in the standard party, and in particular if you look to the 3.0 PHB spell lists you'll find that there are barely even any "buffs" to speak of. Heroism was a 3.0 specific potion that got turned into an arcane spell and added a double strength version in 3.5, and even in 3.5 there are basically no AC or raw damage buffs. The numerical buffs available are spell versions of some of what you can/should get from items functioning as a safety for if you don't get those items/the items functionally giving you spells back. 3.5 nerfs Greater Magic Weapon and the stat boosts so that they're no longer more powerful/all-day to make it clear those are not supposed to supplant the items, merely supplement them. It's only when you start combing through splatbooks that you can find and stack up enough number buffs (of types which stack with items) to invalidate someone's character. And once you do, it's just as obvious as if you'd covered the enemy in a giant pile of debuffs and action loss. At least insta-kill spells don't have people pretending they're anything but.


Not true. Metamagic spells are still "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell."
There's an NPC in The Book of Challenges which specifically prepared metamagiced low-level spells in the slots they have since they don't have enough ability score, and the 3.0 FAQ (p24) addressed the question, specifically saying that it's allowed. It can probably be found again in Complete Arcane or Rules Compendium or something. Note that you won't find this in the 3.5 FAQ, as they did not carry over all (possibly any?) of those directly (you also have to check the 3.0 one for how Chill Touch is supposed to work, for example).

Incidentally, if anyone's ever wondered about whether magic items have a caster level prerequisite- I know MiC or RC went and said they totally do, but the 3.5 FAQ as of 2006 specifically said they do not, I knew I'd seen it in print somewhere- did I find it last time there was a thread about it though?

3.0 it's basically like any other mount, but with special abilities. In 3.5 it becomes a calling SLA that can be dismissed as free action.
Ah, so it was, and with the same year and a day replacement wait as for Familiars. Defenders of the Faith then added the CR-based scaling (a direct and dramatic upgrade which once carried into the 3.5 DMG makes it their most powerful core feature), and then 3.5 gave it a replacement timer of one month (still far longer than that of "Animal Companions") and apparently addressed the problems with care and convenience raised in DotF by giving it the pop-in pop-out mechanic. Some good work there. 3.0 Alhandra still has a magic lance though, so we can assume she's supposed to be using her mount.


A 2e bard has three effects comparable to 3e's bardic music:
1. An ability mostly equivalent to counter-song (but save rather than skill-based),
2. Inspiration. If the bard knows the exact nature of an upcoming threat, then they can sing or orate or whatever for three rounds to give nearby people a small buff for 1 round/level (comparable to 3e's Inspire Courage). It can't be used during combat - only before it (or if somewhat leaves combat, they can get it again),
3. The bard can try to shift a group's attitude by one level (kind of like a 3.5e diplomacy check), but only out of combat.
Ah, so it actually worked in ways that make a moderate amount of sense for inspirational music or oratory, rather than a 6 second riff that you play (sing) in the middle of combat. Good to know. And even the attitude shift made sense in only shifting it by one step (and from what I know that attitude was determined initially by a raw Cha check at best).

[gijoemike]

Did they only do one play test? I'm assuming they rolled stats, an above average strength, a few items and a little luck could go a long way to match a core 3.0 fighter.

No, they did nearly a full campaign worth of testing. They way they playtested was abysmal and isn't like a standard game at all.

1: The expectation was 6 to 10 COMBAT encounters per adventuring day. Forget the 5+ non combat encounters per day. So the players were SUPER stingy with resources.

The druid used wild shape as 100% scouting for the party and may ( MAY ) have only used it in combat one time as a standard wolf or bear. In combat buffed, healed and used a smitar in a flank. Flame Strike was used as it is a classic spell.

The Wizard used a light crossbow 75% of the time, throwing out a fireball or lightly bolt if at least 3 enemies and no PC would be caught in it. Never attempted to NOVA or rapid fire spells via a casting of haste.

The fighter was a sword and board which is the most inefficient way to play in core. They were going for the role of meat shield and tank.

The cleric was played as a buffer and healbot. This was somewhat forced from the 6+ combat encounters per day.

I don't know the whole story, and I don't even know bits from all the classes. This is what has been repeated on these boards for years. There were links to interviews where the creators admitted they had no real idea what they were doing and only played in one style per class. No one ever thought to take a great sword, weapon focus, power attack, cleave on a lvl 1 human fighter. That was something a barbarian would do by level 3.

[Seward]

On another note, throwing an empowered maximized fireball into a group softens them up.


It does, but that choice risks them going before your team mops up and ripping out spleens. If instead your team has somebody go down or get incapacitated, it can be problematic, especially if it is you, having gotten their attention with that big flashy attack.

Debuffs are, as you say, hit and miss on effectiveness but if you don't think you can outright kill some opposition with an action, a good shot at disabling some of them is a fair play. A better play is to use the kind of battlefield control that just works (chain levitate entire party out of reach, drop solid fog on archers, wall of force in a corridor vs enemies that can't go through walls quickly, leaving a victim or two on your side to get murderized.

In real war amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. In 3.5 thinking in terms of action economy is where system mastery lies, not just in building to biggest possible numbers. Best fight is the one where the other guy gets no actions prior to defeat.


I also frequently see the advice that party buffs are good for optimizers, both because of the aforementioned "Haste does more damage than Fireball" and because it "hides" the optimization..

Ah, the joys of support. I've had characters with that as primary focus, and you treasure the moments where you free one ally to full attack from his grapple with std action, get a spellcaster free from silence with your swift and use your move action hauling a paralyzed drowning guy out of the water before his hitpoints drop from full to -1 in a single round.

When I play a DPS character I advertise as such ("Artillery" if area focused, "archer" if single target focused, regardless of if the mechanism is spell, martial or a mix). It helps with people being ok with doing your own killing, they know you aren't built to supercharge the party or rescue them except by killing before getting killed. Nobody has a problem with archers or barbarians in that role, and as long as the party has other folks who want to do other things all is well. Although honestly, I've seen a 5 "kill them all" party group do better vs most challenges than a party composed of mostly support. Certainly the encounters end a lot faster, unless that support party has one dude that spells hang nicely on.

A werewolf plot my hunting-oriented archer was in went like this "Hi, my name is ... and I am good at killing wolves." First fight happens....

PC1 "I cast Haste"
PC2 "inspire courage"
PC3 "prayer"
PC4 (blinds most of the wolves)
me...full attack and kill all but one of the blind ones....

"What? I said I was good at wolves." (and also who wouldn't be after all that...)



1: The expectation was 6 to 10 COMBAT encounters per adventuring day. Forget the 5+ non combat encounters per day. So the players were SUPER stingy with resources.


That is very different from most play. When storming a dungeon, most parties disengage well before that mark, and a GM that tosses 10 ambushes on a party in a day probably is doing pretty weak ambushes. In baby levels maybe you can't disengage but barring a wand of CLW will run out of hitpoints well before any other resource at that pace. At higher levels, well. Fly, Teleport, Hallucinatory Terrain, Rope Trick, Leomund Secure shelter et all exist for a reason. Divine casters have other equivalents, and barring all that, a rogue or ranger can usually figure out some way to block pursuit. That kind of thing was absolutely expected in old Gygax tournament modules, to the point of talking in module how the bad guys would recruit, would set up alarms/reactions and, yes, send out kill parties to try to find the sleeping point.

That expectation is probably why so many hour/lvl buffs existed for basic stuff in 3.0. If you don't think even nerfed 3.5 GMW and Magic Vestment party-wide aren't game changers you have not tried it. Add Phantom Steeds as a cherry on top. You can do this core with a 4 person party, but chain spell is a popular metamagic when allowed for a reason in higher levels.

[Fizban]

1: The expectation was 6 to 10 COMBAT encounters per adventuring day. Forget the 5+ non combat encounters per day. So the players were SUPER stingy with resources.
And what level were these combats? 3.0 modules frequently have encounters below the party's level, which don't require significant spell use to deal with. Random encounters were supposed to be a thing and using your spells sparingly because you never know when another fight will happen is expected, yes. If there's an average of 4-5 encounters per day then the fact of some days having less must mean that some days have more. Dogmatic adherence to a certain number of fights is a result of people misunderstanding and indeed ignoring the guidelines given for setting up the "standard game," as it were.


The Wizard used a light crossbow 75% of the time, throwing out a fireball or lightly bolt if at least 3 enemies and no PC would be caught in it. Never attempted to NOVA or rapid fire spells via a casting of haste.
Again, source? I have noticed a discrepancy in the claims that damage spells are insufficient to fight high hit point foes and high spell slots are too gratuitously high, which just so happens to go away if you assume casters are using two spells per round after 10th. Standard tactics given for casting foes in 3.0 modules is to cast haste and then spam their spells.


The fighter was a sword and board which is the most inefficient way to play in core. They were going for the role of meat shield and tank.
That's an interesting word, "inefficient." For one, the two given playtest fighters are Regdar and Tordek: the latter uses a shield, and the former uses a greatsword. For two, the increased AC of shield is actually more efficient when it comes to resources, causing you to lose fewer hit points and thus use fewer spells on healing.


The cleric was played as a buffer and healbot. This was somewhat forced from the 6+ combat encounters per day.
As opposed to what, exactly? That's what the PHB Cleric spell list does. That's the role they're built for. A large number of encounters means that the Cleric's limited offensive spells are insufficient and the party must rely on the Arcanist's crowd control and and everyone's mundane weaponry while the Cleric does their expected role of protection and survival? Le gasp, ze game is working as intended!

There are two major ways to fix the so-called problem of too many spells: reduce the number of spells, or increase the number of encounters. If the resource expenditure for your group doesn't match what is expected based on CR, then you can buff the monsters, nerf the group, or change your expectation of expenditure and use more/higher CR monsters.


There were links to interviews where the creators admitted they had no real idea what they were doing and only played in one style per class. No one ever thought to take a great sword, weapon focus, power attack, cleave on a lvl 1 human fighter. That was something a barbarian would do by level 3.
Which incidentally, if true, only works against claims that 3.5's change to two-handed Power Attack (which I've also been told happened because the person making them thought x1.5 was too much math for people) is the true expected amount of damage. If the game worked without that, worked without serious use of Power Attack at all, how can anyone possibly claim that a character needs those things to function?



It does, but that choice risks them going before your team mops up and ripping out spleens. If instead your team has somebody go down or get incapacitated, it can be problematic, especially if it is you, having gotten their attention with that big flashy attack.
And if you run MM1 monsters normally, they are in fact not very likely to drop or incapacitate anyone- from full health at least, unless they've popped out of a monster closet on top of you (and those with the ability to do so are weaker).

Debuffs are, as you say, hit and miss on effectiveness but if you don't think you can outright kill some opposition with an action, a good shot at disabling some of them is a fair play.
Sure. Until that disable happens to wear off and they're standing there at full hit points while you're still trying to deal with the others.

In real war amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. In 3.5 thinking in terms of action economy is where system mastery lies, not just in building to biggest possible numbers. Best fight is the one where the other guy gets no actions prior to defeat.
This is ironic, because "tactics" is action economy. Blasting a group of foes deals more overall damage, ending the fight faster. Managing distance gives you free attacks and controls how many the enemy gets, chokepoints force enemies to attack who you want, and neither of these require spells. Throwing a Fireball at range and letting them close gives you free damage while letting melee focused characters get their full attacks, instead of pinning the foe elsewhere and expecting your people to go to them, and be isolated if it wears off. A tank literally produces action economy by causing foes to waste their actions, or a less perfect meatshield to reduce the overall succesful attacks, stretching healing over more fights. Meanwhile a "logistical" approach, one of resources and preparation, would be concerned with efficiency. Where again, the guaranteed and multiplicative value of mass damage vs mass foes is better than hoping to "disable" them. Better to focus on "battlefield control," as you said- to divide the enemy and defeat them in detail. But even then it is always best to land an area damage effect before dividing them if you can, and if dividing them will hamper the delivery of damage, it may well be better to simply blast them twice, because the Arcanist's advantage is mass-targeting and becomes less efficient against single targets. Particularly if their spells can actually fail, as expected.

But I'm pretty sure most groups never actually use the number of foes that make AoE spells are meant to combat. If a "group" of foes caps out at 3 or 4, yeah that's just barely enough. The 3.0 modules have plenty of instances of 6-8 foes, and against unoptimized characters they can still be plenty of threat. But modern forum opinion says that foes that far below you shouldn't be a threat at all, the mundanes can just slap them around and so the fight might as well be skipped or never used. Because skipping the fights where non-casters are important doesn't skew the game at all. For all that some people will agree it's a tactical combat game, they don't seem to be interested in tactical combat so much as declaring that their caster has cast XYZ and won.


In baby levels maybe you can't disengage but barring a wand of CLW will run out of hitpoints well before any other resource at that pace. At higher levels, well. Fly, Teleport, Hallucinatory Terrain, Rope Trick, Leomund Secure shelter et all exist for a reason.
Retreat is expected at all levels- and since being unable to retreat is clearly an increase in difficulty, not being able to do so should warrant extra xp. But again ironically, as levels increase it can be more difficult to do so, as the PC's insertion abilities become powerful enough they warrant adventure sites that can block them, and enemies more casually gain the abilities to track, pursue, and ambush them. Sure you can Fly and Dimension Door, but a Succubus can Greater Teleport and Etherealness and has DR and SR and at-will Charm Monster+Suggestion over DC 20- a DM running that to its fullest will be able to screw you over if you don't Dim Lock and kill it upon first encounter (which is why they shouldn't).

As for low level cures- I've no way to know if they actually playtested 1st level Scribe Scroll and they almost certainly didn't do so with collaborative crafting, but the standard party can start scribing CLW scrolls as soon as they've got 12.5gp and a town. I think a major problem with "1st level adventures," besides them usually not being 1st level, is that the big proper modules never suggest going back to town. But I'm pretty sure actual playtesting and expected low-level play is a series of smaller "adventures" as short as even a single combat, and the party is supposed to be upgrading to better mundane combat gear and buying basic potions basically as soon as they wish. Depending on their cash/useful item ratio, a 1st level party could buy a wand of CLW before 2nd.

[Seward]

As for low level cures- I've no way to know if they actually playtested 1st level Scribe Scroll and they almost certainly didn't do so with collaborative crafting, but the standard party can start scribing CLW scrolls as soon as they've got 12.5gp and a town. .

My experience in organized play (random parties, challenging days where pc's don't always choose their fights) is that low level parties that have effective players always ride on consumables to make up for not enough spell slots (or variety in spells known AND slots for spont casters). And absolutely everybody buys a wand of clw no matter what class, so that they can own their own healing between fights and never start out with wounds.

The game absolutely assumes you get your WBL and can spend it on stuff as you go, and that means a lot of consumables in low levels. Higher level parties are a lot more self-sufficient but still have a few "oh crap" consumables. Pretty much anybody who can cast it among my characters carried a humble scroll of obscuring mist as late as level 16, and martials still often pack a tanglefoot bag just in case, even when they've abandoned most other alchemicals in favor of more permanent or use/day items.

We agree on most points, but I do want to address the action economy again.

Battlefield control does not mean "make your martials go hunt down bad guys when they killed first batch". If you use battlefield control, the goal is a trickle of enemies escaping it to get shredded by martial (or other zero resource attacks such as a reserve feat) efforts. If nobody is escaping, you dismiss it or maybe toss a DOT AOe or something to kill off the stragglers if they can't simply be killed by the party's martial ranged capability. (forcecage kinda sucks on all those fronts, it costs a fortune and you have to disintegrate it or have a martial teleport inside to finish off the bad guy in any timely manner. But it just works, so some folks use it).

Debuffs are not done with assumption that they last forever. They either function like a reverse buff (which isn't as good as just buffing party, I agree, unless you don't have an option that stacks) which cause enemy attacks to be more likely to fail or their defenses less potent (eg dispel). Or they incapacitate some fraction of the opposition for a while, while (unlike a lot of battlefield control) leaving them as targets for the party if they cope with the unaffected folks or alternately kill the debuffed folks quickly (As with something like glitterdust...sometimes going after blinded folks for quick kills is superior to trying to take out the active. If you have sneak attack martials, it isn't even a question).

They are used when doing meaningful damage with your spells is unlikely and where the odds of taking away some enemy actions is high. Where meaningful is defined as "doing enough damage a martial won't have to spend an extra round fighting to get something dead". Single target debuffs need to either "just work" (faerie fire vs miss chance defenses) or have a partial effect or be near certain to stick to be worth doing. It's a calculation similar to "can my single target direct damage actually finish someone off right now?" if not, you may well waste the action as surely as the ogre rolling a will save nat 20 vs maxx-d out enchanter. Sure all damage stacks, but if the target was going to get wasted by a melee full attack with or without your shot, you just spent a spell and action on nothing.

For that reason area damage is a lot like area debuffs - it is more likely to cause something somewhere that will end the fight faster simply because more targets are involved. Maybe it puts somebody in death range of a martial move+attack.

====
Re: high level retreats. Both you and your opposition has to assume scrying and other information gathering (which can include mind controlling your barkeep for dirt about your habits). You still set up watches even in your Secure Shelter+Mirage arcane and you should be using things like detect scrying or extradimensional sleeping places in randomly chosen locations if you both pissed off and failed to eliminate foes with resources similar to yours (or a succubus with time on her hands)

==
Re: Monster manual critters not dropping party members in full actions.

1. Crits happen. An orc greataxe crit or a composite longbow crit has felled many an adventurer before they can act. It is especially bad if you got shot in surprise round, then suffer full attack from said orc who charged-critted you or ranger who skewered you in surprise round.

2. sneak attack happens, and has similar dangers to crits.

3 a lance charge is also dangerous at any el, and if you live you may just get full attacked by both rider and horse. Some critters also fight this way.

You can mitigate all of these threats to a great extent with something as simple as obscuring mist as an early action which is why battlefield control in early actions is highly prized. A debuff (think trying to blind a lance charge with pyrotechnics, or glitterdusting a dangerous rogue) might work but isn't as reliable. Direct damage has to kill most of the threat to be as effective (maybe killing a bunch of light warhorses with a fireball say).

On the spell front, ogre magi can mess you up bad in an ambush. Invisibile, open surprise round with cone of cold and many parties will be in serious trouble if followup attacks aren't stopped or burst healing is much better than is usual. A bunch of the outsider-type folks in MM1 can also put an appropriate leveled party in a world of hurt really fast if allowed to act with impunity and have enough resistances and immunities to direct damage magic to make using it as risky as debuffing.

==

====
All that said....if you ignore the martials and other zero-resource-attack in your analysis of what works in 3.x you are pretty much failing at a high functioning party unless all you do is scry-die nova type actions or 5 minute adventuring days. You CAN do everything with spell slots, but they run out much much faster without martials to serve as buff platforms and resource-free foe killers, and that is assuming nobody screws with your ability to actually do magic (silence, sunder spell pouch or holy symbol, readied damage actions, grapple-type things or effective dispelling tactics)

It is also true that if all encounters are 1-4 opponents at el+3 a couple times a day you might wonder why a bunch of spells, feats and class options exist, as they are extremely effective against large numbers of weak enemies or when in an endurance style deathmarch with many encounters and meh otherwise.

[Zanos]

It's also not true. You could haste a decently built fighter even and they wouldn't do enough damage to match a single fireball's ability to set fire to a lot of people.

A lot of these optimisation rules rely on assumptions about encounters that just don't hold up.
It depends a lot on party composition. If you have two archers and a two handed weapon fighter haste is a much bigger force multiplier than if you have three TWF melee rogues and are fighting undead.

But the big problem IMO with the classic blasting spells is that they're most efficient in encounters that aren't hard. The way 3.5 works means that encounters that feature a large number of weak enemies usually are not really a problem. Sure, fireball is efficient at killing 16 kobolds or whatever, but you probably could have done that with no spell expenditure if you just let the fighter murder them all his sword.

[Zombimode]

I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

In addition to what other have said there is a break point from which on you have no limit on the number of spells you can learn. I can't remember if that point is at Int 18 or 19.
I know this rule was enforced by the Infinity Engine games but never inpacted my main characters because of course they had maximum Int when they were arcane spellcasters :smallwink:

[Fizban]

They are used when doing meaningful damage with your spells is unlikely and where the odds of taking away some enemy actions is high. Where meaningful is defined as "doing enough damage a martial won't have to spend an extra round fighting to get something dead".
Which changes depending on how much damage the rest of the party does, and can include the entire party of optimized full attacks, or a single unoptimized tank. And even if one area spell isn't worth a turn faster on one foe, the second next turn might add up to one turn faster on multiple foes. I think we agree that there's nuance and a place for all the spells.


Both you and your opposition has to assume scrying and other information gathering (which can include mind controlling your barkeep for dirt about your habits). You still set up watches even in your Secure Shelter+Mirage arcane and you should be using things like detect scrying or extradimensional sleeping places in randomly chosen locations if you both pissed off and failed to eliminate foes with resources similar to yours (or a succubus with time on her hands)
We agree about set watches, but not that your opposition should be assumed to have scrying (for one, you would know if someone in the party was hit with it because you rolled a will save for no discernible reason). The simple fact is that the vast majority of foes and situations have no ability or reason for them to have any knowledge of you- adventurers roll into dungeons. Which is a big part of why the default expectation is that the PCs win relatively easily.


1. Crits happen. An orc greataxe crit or a composite longbow crit has felled many an adventurer before they can act. It is especially bad if you got shot in surprise round, then suffer full attack from said orc who charged-critted you or ranger who skewered you in surprise round.
Orcs are the proof that classed humanoid CR doesn't actually follow a formula, so any proof that requires them I tend to ignore. Crits and failed initiative happen on occasion, the same way failed saves are supposed to. But monsters that have the ability to "just walk past" (as I have mocked and debunked the claim in the past) don't deal nearly as much as people think they do. If it takes a crit to drop someone, then all the other times it doesn't crit it doesn't drop someone.


2. sneak attack happens, and has similar dangers to crits.
3 a lance charge is also dangerous at any el, and if you live you may just get full attacked by both rider and horse. Some critters also fight this way.
Is there even a single sneak attacking monster in MM1 other than the Babau? Any lancer at all? These plus your mention of orcs and expectation of scrying suggest that you also lean into the trap of using too many PC-classed foes, which the game is not actually designed for. Sure, if the DM sends PC-type assassins or lancers or proactive mages against the party, sudden death is much more expected, because the DM made it so.

But you seem to be raising all these to reinforce your point that control spells are useful when other methods of tactical control aren't sufficient and enemies shouldn't be allowed to act with impunity, which naturally I have no disagreement with.

[Gnaeus]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization. I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play. I'll take a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

That may be unfair to CharOp. I know players who are more than capable of building a their own characters at a pretty high optimization level and then underplay the character they made, usually by forgetting to activate powers they have.

[Seward]

Which changes depending on how much damage the rest of the party does, and can include the entire party of optimized full attacks, or a single unoptimized tank. And even if one area spell isn't worth a turn faster on one foe, the second next turn might add up to one turn faster on multiple foes. I think we agree that there's nuance and a place for all the spells.


Absolutely. Playing with random parties drives that home. Optimal play is very different in an all-dps party vs an all-support party. My experience is if your martials are lacking, your spellcasters bleed spell slots at a huge rate, either in direct damage or keeping the party alive during and between encounters that took 2x as long as with a better mix of characters.



We agree about set watches, but not that your opposition should be assumed to have scrying (for one, you would know if someone in the party was hit with it because you rolled a will save for no discernible reason).


If the opposition includes 7th level cleric, druid or wizard, scrying is on the table. 8th level but less likely with spont casters. A typical tribe of monster race humanoids can muster such a caster, or at least knows a bigger nearby tribe that has one if PCs start genociding that area. A Druid doesn't even need a special focus, just a day to prep the spell and a bit of water, which he can create himself (and a pool for it to live in with a shovel)




The simple fact is that the vast majority of foes and situations have no ability or reason for them to have any knowledge of you- adventurers roll into dungeons. Which is a big part of why the default expectation is that the PCs win relatively easily.

In a campaign where PCs can't just murder the entire organization in an afternoon, retaliation is on the table.

spoilers for 1st and 3.x modules follow

Classic examples include an intro to GDQ module if characters from Slave Lords want to continue, the plot hook comes from a retaliation from surviving slave lords. GDQ from Fire Giant lair onward had notes to GM about forming murder squads to hunt sleeping spots if PCs retreat. Village of Hommlet and its big brother Temple of Elemental Evil had spies in town, intelligent motivated leaders who made full use of their divine magic and scouting minions, recruiting strategies to replace losses. 3.0 had Forge of Fury with orcs on top and a dragon in bottom and a legendary forge. Failing to wipe out a faction had them hunting down your sleeping spot. We got captured once that way in spite of all precautions, just too weak from a prior foray. As the orcs were slavers, at least as our GM ran it, a TPK wasn't game ending. A later undead tower module had massive undead growth rate, to the point where if you were not trimming down numbers daily they would eventually overrun the continent. A week off to shop would likely lose the region once it got rolling.

More recently, well, Red Hand of Doom. Again, army has spies and scouts, like any army would. PCs start out unknown but after some successes they become targets of increasingly sophisticated ambushes and assassinations, right up to the final battles. If PC's move fast they can outrun a lot of it, but usually those ambushes land when they return to the population center they are defending (if a level higher than expected by ambushers if successful). If PCs don't get enough done the army wins anyway, even if they get tactical victories wherever they fought in the final battles. And even then PCs are not safe if they don't track down surviving dragons and the priests that started the whole war.


In Organized play (Living Greyhawk, Pathfinder society) a character earns favor and disfavor certs which will sometimes mean earlier actions have consequences. I grant it is far less likely to come up than with a campaign module, as the adventures rarely have space for that kind of continuity unless it is an ongoing series (and even then might be played out of order)



Orcs are the proof that classed humanoid CR doesn't actually follow a formula, so any proof that requires them I tend to ignore. Crits and failed initiative happen on occasion, the same way failed saves are supposed to. But monsters that have the ability to "just walk past" (as I have mocked and debunked the claim in the past) don't deal nearly as much as people think they do. If it takes a crit to drop someone, then all the other times it doesn't crit it doesn't drop someone.


Actually they have a formula. Classed characters built on elite array and NPC wealth are worth about 1/4 of a fully geared PC with 28ish point buy. Ie four of them of equal level is an el+4 encounter for a 4 person party, very dangerous. NPC classes like warriers with even less wealth are rated at about -1 from a NPC.

As for crits - anything that can kill a PC before it can act, however unlikely, is a much more serious threat than something that might just damage it. Crits are not symmetric - a PC will receive many more attacks in their career than any NPC, which is why fumble tables are generally bad game design (3.x is an ok balance - a fumble = miss isn't too bad and can be mitigated with more attacks as you level. Crits are usually survivable if nothing else happens past baby levels and death is just a setback once you are about level 9. It's only a campaign level issue when death by unluck = permadeath)



Is there even a single sneak attacking monster in MM1 other than the Babau? Any lancer at all?

You can find Human, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Dwarf, Orc and many, many other races that all use classes and many use mounts. Most use martial weapons. An axe, bow or lance are normal things to encounter. If they are setting up an ambush, a rogue or ranger is usually involved, sometimes an entire team of them, depending on how urban the society is.



These plus your mention of orcs and expectation of scrying suggest that you also lean into the trap of using too many PC-classed foes, which the game is not actually designed for. Sure, if the DM sends PC-type assassins or lancers or proactive mages against the party, sudden death is much more expected, because the DM made it so.

So again, going to classic modules to set expectations.

Hommlet/ToEE was mostly classed humanoid opposition, including all leaders except interested deities. So was Slave Lords. Giants had leaders with class levels in GDQ, and the drow, Kuo toa areas were again, classed humanoids. The more dangerous Demonweb encounters were classed humanoids if they didn't feature the big L. RHOD is a story about a humanoid army with a bit of draconic suport. What setting are you in where humanoids with class levels or at least Outsiders (or formerly alive classed humanoids like undead) which are just as dangerous don't drive the plot? Dumb brute monsters are minions, mounts, pets or random encounters.



But you seem to be raising all these to reinforce your point that control spells are useful when other methods of tactical control aren't sufficient and enemies shouldn't be allowed to act with impunity, which naturally I have no disagreement with.
As I said, we mostly agree, just see through different lenses perhaps.

Some parties, haste is best. They'll kill em all with missile weapons before they come to grips Agincourt style. Another fireball blows mounts out from under lancers, and is followed with pyrotechnics to blind any missile-based Plan B. A third party is mostly short range and needs obscuring mist or similar vision-blocking effects to force enemy to close quarters. A fourth just heals through the damage till anemic offense starts getting results.

All approaches can work. A prep caster will use whatever they have that best suits the situation, going down the list as each option gets expended (and will suffer if facing multiple encounters of same type in one day). A spont caster will spam their best response or response pattern (eg, fireball followed by pyrotechnic, followed by low or no resource mopup) until they win (and will suffer if their best response is medeocre and face multiple encounters of that type in one day).

Skilled players look at situation and party and do their best. Skilled parties learn what works well and what does not and smoothly slide into roles, only scrambling when something unusual happens or the bad guys display a counter to their favored tactics and style, which might become common knowledge in an ongoing campaign.

[Scots Dragon]

So again, going to classic modules to set expectations.

Hommlet/ToEE was mostly classed humanoid opposition, including all leaders except interested deities. So was Slave Lords. Giants had leaders with class levels in GDQ, and the drow, Kuo toa areas were again, classed humanoids. The more dangerous Demonweb encounters were classed humanoids if they didn't feature the big L. RHOD is a story about a humanoid army with a bit of draconic suport. What setting are you in where humanoids with class levels or at least Outsiders (or formerly alive classed humanoids like undead) which are just as dangerous don't drive the plot? Dumb brute monsters are minions, mounts, pets or random encounters.

One of the random encounters in AD&D used to be 'an entire rival adventuring party exploring the same dungeon', even. The game has always been designed with the possibility that you could encounter people similar to yourself with similar abilities and gear.

Also the big assumption is that you're entering a fantasy world to do adventures and said entire world doesn't necessarily revolve around the player characters, and given power groups don't exactly cease to exist when the players aren't paying direct attention to them.

[Seward]

One of the random encounters in AD&D used to be 'an entire rival adventuring party exploring the same dungeon', even..

Oh god. That happened to me literally (rolled it after time passed) while poking into the Tomb of Horrors, 1st ed.

That was a very bad scene. Literally any other result would have been better, especially as those dudes were prepped for a Tomb of Horrors assault and quite reasonably came prepared, buffed etc before entering and caught us inside the first corridor while coming out after a tough session low on everything. (hey if you are doing TOH, part of the social contract is the DM gets to use lethal approaches with no guilt out of whatever emerges from the dice)

We won only because we'd learned some things about the Tomb and provoked them into taking actions that set off some of its defenses. Possibly one of the most tense encounters I've played since I walked into my first wargaming store as a tween back in the late 1970s. On the plus side after winning the looting portion was quite rewarding.

[Fizban]

Spoilering details


[stuff about tribal humanoids]
And if you check the organization data for those humanoids, you'll find that they're meant to have very few high level characters indeed, with only the largest bands having a couple of 7th+ level. So again, I think you're using more than the game expects, at a higher level than it expects. Humanoids are a staple at low levels because fighting nothing but beasts and vermin is boring, but you can't bring out the cool monsters yet, so it's bandits and bandits with racial hit dice. But those start to run out by 5th and by 7th you shouldn't be fighting them as anything more than speedbump guards on the outer edges of a complex, if it is indeed an organized complex- the meat has to be monsters, and only a few specific monsters are 7th+ level casters.

An adventure with a particular active villain rather than a standalone dungeon is likely to have one appropriately leveled caster (because of course the DM will use a caster, magic is fun and does things), but then runs into the fact that aside from clerical Divination, such spells are countered with relative ease and less useful than most people think they are (you can find plenty of old threads on the topic).
spoilers for 1st and 3.x modules follow

Village of Hommlet and its big brother Temple of Elemental Evil had spies in town, intelligent motivated leaders who made full use of their divine magic and scouting minions, recruiting strategies to replace losses.
And that's an adventure that I'm fairly certain starts at quite a low level, where humanoids are appropriate, if the Return module and its version of Hommlet are anything to go by.

3.0 had Forge of Fury with orcs on top and a dragon in bottom and a legendary forge. Failing to wipe out a faction had them hunting down your sleeping spot. We got captured once that way in spite of all precautions, just too weak from a prior foray. As the orcs were slavers, at least as our GM ran it, a TPK wasn't game ending.
I've evaluated that adventure encounter by encounter- it's a 3rd level adventure where humanoids remain appropriate (but you're also high enough level that Orcs aren't obviously overpowered)- indeed, the level where they are probably most appropriate, and yet I recall no such stipulation that the enemies would hunt you down, or that they were slavers. These may be natural responses, but I think they're your DM's responses, unless you'd like to give a citation. And they have no 4th+ spell level ability to do so.

How that module goes is that the low-level PCs roll up on a dungeon which has a bunch of Orcs (and later Trogs and Grimlocks), and they fight them. The enemy doesn't know they're coming and has no special magical or scouting response. It has a bunch of tactical information on how they defend the place- I just skimmed it again, and I see specific mention as raiders, but no kill-teams sent out of the dungeon to hunt the PCs. This is a slice of the game at low level, when humanoids are appropriate with their natural abilities, not inflated levels to match the PCs.

More recently, well, Red Hand of Doom. Again, army has spies and scouts, like any army would. PCs start out unknown but after some successes they become targets of increasingly sophisticated ambushes and assassinations, right up to the final battles. If PC's move fast they can outrun a lot of it, but usually those ambushes land when they return to the population center they are defending (if a level higher than expected by ambushers if successful). If PCs don't get enough done the army wins anyway, even if they get tactical victories wherever they fought in the final battles. And even then PCs are not safe if they don't track down surviving dragons and the priests that started the whole war.
And yet, none of that actually says that the DM is supposed to simulate or take into account any spells. I actually added a set of bespoke NPCs and encounter in order to justify the knowledge I was going to use later (warg riding Rangers with Animal Messenger wands). The module just tells you to make event X happen sometime before Y location. The spies and ambushes given are crude at best: a sudden new named and yet unimportant NPC whose mere introduction will invite suspicion, with no particular defenses against magical detection or magical information gaining abilities herself, and an assassination attempt made on an NPC by a bespoke assassin who makes general preparations. Red Hand of Doom is a great adventure and lays plenty of groundwork, but does not support the idea of a DM optimizing perfect use of magic to prepare for the PCs. Indeed, some of the very first suggestions in the Red Hand of Doom Handbook are for how the DM can do this to match an optimized party.


Actually they have a formula. Classed characters built on elite array and NPC wealth are worth about 1/4 of a fully geared PC with 28ish point buy. Ie four of them of equal level is an el+4 encounter for a 4 person party, very dangerous. NPC classes like warriers with even less wealth are rated at about -1 from a NPC.
I *just* sai- for one, no, that's not the formula given. The formula given is CR=level, or CR=level-1 for NPC classes, and is obviously inaccurate once you compare them to monsters, and NPCs default to the Elite Array and use it in every published everything. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting 1/4 and 28 point buy.


You can find Human, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Dwarf, Orc and many, many other races that all use classes and many use mounts. Most use martial weapons. An axe, bow or lance are normal things to encounter. If they are setting up an ambush, a rogue or ranger is usually involved, sometimes an entire team of them, depending on how urban the society is.
Until you pass 5th level or so, by which time they are no longer particularly threatening except for maybe Orcs, and none of them default to PC classes. Even the higher level "lieutenants" which the DM could decide are other classes, could be basic Warriors.

NPCs are not the standard battle. The whole point of the CR system is that entire books full of monsters have been written and ranked against the standard party. PC-classed NPCs are used for garnish and verisimilitude, which means yes, they appear in basically every module, and many DMs rely far to heavily on them because they can write exactly what they want instead of making an adventure about a monster. That doesn't change what the system is.



Hommlet/ToEE was mostly classed humanoid opposition, including all leaders except interested deities. So was Slave Lords. Giants had leaders with class levels in GDQ, and the drow, Kuo toa areas were again, classed humanoids. The more dangerous Demonweb encounters were classed humanoids if they didn't feature the big L.
These are the pre-3rd versions of the modules you're referencing, yes? From before the CR system and city generation existed, and the DM was encouraged to just pull Drow mirror versions of the party out of nothing, before magic item progression was standardized, from an era when each player was to randomly roll stats which determined what classes they were even allowed to play, and fighters and initiative and spells all worked massively differently, and indeed Lolth had what like less than 100gp?

I'm talking about 3.x. 1HD Humanoids stop being appropriate at most 7-8 levels above their base version when the Xp table stops giving results, more practically speaking sooner, and organization entries top out in that range.

RHOD is a story about a humanoid army with a bit of draconic suport. What setting are you in where humanoids with class levels or at least Outsiders (or formerly alive classed humanoids like undead) which are just as dangerous don't drive the plot? Dumb brute monsters are minions, mounts, pets or random encounters.
You're conflating the DM's ability to make something dangerous with that actually being their main form. If a monster appears, it functions as the monster. Cities generate a certain number of high level NPCs, and tribal humanoids generate a much smaller number of NPCs at much lower levels of undetermined class, but anything more than those is something placed by the DM or module.

RHoD has a humanoid army, which lightly cheats, but they're not a threat because of combat. They're a threat because it's an army of thousands that rolls over the region. Almost every encounter with Red Hand troops is a cakewalk and their limited supply of casters have bad spell lists and tactics- the Red Hand is threatening because of the monsters that they have, the ogres and giants and dragons and dragonspawn and ghosts etc. The whole point of the plot is that if the party of higher level PCs can deal with the monsters (and yes, some high level NPCs), the town can survive. It's also set at basically the exact final level band where masses of humanoid troops can be cannon fodder in PC fights, and their squad leaders can somewhat fight the PCs, and their higher level main antagonists can match the PCs, without all of that falling apart. It is appropriate for an army of humanoids to be led by high level humanoids, but go even a little bit higher and the basic hobgoblins become an environmental description while the extra levels needed to make the classed NPCs work become ludicrous. And the game balance issues of higher and higher level PC-classed NPCs, which fight far differently from monsters and range from laughably weak to one-shotting the whole party depending on the DM and with no clear CR, become more and more obvious.

Doesn't stop plenty of modules and DMs from leaning on them of course, because there are only so many monsters and it's so much easier to write a humanoid with a character build or soup up a monster and pretend the "formula" works, but that just means those modules screwed up. The system itself is pretty clear.

Though I suppose if you want pick the level range of the game as say, 1-12 instead of 1-20 or 5-12, then sure in that range the majority of the game has classed humanoids as a significant foe group. And it also out-of-the-blue magical information gathering (Scrying, Divination) is then not available at all for the majority, of 1-12, let alone on a significant portion of foes in that range.

The question of what the intended foes are supposed to be is relevant, because one cannot evaluate the expected class functions/party roles/etc without a foe. The monster manuals provide entire books of foes for all levels, but low levels are heavily populated with humanoids. Many DMs continue using higher and higher level PC-classed humanoids beyond what the organization entries suggest, and consider the given formula CR for classed NPCs as the primary rating by which the PCs are judged, but this is not correct. The CR system functions based on the party vs encounters, which the text generally says are made up of creatures or monsters, and due to the entirely subjective nature of the DM's crafted NPCs vs the static nature of published monsters, leveled humanoids cannot be considered the standard for any sort of balance or evaluation- particularly when even the basic Warrior statistics diverge hugely from those of monsters at the same given CR, and each other.

Furthermore, while a given foe must be assumed to be capable of using its abilities to threaten the PCs (else it would not be worth xp), it also cannot be assumed to have an undue advantage, and almost any interpretation that gives an enemy the ability to perfectly target the PC's non-apparent weaknesses must count as an advantage. The DM's use of these abilities, just as their building of a classed NPC or their design of a combat area's features, can make the monster more or less difficult than the initial CR suggests, and such use falls on the DM's head rather than an assumed default of the system, the same way a monster-closet or fish-in-a-barrel scenario would.

I do not wish to further argue about how CR works and monsters are expected rather than arbitrary swarms of high level PC-classed NPCs. The DMG and MM are pretty clear and I've done this before.

It remains true that any battle which can be described as "no-retreat" or "enemy pursues relentlessly via magic and springs an ambush," must by any reasonable standard be considered more difficult than a "fair" fight where both combatants begin at a suitably threatening range, with no special information or forewarning, as in the standard dungeon encounter.

[Seward]

I agree that the campaign settings all have a lot less classed humans at the higher levels.

1st edition D&D was basically done at "name" levels where you built strongholds and such with only a few higher level settings provided and even those (later parts of GDQ and Tomb of Horrors) were intended for early to mid teens.

Greyhawk settings reflect that. What isn't as obvious though is while there are far fewer high level folks, they tend to encounter each other frequently as their interests span a larger area and overlap. By epic they are all kinda frenemies (Circle of 8, Robilar, Rary, whomever the great druid might be in a 3.x setting).

Forgotten Realms was another animal, with a lot more high level folks, even entire leveled armies and prototypes of what in 3.x and later would be called epic (that stupid wizard who appears everywhere and has power at demigod level but still chats with random adventurers, forget his name)

I've spent a lot more time in 1-12 than higher levels and really have not played higher than L16 unless you count CRPGs with D&D engine's, which I do not. The problem with tier 16 is you are just beginning to attract the attention of actual epics in the setting, and their cohorts or followers make fine humanoid classed leveled opposition. Beyond them the kind of stuff we fought was outsiders, the kind of undead that would be called Taken in Glen Cook's Black company series, or plots to permadeath or at least trap folks who have cohorts that can cast True Rez or Wish.

Most dangerous fights were templated, advanced monsters, as 3-4 hit die per CR scaling blended badly with SLAs that increased in caster level with hit dice, not with CR. So you would get a tier 15 half-demon dire octopus or something with a CL26 Blasphemy. The classed humanoid fights were actually kind of a relief in comparison - in those tiers the massive WBL hit for being a NPC starts to really show.

Increasingly though, the opposition can all fly, make all saves (as 3-4hd per CR still advances bad saves faster than 1 point per level), be functionally immune to grapple/trip again due to high bab from advancement, hit on a "2" most attacks (Again, advancement bab), etc.

In 3.x, the real high level cheese is not classed humanoids. They peak more like lvl10. Nor is it critters with CR12-20 without advancement. It's a random L4 critter advanced and templated.

From a more meta standpoint....

a lot more campaigns start with low levels than high ones.

Most campaigns end long before level 10, much less 20

Which means most play experiences for most D&D players are still, decades after Gygax introduced level drain monsters to drop people back into the preferred play ranges, in the kinds of level ranges where the old Greyhawk countries made sense. Most editions of D&D perform strangely in the teens and are a totally different game by whatever they call epic, and by near epic mostly take place away in extraplanar settings.

[Kurald Galain]

a lot more campaigns start with low levels than high ones.

Most campaigns end long before level 10, much less 20
Definitely this.

And players who've started a class in those levels tend to continue playing the class that way in higher levels, even if that technically isn't the best way to play it any more. Advanced top-level top-tier forum strategies aren't necessarily all that applicable to actual gameplay.

[Scots Dragon]

Forgotten Realms was another animal, with a lot more high level folks, even entire leveled armies and prototypes of what in 3.x and later would be called epic (that stupid wizard who appears everywhere and has power at demigod level but still chats with random adventurers, forget his name)

Halaster Blackcloak.

The Realms actually has a lot of characters in that scale. It balances back out.

[Seward]

Definitely this.

And players who've started a class in those levels tend to continue playing the class that way in higher levels,

One thing I use my charop skills for is to try to make that tendency work for me or anybody I'm helping rather than against them. Some characters have a growth arc, but with the goal in mind, you still try to make the baby levels be the seeds of greatness as it were.

Say somebody wants to basically play Paul Bunyan. You can do that in 3.5 or Pathfinder with the right druidic chasse.

Ox animal companion, a martial level for the axe proficiency, profession lumberjack and stuff that would help with treecutting (eg, favored enemy plant, adamantine greataxe, cleave, wood shape perhaps). In 3.5 Master of Many Forms lets him be a giant 24x7. But built as a beatstick mostly, but with cool Bunyan flavor.

"I can see a country mile" (raptor's sight and spot ranks)...just to pick one thing.

At L1 he is a dude with an axe who isn't much different from any other actual lumberjack. By L5 he has an adamantine axe, power attack, cleave, maybe monkey grip for a size large axe and kind of surprising druidic spell support for utility. And a Bison animal companion which isn't a joke at those levels. By L10 he's a size large giant which will get stronger as he levels, his companion is mostly utility rather than combat, a very durable mule role but again, interesting odd druidic spell powers to build his legend as more than a pure beatstick (with druid spells of mid level he's a construction beast too, with plant growth to grow trees he then harvests for lumber and shapes with wood shape)

He'd play as a solid martial with out of combat utility, well able to contribute to adventurer tasks but marching to the beat of his own drummer in interesting ways.

[Zanos]

Halaster Blackcloak.
That's the Undermountain nutter, and I don't think he really leaves Undermountain. Also, he's a lot of fun.

Chatting with random adventurers seems more like Elminser or Khelben Blackstaff.

[Scots Dragon]

That's the Undermountain nutter, and I don't think he really leaves Undermountain. Also, he's a lot of fun.

Chatting with random adventurers seems more like Elminser or Khelben Blackstaff.

Or Malchor Harpell. Or Alustriel Silverhand. Or Flamsterd.

The Realms has many powerful mages is my point overall, and they all kind of balance each other out. Especially when you remember that they’re operating on the assumption of earlier edition rules as How Things Work, rather than some kinda nonsense cooked up in someone's spherical rothe Theoretical Optimisation.

[Zanos]

Powerful mages, sure. Powerful mages that like to pester adventuring parties by being all mysterious and cryptic, there's only like...three epic wizards that do that! :smallbiggrin:

[Eladrinblade]

Barbarian: Mobile offense-based fighter.

Bard: Social/face, buffer, sage

Cleric: Buffer/healer, secondary fighter, troubleshooter

Druid: As cleric, except more offense-based magic and outdoors focus

Fighter: Defense/crowd-control fighter

Monk: Extra mobile debuffer/crowd-control fighter, mage-killer

Paladin: Cleric/fighter mix, offense-based especially against evil enemies

Ranger: Druid/fighter/rogue mix, tracking specialist

Rogue: Skillmonkey, opportunist fighter, trap specialist

Sorcerer: Offense-based spellcaster

Wizard: All-round/utility spellcaster, sage


The core party covers your dungeon-delving needs. Healing, defense, skills, magic. Social skills are potentially covered. The biggest hole is the lack of outdoors skills/magic, but the game is focused more on dungeons than getting to dungeons. A "full" party would include a bard and a ranger (though arguably a druid would be better).

1. cleric
2. fighter
3. rogue
4. wizard

[Scots Dragon]

Powerful mages, sure. Powerful mages that like to pester adventuring parties by being all mysterious and cryptic, there's only like...three epic wizards that do that! :smallbiggrin:

Literally all epic wizards pester adventuring parties by being all mysterious and cryptic. It's the true long term goal of every magic-user.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zanos
That's the Undermountain nutter, and I don't think he really leaves Undermountain. Also, he's a lot of fun.

Chatting with random adventurers seems more like Elminser or Khelben Blackstaff.

We were in Undermountain once, and we got Halaster’d.

He does indeed chat with adventurers, at least with our DM, and if by “chat” you mean “taunts his prey through magical means.”