PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about what's wrong with the core classes



Pages : [1] 2

ErrantX
2007-12-04, 02:21 PM
This has been something that's been tossed around for a long while and I guess, despite my many years of playing this game, I don't understand it.

There are quite a few people I've seen on these boards and others who have nothing but contempt and spite for the fighter and the monk classes. Some people I know have resorted to replacing them with Tome of Battle classes, but in my mind that doesn't fix the situation. I have some opinions of my own as far as fighter goes (and in fact, I've done some remedies on those, check my sig), but I guess I don't know where the monk hate comes from?

I understand the non-love for sorcerer (you're best bet is to jump out asap for a prestige class), paladin (because the class features suck and the spells don't make up for that, should be a prestige class anyway), ranger and rogue (because scout does it better in all ways for both, so screw scout). I'm currently redoing the classes in my own little way for my group, but I wanted to throw out there, "What is so wrong with fighter and monk, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the classes?"

-X

Tengu
2007-12-04, 02:26 PM
Cleric can do everything that fighter can, does it much better, and can do also a lot of other stuff.

Monk does not have a party role - too wimpy to be a fighter, not enough skill points and class skills to be a skill monkey, and he's not a spellcaster. He's good only at staying alive, and that rarely contributes to the party or wins battles (because he might be hard to hit, but he's not going to hit either).

If I ever participated in a DND game, I'd encourage my players to choose ToB classes instead of core melee ones if I were DMing, or ask the DM to allow ToB if I were playing. They simply have more options and are more fun mechanically.

ErrantX
2007-12-04, 02:34 PM
Ahh yes, cleric-zilla, how I find you annyoing.

In a game I played in I ended up with a monstrous 25th level divine spellcaster that at that point didn't even need magic items. Cleric needs fixing, and when I get to cleric, I will give it the work it needs. I think the reasoning behind the cleric's strength these days stems from the old AD&D mentality of "crap, who's playing the cleric?" because they just plain sucked. Now they're divine power-houses. I think my personal way of fixing it is to take a note from the Cloistered Cleric variant in UA and make a Cleric (martial) and Priest (spellcaster) class split.

Hmm, you do have a point with monk. They can get this wild flurry of attacks, but they're hard to equip with weapons that do an appreciable amount of damage for enhancement bonuses, but their fists are kind of boring. They are good at surviving, but yeah, I see your point.

As far as ToB, I like the ToB classes and I think they add to the world, but I see where they far outshine and outstrip some of the core classes (fighter and paladin especially). I think ToB should compliment, not replace.

Let's keep this going!

-X

Overlard
2007-12-04, 02:39 PM
If you're looking for balance, I think barbarian, bard, ranger & rogue are the level to aim for. They do what they're designed for well, and where they overlap into other roles, they don't overshadow classes designed specifically for that role. They'll pull their weight in a party, and be

The primary spellcasters are all significantly above that level of course. Even without other class features, they can outshine others at quite a few roles. And when you add stuff like wildshape to the mix, the gap is far too wide.

With the paladin slightly behind the curve, and fighter & monk trailing behind, the Bo9S classes are excellent replacements, but then leave the "balance quartet" behind at most levels.

Balance: it ain't easy.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 02:39 PM
How does a cleric do it better than a fighter until the highest of high levels? Combat clerics can't meet fighters until over level 12, due to lack of feats, or can they?

Craig1f
2007-12-04, 02:41 PM
How does a cleric do it better than a fighter until the highest of high levels? Combat clerics can't meet fighters until over level 12, due to lack of feats, or can they?

Divine Power is a 3rd or 4th level spell, that gives the cleric a BaB equal to his character level.

It only lasts for rounds/level, but if you use the Divine Metamagic cheese, you can make it persist for a day.

I say screw that. Go Warlock1/Cleric3/Eldritch Disciple 10/Contemplative X, and get a lot of divine feats and extra turning feats.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 02:49 PM
Divine Power is a 3rd or 4th level spell, that gives the cleric a BaB equal to his character level.

It only lasts for rounds/level, but if you use the Divine Metamagic cheese, you can make it persist for a day.

I say screw that. Go Warlock1/Cleric3/Eldritch Disciple 10/Contemplative X, and get a lot of divine feats and extra turning feats.

Ok, so I took DMM and persist spell. My two domains were... celerity (extend) and undeath (extra turning). Now you need to pick up PA, LA, Imp. Bullrush, and shocktrooper. That's a human at... level 12.

That's a really, really specific build. It's only clerics that are clerics who worship timeliness and undeath that crib the fighter. Even then, the cleric would only have a BAB 3/4 the fighter, so qualify for shocktrooper later, at like level 12.

Yet most people play the game at levels 1-9.

Overlard
2007-12-04, 02:54 PM
Ok, so I took DMM and persist spell. My two domains were... celerity (extend) and undeath (extra turning). Now you need to pick up PA, LA, Imp. Bullrush, and shocktrooper. That's a human at... level 12.

That's a really, really specific build. It's only clerics that are clerics who worship timeliness and undeath that crib the fighter. Even then, the cleric would only have a BAB 3/4 the fighter, so qualify for shocktrooper later, at like level 12.

Yet most people play the game at levels 1-9.
Shocktrooper is how fighters try to keep up with the casters. A cleric going for that extremely specific feat combination would be extremely powerful, but he honestly doesn't need to. They can be good fighters whilst still casting spells, and later on, excellent fighters while still casting spells.

3rd level spells are where fighters start to fall behind, 4th level ones are where they become all-but obsolete. Less so in core, but the big rift is still there.

Neon Knight
2007-12-04, 02:56 PM
Ok, so I took DMM and persist spell. My two domains were... celerity (extend) and undeath (extra turning). Now you need to pick up PA, LA, Imp. Bullrush, and shocktrooper. That's a human at... level 12.

That's a really, really specific build. It's only clerics that are clerics who worship timeliness and undeath that crib the fighter. Even then, the cleric would only have a BAB 3/4 the fighter, so qualify for shocktrooper later, at like level 12.

Yet most people play the game at levels 1-9.

That's not CoDzilla. CoDzilla employs all those personal range buffs clerics can get persisted. Divine Favor, Bull's Strength, etc. You don't need the Fighter's feats. You've got Divine Buffs, which are better. You won't beat shocktrooper cheese, but you will outperform anyone fighting at a reasonable level.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 02:57 PM
Shocktrooper is how fighters try to keep up with the casters. A cleric going for that extremely specific feat combination would be extremely powerful, but he honestly doesn't need to. They can be good fighters whilst still casting spells, and later on, excellent fighters while still casting spells.

3rd level spells are where fighters start to fall behind, 4th level ones are where they become all-but obsolete. Less so in core, but the big rift is still there.

Actually, if I understand the cleric build right, a cleric is going to be burning a good deal of his spells on buffing himself to be competent to a fighter's level of fighting, at least until the high levels that see very little play time.

TK-Squared
2007-12-04, 02:58 PM
Celerity doesn't give Extend Spell. It gives +10ft. Movement.

You're thinking of PLANNING domain.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-04, 02:58 PM
What's wrong with....

Clerics:
Overpowered spells (in general; but most spellcasting in Core is too powerful)
Hit Dice too good.
Too well armored.

Druids:
Natural Spell
Overpowered spells

Wizards:
Overpowered spells

Sorcerer:
Overpowered spells

Neon Knight
2007-12-04, 03:00 PM
Actually, if I understand the cleric build right, a cleric is going to be burning a good deal of his spells on buffing himself to be competent to a fighter's level of fighting, at least until the high levels that see very little play time.

Typically, Codzilla uses Nightsticks to fuel DMM.

ALOR
2007-12-04, 03:01 PM
My problem with the base class's is not so much about balance, (Wizards should be more powerful than everyone else, they tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up :smallbiggrin: ) but with some of the class designs and flavor. Sorcerer should be a diffrent spell list IMO or something to give it a diffrent feel than mage without a spellbook. Monks, as they are, do not fit into my perception of typical western fantasy so i have a problem with that. Paladins, i agree, do get flat after so many levels. I like rangers but i do wish they had a non divine equivelent that was more fighterish than rougish(scout) . Druids I like but I would use the "aspect of nature" alternate class feature from Unearthed arcana. The other classes I am fine with though.
(now watch as everyone tells me I am insane :smalltongue: )

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:02 PM
That's not CoDzilla. CoDzilla employs all those personal range buffs clerics can get persisted. Divine Favor, Bull's Strength, etc. You don't need the Fighter's feats. You've got Divine Buffs, which are better. You won't beat shocktrooper cheese, but you will outperform anyone fighting at a reasonable level.

Bulls strength can't be persisted, and won't stack with divine power anyway. Nor will you outperform the fighter, since if you're going to powergame with DMM and nightsticks(seriously, domains celerity and undeath? wtf), it's only fair that the fighter be dipping feat rogue, psychic warrior, and taking levels of FB to get all he can out of damage (lose 1 BAB for 4 feats, more skill points, and two powers? yes please!).

Now, it's certainly the case that once a cleric hits high enough levels, he will absolutely be outperforming the fighter- DMM Greater Aspect of the Deity is pretty ugly. But how many games reach, or are played at 17th level, when D&D is obviously broken?

At lower levels (1-10), the cleric is better off buffing the whole party, and spending his feats on non-combat oriented stuff. He won't be the primary damage dealer, like the fighter, but he will be helping out the whole team. I see that little different than a bard.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:03 PM
Typically, Codzilla uses Nightsticks to fuel DMM.

Typically, clerics use spell slots to power their spells they cast with DMM.

Neon Knight
2007-12-04, 03:04 PM
My problem with the base class's is not so much about balance, (Wizards should be more powerful than everyone else, they tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up :smallbiggrin: )

Not necessarily. See the works of Robert E. Howard.

Chronos
2007-12-04, 03:10 PM
I understand the non-love for sorcerer (you're best bet is to jump out asap for a prestige class),That's not the problem with the sorcerer: The same is true for any class whose primary feature is its spellcasting (see also Wizard and Cleric). The problem with the sorcerer is that it's too similar to a wizard. Even with the imbalance that exists between melee and magic, there's still a place for fighters and barbarians, because some folks want to play a big, strong, hack-slash-stabbity-chop-chop character. But if you want to play a guy in a dress who fights things by re-writing the laws of reality, you've got two classes to fill that role: They're almost identical in what they can do, but one of them (the wizard) can do it better. So what's the sorcerer for?

Actually, this is another reason why the fighter gets so little appreciation. For most concepts you might want to play a fighter for, you can probably do better with it by making the character a barbarian, instead. Sure, the fighter is outshone by the wizard, but in some ways, he's outshone worse by the barb, since not only is the barb more effective at fighting than the fighter, but he's more effective at fighting in the same way.


Actually, if I understand the cleric build right, a cleric is going to be burning a good deal of his spells on buffing himself to be competent to a fighter's level of fighting, at least until the high levels that see very little play time.Even so: Burning a good deal of his spells to be as competent as a fighter still leaves him some spells left over. By contrast, a fighter who's as good as a fighter has no spells at all. The fact that a cleric doesn't choose to use up all of his spells to gain melee ability just goes to further prove the cleric's superiority, since not only can he fill the fighter's shoes if he wants, he can also choose other options that are even better.

Serenity
2007-12-04, 03:12 PM
Actually, rogues are generally considered a good, well-balanced class, and I think Rangers rank a little behind them. I certainly don't complain about either one.

Fighters are a bad class for a number of reasons. They are capable of dealing out massive amounts of damage, no one disputes that. But it requires extraordinarily careful planning of feat chains, and in the end often leaves them as a largely one-trick pony who always Lion Charge Leaping Power Attacks for full, or always tries to trip with his spiked chain or what have you. If they can't do that, or can't get in their full attack, there's little they can contribute. And even when they can pull their tricks, that's often inefficient compared to what the Casters in the party can do. Not to mention that CoDzilla match and even exceed their combat prowess while still breaking reality.

Tome of Battle characters, on the other hand, can easily adapt their tactics to the situation, rather than needing to expend a huge number of feats to become a tripping master and only that. They aren't reliant on full attacks, they have enough power that there's a reason mobile enemies might focus on them rather than going straight for the casters, and it doesn't require massive optimization-fu to make them reasonably effective at all levels.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:14 PM
Even so: Burning a good deal of his spells to be as competent as a fighter still leaves him some spells left over. By contrast, a fighter who's as good as a fighter has no spells at all. The fact that a cleric doesn't choose to use up all of his spells to gain melee ability just goes to further prove the cleric's superiority, since not only can he fill the fighter's shoes if he wants, he can also choose other options that are even better.

But what happens when the cleric gets hit with a Dispel Magic that virtually everything has at the levels where the cleric will have spells left over that are more meaningful than cantrips?
He's got 3/4 BAB, and a big weapon.

I'm curious to see a ninth level cleric build that's better than a ninth level fighter in everyway; so that I wouldn't even want a fighter in the party.

Baron Corm
2007-12-04, 03:15 PM
"What is so wrong with fighter and monk, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the classes?"

-X

Nothing. No one uses DMM Persist or other cheese in a real game. If they do they're the exception. In a real game, fighting creatures who are appropriate challenges for EVERYONE (the DM can see your char sheet), spellcasters don't dominate as much as you think. The rogue deals more damage than the scout and has some sweet prestige classes; it's a matter of preference. Fighter's got his feats. Monk's got his full attacks and saves. Magic items make up a lot for the lack of a non-spellcaster's mobility. So with good players and a good DM, the classes are pretty balanced. I take that back; it's too over-arching. But at least, the "bad" classes aren't as bad as they may seem.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:18 PM
Fighters are a bad class for a number of reasons. They are capable of dealing out massive amounts of damage, no one disputes that. But it requires extraordinarily careful planning of feat chains, and in the end often leaves them as a largely one-trick pony who always Lion Charge Leaping Power Attacks for full, or always tries to trip with his spiked chain or what have you. If they can't do that, or can't get in their full attack, there's little they can contribute. And even when they can pull their tricks, that's often inefficient compared to what the Casters in the party can do. Not to mention that CoDzilla match and even exceed their combat prowess while still breaking reality.

I find that most classes tend to be one trick ponies, if they want to do their tricks at the level of optimization frequently found on the internet.

However, effective fighters will have enough feats to switch from filling the enemy with arrows from range, to charging in with a spiked chain, disarming them, tripping them, and hitting them for a 100 damage. Will there be a build that could shoot better, or charge better, or disarm better? Certainly. But that's not the fighter's real strength. It's being able to do each one better than pretty much every other class, save a fighter spec'd to trip real good.

ALOR
2007-12-04, 03:19 PM
Nothing. No one uses DMM Persist or other cheese in a real game. If they do they're the exception. In a real game, fighting creatures who are appropriate challenges for EVERYONE (the DM can see your char sheet), spellcasters don't dominate as much as you think. The rogue deals more damage than the scout and has some sweet prestige classes; it's a matter of preference. Fighter's got his feats. Monk's got his full attacks and saves. Magic items make up a lot for the lack of a non-spellcaster's mobility. So with good players and a good DM, the classes are pretty balanced. I take that back; it's too over-arching. But at least, the "bad" classes aren't as bad as they may seem.


Wow thank you. This is exactly my thoughts. :smallsmile:

SofS
2007-12-04, 03:21 PM
I would say that the problem with the core classes is due to D&D's flavourless, mechanistic, simultaneously pragmatic and idosyncratic magic system. D&D battles tend to be exceptionally short, and the ability to burn through a few high-powered spells (at any level, as there are always spells that are powerful for that level) while having a decent backup through items and lower-powered spells and reserve feats (though I hear that those aren't that popular) usually ends up being better than having "inherent" fighting ability. You can find a spell to cover every weakness of a casting class and more besides. It started off with spell power being partially limited by being extremely specific, then by that being made up for by increasing spell power in its limited range, and the upshot is 3.5 and its huge library of specific (though abusable) powerful spells that a wizard, cleric, or druid can pick and choose between for any situation imaginable.

This might end up being more balanced if you ran a hell of a lot of encounters per day with little chance to rest, but that's a fairly artificial fix if it is intended as one.

So yeah. The classes are unbalanced because a wizard did it.

Frosty
2007-12-04, 03:21 PM
At 9th level, not quite that bad yet. In very high levels...fighters seriously get boned.
As for Dispel Magic, there are so many ways to raise Cast Level that it's not even funny. You can make your spells impossible to dispel even on a natural 20 dispel check.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:23 PM
At 9th level, not quite that bad yet. In very high levels...fighters seriously get boned.
As for Dispel Magic, there are so many ways to raise Cast Level that it's not even funny. You can make your spells impossible to dispel even on a natural 20 dispel check.

Like what, exactly? The feats you spent on DMM and combat so you could do the fighter's job?

Frosty
2007-12-04, 03:24 PM
Nothing. No one uses DMM Persist or other cheese in a real game. If they do they're the exception. In a real game, fighting creatures who are appropriate challenges for EVERYONE (the DM can see your char sheet), spellcasters don't dominate as much as you think. The rogue deals more damage than the scout and has some sweet prestige classes; it's a matter of preference. Fighter's got his feats. Monk's got his full attacks and saves. Magic items make up a lot for the lack of a non-spellcaster's mobility. So with good players and a good DM, the classes are pretty balanced. I take that back; it's too over-arching. But at least, the "bad" classes aren't as bad as they may seem.

1) monk DON'T get full attacks often at all. I mean, their abilities are conflicting. Fast Movement and Flurry? Seriously. I propose we make Flurry a Standard Action. That'd go a long way.

2) Magic users can also have Magic items, making them better than the Fighters with Magic items.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-04, 03:28 PM
But what happens when the cleric gets hit with a Dispel Magic that virtually everything has at the levels where the cleric will have spells left over that are more meaningful than cantrips?
He's got 3/4 BAB, and a big weapon.

I'm curious to see a ninth level cleric build that's better than a ninth level fighter in everyway; so that I wouldn't even want a fighter in the party.
Clerics just need a handful of spells to buff themselves up. If they are hit by a dispell, they can survive long enough to re-cast these. If a fighter is hit by a dispell, he's screwed.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:31 PM
Clerics just need a handful of spells to buff themselves up. If they are hit by a dispell, they can survive long enough to re-cast these. If a fighter is hit by a dispell, he's screwed.

They won't be able to recast if they use DMM, since they're likely out of turn attempts (unless they're level 15 or sommat, at which point, I concede that just about everything's better than a fighter). Or, they can prepare extra buffs, which will only last that one combat, which means their first 3 rounds of combat are buffing, and for the 4-6 combats per day, they each need 3 spells. Even if the DMM their buffs, and they lasted half the encounters, they would still need to use about 15 spells/day on buffs. That's not a small number.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 03:44 PM
Like what, exactly? The feats you spent on DMM and combat so you could do the fighter's job?

No, Like an Ioun Stone, or A PrC class benefit, or just going straight Cleric and knowing that at level 9 they will dispel less then half your buffs when they cast, and then you hit them for lots of damage, then they do it again and you hit them for more damage, then they do it again, get your last buffs, you hit them again, kill them, and then recast hour per level buffs since you actually spend very few of your spell slots on buffs.

streakster
2007-12-04, 03:46 PM
Oh-oh-oh-oh....

The Monk's just wrong,
The Bard sings songs,
The Druid always rules the day.
The Wizard reshapes real-i-tay,
The Sorcerer's a knock-off
The Fighter is pure boring melee.
The Cleric is a band-aid box,
The Barbarian's dumb as a sack of rocks,
The Rogue will try to steal your socks.
And that's I'll I've got to saaaaaaaaay....

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 03:46 PM
They won't be able to recast if they use DMM, since they're likely out of turn attempts (unless they're level 15 or sommat, at which point, I concede that just about everything's better than a fighter). Or, they can prepare extra buffs, which will only last that one combat, which means their first 3 rounds of combat are buffing, and for the 4-6 combats per day, they each need 3 spells. Even if the DMM their buffs, and they lasted half the encounters, they would still need to use about 15 spells/day on buffs. That's not a small number.

They only need two spells to do very well, that's one round. And that's ignoring all the minute per level/10 minute per level buffs that they can cast when they know combat is coming.

Overlard
2007-12-04, 03:55 PM
A dispel magic could ruin a DMM'd cleric's day, just like a hold person can ruin the fighter's. There's always a counter, but they're far from sure things.


it's only fair that the fighter be dipping feat rogue, psychic warrior, and taking levels of FB to get all he can out of damage (lose 1 BAB for 4 feats, more skill points, and two powers? yes please!).
He's not a fighter then, is he? He's a multiclassed guy. You might as well say he should dip into cleric for a level or two to get a DMM buff or two, and still count himself as a fighter.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 03:55 PM
No, Like an Ioun Stone, or A PrC class benefit,

That most likely required feats that you already used to be hitting as hard as the fighter, and good luck getting a 30,000 gp item at level 9. Besides, how are you going to afford those night sticks?


or just going straight Cleric and knowing that at level 9 they will dispel less then half your buffs when they cast, and then you hit them for lots of damage, then they do it again and you hit them for more damage, then they do it again, get your last buffs, you hit them again, kill them, and then recast hour per level buffs since you actually spend very few of your spell slots on buffs.

You won't hit them for lots of damage with 40% of your buffs gone.



Most creatures that have dispel SLAs also have ways to stay out of range long enough to strip the party of buffs before moving in; or remove enough buffs such that the cleric won't be all that terrific.

The cleric will have to take it; the fighter will at least get to shoot at it.


Just realized- jump isn't on the cleric skill list. It'll be hard qualifying for leap attack very early.


They only need two spells to do very well, that's one round. And that's ignoring all the minute per level/10 minute per level buffs that they can cast when they know combat is coming.

A rod of metamagic quicken is almost 40k gold. Almost out of reach for a level 10 party. Certainly not a WISE purchase.

Though DMM quicken is better than persistent, IMO, as a DM is very likely to be hitting you with dispels if you get too reliant on all day buffs.


A dispel magic could ruin a DMM'd cleric's day, just like a hold person can ruin the fighter's. There's always a counter, but they're far from sure things.

A dispel magic has a pretty good chance of hitting at least one of the cleric's buffs. The fighter has the luxury of not losing the 'buffs' to such a thing, since they're feats.

A hold person could also ruin a cleric's day (though unlikely).


He's not a fighter then, is he? He's a multiclassed guy. You might as well say he should dip into cleric for a level or two to get a DMM buff or two, and still count himself as a fighter.

And is a cleric who dips 3 PrC for as many turn undead attempts is still a cleric?

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 04:01 PM
That most likely required feats that you already used to be hitting as hard as the fighter, and good luck getting a 30,000 gp item at level 9.

You won't hit them for lots of damage with 40% of your buffs gone.

Most creatures that have dispel SLAs also have ways to stay out of range long enough to strip the party of buffs before moving in; or remove enough buffs such that the cleric won't be all that terrific.

The cleric will have to take it; the fighter will at least get to shoot at it.

Just realized- jump isn't on the cleric skill list. It'll be hard qualifying for leap attack very early.

Why are you so confused? A cleric doesn't need any feats to equal a fighter. The Spells do that automatically. He can therefore spend feats to get better spells, or do more with them. He doesn't need Leap Attack because he can just buff his initial 14 Str to 28 by casting 2 spells. And those spells have other effects too. And he has lots of other buffs that increase his damage in other ways.

Clerics don't need Leap Attack. Clerics can use bows too. Ever heard of the Cleric Archer? Better then a Fighter one. And really? Something with Dispel SLAs keeping it's distance? The fighter is now 100% useless. The Cleric can cast spells though, you know, those things with range.


And is a cleric who dips 3 PrC for as many turn undead attempts is still a cleric?

What does this even mean? You don't usually get more Turn attempts from PrCs. They dip (or just single path) through PrCs because every PrC for Casters is called, "You get a level of Cleric plus something nice (Like extra domains, or slippery mind or other defensive bonuses.)"

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 04:07 PM
Why are you so confused? A cleric doesn't need any feats to equal a fighter. The Spells do that automatically. He can therefore spend feats to get better spells, or do more with them. He doesn't need Leap Attack because he can just buff his initial 14 Str to 28 by casting 2 spells. And those spells have other effects too. And he has lots of other buffs that increase his damage in other ways.

So the cleric will hit on the second round of combat. The fighter has already pounced for 4xpowerattack+1.5str damage.


Clerics don't need Leap Attack. Clerics can use bows too. Ever heard of the Cleric Archer? Better then a Fighter one.

Alright, so now you have a good archer. Nice. But he won't be able to melee anywhere near as good as the fighter. And the fighter can still quick draw his bow, and be a competent archer.


And really? Something with Dispel SLAs keeping it's distance? The fighter is now 100% useless. The Cleric can cast spells though, you know, those things with range.

Unless, you know, the fighter picked up a bow and rapid shot. And I thought the cleric was preparing his spells on buffs? You know, the things that let him fight as good as a fighter?

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 04:21 PM
What does this even mean? You don't usually get more Turn attempts from PrCs. They dip (or just single path) through PrCs because every PrC for Casters is called, "You get a level of Cleric plus something nice (Like extra domains, or slippery mind or other defensive bonuses.)"

I'm well aware of why casters PrC to the ones that grant full casting.. However, in the case of clerics, as far as I know, you must be post-10th level, or burn feats. And the feats are already being spent on things like power attack and shocktrooper to let you use your full BAB.

Contemplative for undeath domain (though I think Mysticism may be more common); MoS for extra turning feat.

Actually, MoS doesn't require any feats.

But it means, that, does a cleric who take levels in a prestige class, still count as a cleric? Since the rhetorical question was implying that a 9th level build with only 4 levels of fighter in it count as a fighter.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 04:32 PM
So the cleric will hit on the second round of combat. The fighter has already pounced for 4xpowerattack+1.5str damage.

No, the cleric has those spells persisted.



Alright, so now you have a good archer. Nice. But he won't be able to melee anywhere near as good as the fighter. And the fighter can still quick draw his bow, and be a competent archer.
Yes, the cleric can do both, and has ranged spells are better than the fighter's shots.



Unless, you know, the fighter picked up a bow and rapid shot.
Wind wall.



And I thought the cleric was preparing his spells on buffs? You know, the things that let him fight as good as a fighter?
Are you aware of the sheer massive amount of spell slots a moderate-level cleric gets? He can do both, and have shots to spare.

Enlong
2007-12-04, 04:39 PM
Just a quick question; what would it mean for the Monk if he got full BAB, Unarmed Strike damage with Special Monk Weapons, and the ability to Flurry on standard attacks?

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 04:48 PM
No, the cleric has those spells persisted.

Which opens him to the fighting monsters with dispel SLAs (the ones that have a nasty habit of showing up when the cleric DMM persists everything). Not that that's a very strong argument; supposedly the game should run itself, and the DM is just there to pat everyone on the back and say "good job!"


Yes, the cleric can do both, and has ranged spells are better than the fighter's shots.

Make a 9th level cleric (something with 8 levels of prep casting from the cleric list) that will do both.



Wind wall.

I don't know of any monsters with an SLA windwall. I'm sure there's a few hanging out there, somewhere. Or a full caster, but in that case, a full caster has means of countering everyone in the party.



Are you aware of the sheer massive amount of spell slots a moderate-level cleric gets? He can do both, and have shots to spare.

He gets like, 3 level 5 spells, and 4 3&4 level spells, and that's including domain spells. Depending on the build, he has domains... undeath, celerity, protection, death, evil, maybe? Those all have pretty ok spells in them, but nothing that's really jumping out at mid levels as great offensive power. Maybe if they were dropped for inflict/cure, but then, that's touch range.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 05:10 PM
Which opens him to the fighting monsters with dispel SLAs (the ones that have a nasty habit of showing up when the cleric DMM persists everything).

Oh yes, as usual if the DM makes a point to nerf some class, then that class becomes less effective. That's also what all the monk-vs-wizard debates boil down to - if the DM uses a bunch of house rules, all bets are off.

Other than that, it's simple math. Cleric is top tier, fighter is bottom tier.

Chronos
2007-12-04, 05:23 PM
The cleric doesn't have as many direct offense spells to choose from as a wizard, but he still has a few good ones available (even at low levels). Hold Person, for instance, is only level 2.

Even just from the basic cleric list (no domains), and 5th level or below, the cleric has

Command
Magic Stone
Hold Person
Shatter
Silence (good versus enemy casters)
Sound Burst
Blindness/Deafness
Dispel Magic
Searing Light
Dismissal (many of those things with SLAs are outsiders)
Giant Vermin
Greater Command
Flame Strike
Mass Inflict Light Wounds
Summon Monster I through V

All of which can be used at a range. Or he could put his own buffs back up, or he can buff the whole party, or he could use a ranged weapon, or charge, just like the fighter. He has options.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 05:33 PM
Hi everyone,

well, first of all, the OP is about "what is wrong about the core classes". So it is only fair to consider core classes in a core rule environment. Thus, for instance, no persistent spell stuff.

And all of a sudden things are put into perspective (mind you, there are of course also rules outside core which push non-caster core classes through the roof).

The main reason why core classes are perceived unbalanced - i.e. casters are superior to non-casters - is that the limitations of casters on the one hand are often ignored, and the abilities and advantages of the non-casters thus rarely come to play. I mean, of course a clericilla is superior to a fighter if a DM will set the encounters always so
- that the cleric player has enough buff spells left
- that the combat encounter lasts longer than the combat (read: no intelligent opponents trying to trick/run away to wait out the short-term buff)
- that the spells are automatically regained.
etc.

Non-caster classes may also be at a disadvantage in perception because spell combos apparently attract more interest from min/maxers. Although again, there are a lot of posts out there with great ideas on non-caster feat and ability combos, including inside core.

Another dimension to the problem may be that the power curves of the core classes are not the same. So over lvls 1-20 in total, the core classes are roughly balanced, but of course from divination and travel magic alone casters have more powerful options available to influence play at high levels - while those who become so powerful were weak diviners or transmuters at the outset of their career, easily felled by even one strike until the higher-level protective spells.

Still, a good DM should be able to handle that.
This is helped by the fact that magic is available to all classes, via magic items and UMD.
For instance, with UMD even taken cross-classed, from lvls 11 or so you can use wands reasonably well even in combat and thus have access to all (as in ALL) level 1-4 spells. Scrolls, of course, are accessible for levels 1-9 by all classes.
Then, although many players do not like this option (including DM), the core rules include another balancing/leveling factor: magic access via a cohort (leadership feat).

In total, there should hardly be big problems with core class balance.

- Giacomo

Chronos
2007-12-04, 05:50 PM
Scrolls, of course, are accessible for levels 1-9 by all classes.
Then, although many players do not like this option (including DM), the core rules include another balancing/leveling factor: magic access via a cohort (leadership feat).First, I think you're a bit confused: Scrolls are harder to UMD than wands, not easier. A low-level character is going to have a hard time using a scroll in a time-critical situation, especially if UMD is cross-class (as it is for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks)

Second, saying that a fighter can have a wizard who hangs out with him does nothing to argue that the fighter is balanced with the wizard.

Frosty
2007-12-04, 05:57 PM
Just a quick question; what would it mean for the Monk if he got full BAB, Unarmed Strike damage with Special Monk Weapons, and the ability to Flurry on standard attacks?

It'd make him almost as good as Fighters.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 06:07 PM
well, first of all, the OP is about "what is wrong about the core classes". So it is only fair to consider core classes in a core rule environment. Thus, for instance, no persistent spell stuff.

And all of a sudden things are put into perspective (mind you, there are of course also rules outside core which push non-caster core classes through the roof).

Well that gives you a while different problem called all melee classes are useless since they can't even do as much damage as a Cleric. The reason the fighter is actually worth playing is because of feat trees outside of core. I can't imagine a core only game where the Fighter didn't feel pathetic after level 7.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 06:07 PM
First, I think you're a bit confused: Scrolls are harder to UMD than wands, not easier. A low-level character is going to have a hard time using a scroll in a time-critical situation, especially if UMD is cross-class (as it is for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks)

Ah, sorry, I worded it in a misunderstandable way. I meant to say that you can even as a non-caster learn with UMD to cast up to lvl 9 spells with scrolls, while wands only allow levels 1-4 (but are way more cost-effective and in combat also avoid AoO).
Generally, by the time the full casters receive their respective spell levels (i.e. lvl 17 for 9th level spells), non-casters may via UMD also have access to them.
Casting from scrolls with UMD is in part easier, because you can get +4 synergy bonuses. And of course you can simply retry longer-lasting spells like contingency until you make the roll (if you happen to roll a "1", try again next day). So to cast spells of 9th level from a scroll, you only need a modifier of +16.
And if everything fails, simply get a npc caster to do the job for you, if it is a long-running lvl 1-8th level spells (level 9 npc spell availability is subject to DM ruling).


Second, saying that a fighter can have a wizard who hangs out with him does nothing to argue that the fighter is balanced with the wizard.

Yep, this argument often comes up.
My point is that some non-casting classes like the fighter, then monk or the rogue have more feats available than most caster classes (the wizard being the exception with his bonus metamagic feats).
So for them, the leadership feat is more "affordable".
Second point: the fighter from a wizard cohort 2 levels lower gains disproportionately more than a wizard from a 2 levels lower wizard cohort (or other class cohort). This is because a wizard already CAN cast himself.
Example: the great mind blank spell. This disproportionately benefits the fighter who simply asks his cohort to cast it on him and himself, and thus he copies efficiently all of the wizard player's class ability in this respect.

Same holds for comparing non-casters and divine casters using leadership.
There is not only a CoDzilla possibility out there, but also the other way round - a fighter or non-caster class emulating key spellcasting abilities!
(and we all know how much power the more popular spells like polymorph, mind blank, divine power, invisibility etc. can do).

- Giacomo

ErrantX
2007-12-04, 06:08 PM
44 posts later, wow, look what I've started!

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get out of people is why do players of the game say that fighter, monk, and to lesser extents paladin and ranger, not worth playing? The reasons I come up with are simply the expansion books. Scout replaces the need for rogue and ranger pretty handily. The ToB replaces Fighter, Monk, and Paladin handily as well. Cleric (and Druid too) is monstrous because every time a new source book comes out, they get more powerful as they have access to every single spell ever published for the cleric spell list. Wizards have a lessened version of that problem, having only to research the spell or learn it when they level.

All of the other classes have finite resources for where they can gather their powers from, where as Clerics and Druids and to some extent, Wizards, gain more power whenever WotC wants to make some more money. So keeping this in mind, with the game evolving to include new spells, feats, concepts, and classes, the original core classes seem to be neglected some (except for Wizard, Druid and Cleric). I think that those classes need to be evolved to keep up with this ever changing game of ours. New ideas, new class abilities, new skill sets, etc need to be given as freebies to balance out some of this.

As flyingpoo22 said, that in a real game a lot of this cheese won't be allowed due to common sense and the DM and players have a good rapport over what's lame and what's not (My DM and I have a gentleman's agreement that we won't use polymorph spells due to how ridiculous they are). If the DM is allowing source books beyond the original core set, then the DM needs to consider what kind of ramification this will have on the game. By expanding one end of the content, consideration must be paid to balancing out the other side (the core rules).

That's my opinion on this anyhow, what do you think?

-X

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:11 PM
In total, there should hardly be big problems with core class balance.

- Giacomo

I'd just like to point out here that Giacomo doesn't believe Polymorph, Shapechange, or Candles of Invocation are broken.

Candle of Invocation. The most broken item in the entire game. And Giacomo thinks it's OK balance-wise.

I think it's safe to say that his analysis of class balance (or any other kind) can be totally disregarded.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 06:14 PM
Well that gives you a while different problem called all melee classes are useless since they can't even do as much damage as a Cleric. The reason the fighter is actually worth playing is because of feat trees outside of core. I can't imagine a core only game where the Fighter didn't feel pathetic after level 7.

Try building an archer fighter. With manyshot/greater manyshot this is awesome.
Add in the items appropriate for the level, and the fighter can overcome most clerics in a combat situation. Of course, outside of combat, a cleric has other opportunities available - balanced in turn by his dependency on religion, deity and magic.
Ages ago I started my posting in this forum with a thread on a fighter archer of level 20
- able to kill a balor in 1 round
- able to do the same with melee attacks
- able to be on par with a clericzilla by greenknight (although greenknight admittedly maxed his clericzilla better in the end, I have to admit - still, it was quite a ... specific one).
The link (quite a long thread, though, so get a snack):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:22 PM
Try building an archer fighter. With manyshot/greater manyshot this is awesome.
Add in the items appropriate for the level, and the fighter can overcome most clerics in a combat situation. Of course, outside of combat, a cleric has other opportunities available - balanced in turn by his dependency on religion, deity and magic.
Ages ago I started my posting in this forum with a thread on a fighter archer of level 20
- able to kill a balor in 1 round
- able to do the same with melee attacks
- able to be on par with a clericzilla by greenknight (although greenknight admittedly maxed his clericzilla better in the end, I have to admit - still, it was quite a ... specific one).
The link (quite a long thread, though, so get a snack):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333

- Giacomo

Er, Manyshot only works at a range of 30 feet...

...and your archer relied on getting a surprise round, winning initiative, and getting a greater manyshot (from out of True Seeing range) and a full attack off against a Balor who is apparently just sitting in the middle of a flat expanse, waiting to be bushwacked. Because that's what Balors do all day, I guess.

Archery-based Fighters do have an advantage in that they don't suffer from the Fighter's lack of mobility/have an easy time getting full attacks in. Core-only, a fighter archer has obvious advantages over a melee fighter.

But the Fighter shouldn't have to be a ranged character.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-04, 06:23 PM
What's wrong with the core classes is that about half of them are designed to excel in situations where the best course of action is to stand next to the problem and hit it until it stops moving, while most of the problems in the game are designed to make getting close to them the last thing you want to do.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 06:23 PM
The cleric doesn't have as many direct offense spells to choose from as a wizard, but he still has a few good ones available (even at low levels). Hold Person, for instance, is only level 2.

Even just from the basic cleric list (no domains), and 5th level or below, the cleric has

Command
Magic Stone
Hold Person
Shatter
Silence (good versus enemy casters)
Sound Burst
Blindness/Deafness
Dispel Magic
Searing Light
Dismissal (many of those things with SLAs are outsiders)
Giant Vermin
Greater Command
Flame Strike
Mass Inflict Light Wounds
Summon Monster I through V

All of which can be used at a range. Or he could put his own buffs back up, or he can buff the whole party, or he could use a ranged weapon, or charge, just like the fighter. He has options.

Actually, a fighter could have a cohort wizard do pretty much all that stuff as well as or better than the cleric does. With bonus feats, and not needing to spend any feats on things to make their buffs last longer and get useful feats for melee combat, a wizard or other arcane caster of lower level is going to be more effective than a cleric at offensive casting.

Take flame strike... A 10th level cleric casts a 5th level spell for 10d6 (~35) damage. An 8th level wizard or warmage or sorceror casts an empowered fireball for 12d6 (~42) damage. An "underpowered" 10th level warmage in the party can cast that spell (fireball) empowered and probably sudden maximized for a 5th level slot for 15d6 (~52.5 or hard 90) points of damage.

If your cleric is wasting a 5th level slot on a Flame Strike, you should stab him with a pencil.

And, the cleric only has options if nobody gets poisoned, takes ability damage, gets held, charges into a horde of enemies and takes a ton of damage for no reason, starts running away in fear, or does any of the other things that drain a cleric's spells/actions before and after battle. If he's a completely selfish git and doesn't mind lugging around the corpses of the rest of the party (or taking all the monsters attacks at once with everyone dead), he has more options.



A couple of problems with the classes:

1) Fighter has too big a footprint. In a game where so many classes (and/or potential classes) fight and do something else, having one class that has to be better at fighting than other party members because it can't do anything else is awful. Fighter should be recast as "adventuring fighter" with an out-of-combat skill set that is meaningful and in-combat options that benefit others in the party and/or provide tactical advantage. Then fighters, rangers, paladins, rogues, monks, melee-oriented clerics, sword-wielding wizards or whatever can all be equally good at fighting, just in different ways.

2) The classes aren't designed as adventurers first and whatever else thay are supposed to be second. If you make an adventuring fighter, adventuring rogue, adventuring cleric and adventuring wizard, there should be significant overlap in what they can do. There should be collaborative checks where all players roll to contribute to overcoming an obstacle, not everyone sitting there useless or at best providing a +2 to one person's roll. And, the disparity between Good Saves and Bad Saves, the number of hitpoints someone has and such should be narrower.

3) Swift actions were added to core, but melee classes have nothing they can do as a swift action. Later sourcebooks fixed this somewhat, with things like the feat for users of paladin spells that lets you quicken any spell on your list at will with no increase in level from Complete Champion and the ToB maneuvers, but the core melee classes were largely left out.

Edit: added (fireball) and changed quickened maximized to sudden maximized

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 06:33 PM
Try building an archer fighter. With manyshot/greater manyshot this is awesome.
Add in the items appropriate for the level, and the fighter can overcome most clerics in a combat situation. Of course, outside of combat, a cleric has other opportunities available - balanced in turn by his dependency on religion, deity and magic.
Ages ago I started my posting in this forum with a thread on a fighter archer of level 20
- able to kill a balor in 1 round
- able to do the same with melee attacks
- able to be on par with a clericzilla by greenknight (although greenknight admittedly maxed his clericzilla better in the end, I have to admit - still, it was quite a ... specific one).
The link (quite a long thread, though, so get a snack):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333

- Giacomo

This has exactly what to do with me telling you that Core fighters are useless? Oh right, nothing. Because this isn't Core. I never said it was impossible to build a worthwhile Fighter. (Though this one isn't as good as a Cleric Archer.) Just that in core after level 7 Fighters are incredibly inferior.

Also, your Leadership argument is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Let me explain how this works.

lvl 20 Fighter Has Wizard cohort 18. Player stops playing fighter because he is useless and just devotes himself to the Wizard.

Alternatively, if we are talking about Leadership.

Wizard 10/Red Wizard 10 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 18 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 16 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 14 with Leadership

You get the picture. all the way down to Wizard 4. Then they create a Circle. And all this cost was one feat. (And also, he probably just takes all the Fighters Leadership Cohorts and puts them in the Circle too, because they are worth more there then they ever would be with the Fighter.)

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 06:35 PM
I'd just like to point out here that Giacomo doesn't believe Polymorph, Shapechange, or Candles of Invocation are broken.

Candle of Invocation. The most broken item in the entire game. And Giacomo thinks it's OK balance-wise.

I think it's safe to say that his analysis of class balance (or any other kind) can be totally disregarded.

Yep, that is a difficult one to swallow for all the "core game is broken/unbalanced" believers, isn't it?:smallbiggrin:

I DO think that the core game is not perfect, including some aspects of balance like the differing power curves of classes - but a good DM should able to handle that.

What the stuff you mentioned actually showcases, though, is a factor that actually BALANCES the classes, because, as I said, magic is available to everyone.

Polymorph? Benefits the non-casting classes more than the caster classes. It is a great melee combat buff. Apparently the designers believed the group is working together here, and not that the party wizard is always turning into a war troll who can then...er continue casting other spells - which he could have done much better while being himself. Spell wasted.

Shapechange? Now we are entering 9th level spell territory, supposedly the earth-shaking stuff. OF COURSE in high-level play we WANT to have players able to turn into dragons and stuff. But there is tons of stuff at those levels that can stop a wizard turned into a dragon. Remember again: ALL classes have access to that kind of high-level magic by then, including the non-casters.

Which brings me to the feared candle of invocation.
That is a tough one, admittedly. But the price range is the about the same as the other one-off items replicating 9th level spells (scrolls). The difference: now everyone can use gate, not only the casters. Again, balance, since access to the arguably most powerful spell in core is easily available for all.
Now, what CAN be discussed is how gate actually works and whether it is overpowered. Many believe it's a way for infinite titan chains and unlimited wishes and what have you. Sadly, this is not backed by the rules. Just again a list of the problems of the gate spell:
- you get one (ONE) service from a powerful entity. So you can start an infinite titan summoning chain, but you will only have one titan appearing after another. Nothing more. Nothing less. Great, eh?
- the entitiy is most often powerful enough to have access to extra-planar travel. Even if you use the gate to call a being of the same alignment, that does not necessarily mean that it 100% agrees with you. A 34 HD angel of your lawful good alignment can seek (DM's discretion by the wording of the spell) retribution if called "unwilling". As for the evil aligments, well...
- the one mistake that the designers committed is that via a gate spell you can wish for any magic item without paying the XP cost. However, the wish spell itself is worded in such a way to allow interpretation that something broken will end in doom for the pc. You may try to pin down your DM on this one, but I would not recommend pointing to the maxing boards for your arguments...:smallbiggrin:
- anyone at a low level using a 9th level spell in actual gameplay either creates a great roleplaying experience or may waste the resource - in both cases can use is way riskier than at high levels (for the reasons outlined above).
- in duel situations, on-off use items often cost 10 times their listed price, meaning that the candle would only be available at very high levels, anyhow.

So what is left is a typical example of ill-researched fallacies repeated over and over on these boards by ubercaster supporters.

- Giacomo

Woot Spitum
2007-12-04, 06:40 PM
And, the cleric only has options if nobody gets poisoned, takes ability damage, gets held, charges into a horde of enemies and takes a ton of damage for no reason, starts running away in fear, or does any of the other things that drain a cleric's spells/actions before and after battle. If he's a completely selfish git and doesn't mind lugging around the corpses of the rest of the party (or taking all the monsters attacks at once with everyone dead), he has more options.

That's why, when playing clerics, I always buy plenty of scrolls to get rid of negative status. No sense in clogging up my spell list with spells I'll only use about once every five sessions.

Mr. Moogle
2007-12-04, 06:44 PM
I agree wih X- why replace core? the monk is a fighter that can kill spellcasters with more ease than fighter, the saves, the AC that applies to touch spells ect. The monk is not underpowered and i do belive that ToB while good, will never replace core. At least in my gaming circle...

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 06:48 PM
Er, Manyshot only works at a range of 30 feet...

...was fixed later in the thread (full attack did the job nicely also)...


...and your archer relied on getting a surprise round,

...which was likely since a powerful archer can shoot from outside true seeing range...


winning initiative,

...which was likely since the archer fighter (small wonder here with the DEX mod and pc wealth and improved initiative feat) had a much higher initiative modifier...


and getting a greater manyshot (from out of True Seeing range) and a full attack off against a Balor who is apparently just sitting in the middle of a flat expanse, waiting to be bushwacked. Because that's what Balors do all day, I guess.

...nope. But the balors do run around, run large armies, or sit on their throne or whatever when they are on the prime material plane for extended time. Normally, though, they are just summoned unbuffed and fodder for an archer at those levels. It was a rather realistic high-level combat situation (balor commanding evil army laying siege on a city the fighter is in).


Archery-based Fighters do have an advantage in that they don't suffer from the Fighter's lack of mobility/
have an easy time getting full attacks in. Core-only, a fighter archer has obvious advantages over a melee fighter.

Well, a fighter with boots of flying and flyby attack and improved flyby attack feats is not doing too badly at high levels, either.


But the Fighter shouldn't have to be a ranged character.

No. Polymoprhed pouncing fighter or monk are quite awesome at melee.
Or a fighter with power attack (charger build).
Or a spiked chain tripping fighter.
Or an improved rush fighter
Or ... or. ... or...

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:49 PM
Yep, that is a difficult one to swallow for all the "core game is broken/unbalanced" believers, isn't it?:smallbiggrin:

It's not "difficult to swallow", Giacomo. It's a clear sign that discussing game balance with you is absolutely pointless, since you will never, ever accept that ANYTHING is broken, no matter what. You'd probably find a way to justify a prestige class that gives +infinity AB/damage. Sometimes you intentionally misread and make up rules, sometimes not, but as long as you think that Shapechange and XP-free Gate are things that can't break a game wide open, there's no point in talking to you. It's OK that characters can Gate in a Solar to kill a red dragon for them for 9k, because any character can do it?

I guess a feat with no prerequisites that anyone can take, giving +infinity to hit and damage, wouldn't be broken, then. Because, you know, anyone can take it, and it balances casters and noncasters.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 06:55 PM
This has exactly what to do with me telling you that Core fighters are useless? Oh right, nothing. Because this isn't Core.

The archer build was core. And the thread had everything to do with saying that core fighters are not useless (actually the whole thread was about showing Bears with Lasers that a fighter WAS able to contribute at lvl 20). Please read the thread before posting some unfounded criticism, please.


I never said it was impossible to build a worthwhile Fighter. (Though this one isn't as good as a Cleric Archer.) Just that in core after level 7 Fighters are incredibly inferior.

A contradiction here, methinks. You think it is not impossible to build a worthwhile fighter but then that after level 7 fighters are incredibily inferior? Does not make sense to me.


Also, your Leadership argument is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Let me explain how this works.

lvl 20 Fighter Has Wizard cohort 18. Player stops playing fighter because he is useless and just devotes himself to the Wizard.

Alternatively, if we are talking about Leadership.

Wizard 10/Red Wizard 10 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 18 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 16 with Leadership
Cohort Wizard 14 with Leadership

You get the picture. all the way down to Wizard 4. Then they create a Circle. And all this cost was one feat. (And also, he probably just takes all the Fighters Leadership Cohorts and puts them in the Circle too, because they are worth more there then they ever would be with the Fighter.)

Nope. Let me explain how it really works. You take the leadership feat and then THE DM will tell you what cohort you get, based on your leadership modifier. The DM is in no way obliged to give you a cohort with the leadership feat. So no abuse possible here.

And of course maintaining that a player stops playing the fighter he advanced proudly to level 18 to play a subpar wizard two levels lower and with no wealth and items to speak of, is of course ridiculous.

But you returned the favour and made me laugh quite hard about this perception of the rules. Thanks a lot!:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 06:58 PM
All of which can be used at a range. Or he could put his own buffs back up, or he can buff the whole party, or he could use a ranged weapon, or charge, just like the fighter. He has options.

But he can't do all of them on the same day, much less all at once in the same fight. I certainly recognize that a cleric has options, and they only get better and more numerous as the cleric gains levels, while the fighter plateaus.

However, it's not quite as pronounced as everyone makes it out to be in the first 9 levels (especially with a dearth of cash to fund nightsticks), if the fighter is allowed to optimize.

It was also pointed out that as the healer in the party, the cleric may be playing other roles than buff himself, ignore teammates.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 07:08 PM
The archer build was core. And the thread had everything to do with saying that core fighters are not useless (actually the whole thread was about showing Bears with Lasers that a fighter WAS able to contribute at lvl 20). Please read the thread before posting some unfounded criticism, please.

That's nice, I wasn't talking about some damn thread, I was talking about your post. Which said that Greater Manyshot is really good. Which has exactly nothing to do with Core Fighter. I'm not criticizing your thread because I'm not reading it because it isn't worth it.


A contradiction here, methinks. You think it is not impossible to build a worthwhile fighter but then that after level 7 fighters are incredibily inferior? Does not make sense to me.

Note the difference between building a Worthwhile fighter and Core Fighters being inferior. Any type of Combat in Core is done better by a Cleric, and they have more options besides. With enough useful feats that stops being the case. (Though Clerics are still better.)


Nope. Let me explain how it really works. You take the leadership feat and then THE DM will tell you what cohort you get, based on your leadership modifier. The DM is in no way obliged to give you a cohort with the leadership feat. So no abuse possible here.

Uh huh. And the DM can also choose to give you no items. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with anything. A Circle Wizard is going to have a better Leadership modifier then a Fighter anyway, and he's going to have an actual reason to get a Wizard Cohort other then, "To cover for how much my character sucks."


And of course maintaining that a player stops playing the fighter he advanced proudly to level 18 to play a subpar wizard two levels lower and with no wealth and items to speak of, is of course ridiculous.

Um. Yeah, he'd probably abandon the fighter much sooner. But the "subpar" Wizard two levels lower is still better then his character, and thanks to WBL he can just sell all the Fighter stuff, buy appropriate WBL for a Wizard 18, then catch up to the rest of the party with his useful character who contributes in combat, is fun to play, and gains levels and Wealth faster then everyone else.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 07:11 PM
It's not "difficult to swallow", Giacomo. It's a clear sign that discussing game balance with you is absolutely pointless, since you will never, ever accept that ANYTHING is broken, no matter what.

Ach, Reel On,Love. Pls read my post. I did not say that I thought the game was perfect everywere and without any mistakes. But I of course object to posters who repeat the same fallacies over and over again and - maybe - confuse newbies thinking; "oh well, I would have loved to play a fighter, but if Reel On, Love says that they suck, I will play my fencing character as a cleric - although I have no idea about what religion he should take."


You'd probably find a way to justify a prestige class that gives +infinity AB/damage.

Nope. And no such class exists in core. The often quoted pun-pun is one of the rare examples of a broken build, but that is outside core.


Sometimes you intentionally misread and make up rules, sometimes not, but as long as you think that Shapechange and XP-free Gate are things that can't break a game wide open, there's no point in talking to you.

Pls read my post again. I did not say that it is not possible to interpret the gate spell in such a way as to believe you can get an unlimited magic item with it. But I cautioned that the wording is rather a loophole interpretation and as such will never be used in actual gameplay.
You see, the designers did not write in the gate spell "You can wish without XP cost". This avenue is merely a loophole perceived by some maxers, without completely thinking about the consequences. It is a theoretical excercise, which can even be debated. And this I do.


It's OK that characters can Gate in a Solar to kill a red dragon for them for 9k, because any character can do it?

Nope. Do you really think a red dragon is so easily killed? Your 8th level party sees the red dragon, summons a solar, then the red dragon teleports away and comes back after the gate spell expires 17 rounds later. Fun, eh? And if it's a red dragon unable to recognise (via spellcraft and the appropriate creature lore) and flee from such a menace, probably the level 8 group would have overcome it, anyhow. They only blew 9k to do so instead of relying on their wits and refreshable resources (hps, spells/day).


I guess a feat with no prerequisites that anyone can take, giving +infinity to hit and damage, wouldn't be broken, then. Because, you know, anyone can take it, and it balances casters and noncasters.

Sigh. No, I would of course think that all infinity stuff is broken.
FOR INSTANCE, the fabricate spell allows theoretically a player to create an immense amount of masterwork items (if he has the appropriate craft feat). This is close to being broken. But will the pc do it? Nope, because by this you create a massive inflation in the stuff you construct.
Actually, it can be broken in a way that it changes the face of your campaign massively if you as a DM allow it unimpeded- because then it will be a Star Trek-like world where all material non-magic goods are created with the fabricate spell and there is no material want for anyone.
A great campaign idea, but not to everyone's taste.
And certainly not the intended core rules standard world. So here, yes, a designer mistake in core.
But hardly a basis for maintaining that the core classes (which this thread is about) are unbalanced.

Most of the allegedly "broken" stuff for combat is actually not broken, but there are always countermeasures available. Read: balance.

- Giacomo

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 07:17 PM
That's why, when playing clerics, I always buy plenty of scrolls to get rid of negative status. No sense in clogging up my spell list with spells I'll only use about once every five sessions.

Plenty of scrolls isn't cheap. If your wealth gain is in line, there is only so much you can buy before you start to cut into your wealth you should have - especially after needing money for other expenses like getting people raised (or raising them yourself), travel expenses, and all the other things that suck up money along the way. And, you play in much easier campaigns than the ones I play in if you can go 1 session, let alone 5 sessions without needing to fix conditions.

But, on the topic of expendables. If drinking a potion were a swift action, it would make things a little better for fighters. The times when you really need to fly or do one of the other things that make the difference between standing there doing nothing or being largely ineffective and doing something useful and fun are less frequent (and more varied) than needing to cure or remove conditions, so being able to do those things in a hurry when you absolutely had to would be nice. As it stands, it is a standard action, provokes attacks of opportunity and requires a concentration check to complete if interrupted (and of course, fighters can't concentrate worth squat). It makes using a potion one of the least attractive options in the game. It is balanced at low levels when the effects cost everyone the same action, but once casters can quicken the minor effects and have concentration checks that allow them to avoid provoking AOOs and still perform their main action, the fighter needing to use his entire action to duplicate the minor effect starts to show.

Edit:Added "and doing something useful and fun"

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-04, 07:22 PM
That's nice, I wasn't talking about some damn thread, I was talking about your post. Which said that Greater Manyshot is really good. Which has exactly nothing to do with Core Fighter. I'm not criticizing your thread because I'm not reading it because it isn't worth it.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood that one.
Greater Manyshot IS core (read the SRD), but arguably since it is originally part of the psionic rules it should not form part of a core class discussion based on PHB classes, OK.
Manyshot is an awesome feat still, since you as a fighter can keep a distance to any meleer, forcing the meleer to do only one attack for your manyshot attack (but of course, the countermeasure being to sunder the bow or some such, to which in turn there are again countermeasures etc...).



Note the difference between building a Worthwhile fighter and Core Fighters being inferior. Any type of Combat in Core is done better by a Cleric, and they have more options besides. With enough useful feats that stops being the case. (Though Clerics are still better.)

Well, greenknight's cleric with some specific domains and running around polymorphed (any object) was better than my archer fighter at level 20. I doubt that would be the case at lower levels. And once you factor in cleric drawbacks, the result in my view roughly is balanced.


Uh huh. And the DM can also choose to give you no items. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with anything. A Circle Wizard is going to have a better Leadership modifier then a Fighter anyway, and he's going to have an actual reason to get a Wizard Cohort other then, "To cover for how much my character sucks."

Yep. But if a DM does not hand out items, it is a houserule. The DM running creating and running the cohort like all npcs is RAW, I'm afraid.


Um. Yeah, he'd probably abandon the fighter much sooner. But the "subpar" Wizard two levels lower is still better then his character, and thanks to WBL he can just sell all the Fighter stuff, buy appropriate WBL for a Wizard 18, then catch up to the rest of the party with his useful character who contributes in combat, is fun to play, and gains levels and Wealth faster then everyone else.

Hmmm...everyone should be free to play what they choose. So you can actually enjoy playing a fighter when they - maybe for you - are more fun at low levels, and then switch to a wizard at higher levels. No need to use the leadership feat for that.
But of course, you only meant that in irony to illustrate that a wizard of level 16 with fighter level 18 wealth is as powerful as a fighter of level 18 with level 18 fighter wealth.
Which is, of course, not true. Or rather, let us say, this is open for huge debate and highly difficult to prove either side.
We could duel with respective builds, but this would take eons of time since both characters have so many tactics and resources available. It would show our maxing fu skills, but not overall class balance.

- Giacomo

Dode
2007-12-04, 07:38 PM
Nope. Do you really think a red dragon is so easily killed? Your 8th level party sees the red dragon, summons a solar, then the red dragon teleports away and comes back after the gate spell expires 17 rounds later. Fun, eh? And if it's a red dragon unable to recognise (via spellcraft and the appropriate creature lore) and flee from such a menace, probably the level 8 group would have overcome it, anyhow. They only blew 9k to do so instead of relying on their wits and refreshable resources (hps, spells/day)Actually, I think it's easier. Here's an edit for accuracy:

Your 8th level party sees the red dragon, summons a solar, then the red dragon is... hit with one of the dimensional anchors that the Solar can cast at will as a spell-like ability. Of course, this is assuming that the red dragon took 9 levels in a spellcasting class in order to be able to cast teleport, since they cannot do so by themselves.

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 07:51 PM
I was going to make this more complex, but I remember from several other threads that arguing with Giacomo is a massive waste of time, so I'll just mention a line from Leadership.


A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment.

So yes, the character who takes Leadership can say he gets a wizard, can make that wizard a Gray Elf if he wants, and is allowed to have that wizard be of a compatible alignment. Giacomo will of course say that the word 'try' means the DM is allowed to, nay MUST ignore the player's wishes.

Chronos
2007-12-04, 07:52 PM
And, the cleric only has options if nobody gets poisoned, takes ability damage, gets held, charges into a horde of enemies and takes a ton of damage for no reason, starts running away in fear, or does any of the other things that drain a cleric's spells/actions before and after battle.The cleric has the option to do those things, too. Those are more options, not less. By contrast, if somebody gets poisoned, or ability damaged, or frightened, the fighter just plain can't do anything about it. Note that I didn't advocate filling up one's entire spell allotment with direct attack spells. But with that many different ones available, and all of your spell slots to fill, you'll probably have two or three of them memorized, and if you've had the opportunity to plan for the battle, then it'll be the two or three most useful versus the enemy you're fighting.

Two other points, to Sir Giacomo:
First, Greater Manyshot is not core. Core is the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. You'll notice that the left column of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) is labeled "Core rules", while Greater Manyshot comes from the middle column.

Second, a Candle of Invocation is priced comparably to a scroll of a ninth-level spell without an XP component. A spell which costs XP (such as the calling form of Gate) should have an extra cost of five times the XP cost, or an extra 5k in the case of the candle.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 07:55 PM
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood that one.
Greater Manyshot IS core (read the SRD), but arguably since it is originally part of the psionic rules it should not form part of a core class discussion based on PHB classes, OK.
Manyshot is an awesome feat still, since you as a fighter can keep a distance to any meleer, forcing the meleer to do only one attack for your manyshot attack (but of course, the countermeasure being to sunder the bow or some such, to which in turn there are again countermeasures etc...).

A) Core is a made up word that I ignore, but at least when other people start talking about it they should all have one definition of it instead of seven. I get confused when Core includes over 7 books. Including variants.
B) Except that Manyshot has a range of 30ft and since most any comparable level fighter will equal you in move speed, we can be assured that he will be able to charge you next round, barring constantly running around corners, which doesn't really help your archer mush.


But of course, you only meant that in irony to illustrate that a wizard of level 16 with fighter level 18 wealth is as powerful as a fighter of level 18 with level 18 fighter wealth.

Actually, I was saying that after selling everything a level 18 Wizard with half of level 20 WBL is better then a level 20 Fighter with level 20 WBL. I don't understand how you got confused and didn't realize I was talking about a Fighter 20.


We could duel with respective builds, but this would take eons of time since both characters have so many tactics and resources available. It would show our maxing fu skills, but not overall class balance.

Of course, which is why I don't do those things, but honestly, optimization fu or not a Wizard is always better because he has options and contributes to combat as much as a fighter (or more) while still being better everywhere else.

greenknight
2007-12-04, 07:56 PM
While the OP did specify Core Classes, there was no restriction to stick with the Core Rules, so things like DMM: Persistant Spell do have some relevance IMO. That said, even in the Core Rules, significant imbalance does exist, and for the most part it comes from higher level spellcasters being able to replace non-spellcasters at their job and do other things as well.


Try building an archer fighter. With manyshot/greater manyshot this is awesome.
Add in the items appropriate for the level, and the fighter can overcome most clerics in a combat situation. Of course, outside of combat, a cleric has other opportunities available - balanced in turn by his dependency on religion, deity and magic.

I tend to disagree. The Cleric (at higher levels) is capable of doing roughly the same amount of damage as the Fighter. Where things get imbalanced is that the Cleric can do a lot of other things the Fighter can't, or at least can't do anywhere near as well.


although greenknight admittedly maxed his clericzilla better in the end, I have to admit - still, it was quite a ... specific one

Yes, my Cleric used a lot of very specific cheese to achieve his goal, but it was a general purpose build. As I demonstrated, it could take on the Balor, the Tarrasque and your Fighter all in one day (that's 3 CR20 challenges). You can see both final builds here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333&page=13), at the bottom of the page. I modified that idea further to produce a non-Core version here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2826740&postcount=76), although I've learned a few things since then which can make the character even more powerful.


I doubt that would be the case at lower levels. And once you factor in cleric drawbacks, the result in my view roughly is balanced.

Those drawbacks are not very significant. Wizards need 9 hours to rest and prepare their spells, but they have Rope Trick (and higher level spells) which can make them reasonably safe during that time. Clerics only need 1 hour to prepare their spells (it's a specific time, but if they're interrupted, they can prepare them later), and they too can use Rope Trick to protect themselves during their prep time if they have the Magic Domain, or they could share the Wizard's protection.

In my opinion, there's no doubt that certain spells are way too powerful to be in the game. That includes things like Gate, Shapechange, Holy Word and Divine Power, along with magical items which duplicate those effects. Other things need to be adjusted so they are easier for non-spellcasters to counter. Teleport's a good example of that. IMO there should be a 1d6 round delay before Teleport fires off, so that the caster can't accurately predict when it will occur, and it won't be reliable as an emergency getaway spell anymore.

To address another point made here, at level 9, a Core Cleric still has a few problems being consistently more powerful than a well built Core Fighter. It might be able to match the Fighter in a single encounter, but over the course of a day the Fighter will outshine the Cleric in battle. A non-Core Cleric is another matter entirely, and by that level could perform at least as well in combat as the Fighter, and still do all the other things which make Clerics a better choice. If this thread is still active and no one else has shown the truth of that statement, I'll post a build in a few days to demonstrate that.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-04, 08:02 PM
Plenty of scrolls isn't cheap. If your wealth gain is in line, there is only so much you can buy before you start to cut into your wealth you should have - especially after needing money for other expenses like getting people raised (or raising them yourself), travel expenses, and all the other things that suck up money along the way. And, you play in much easier campaigns than the ones I play in if you can go 1 session, let alone 5 sessions without needing to fix conditions. By plenty I mean one or two of each type. I can afford it because I'm not a fighter, and thus do not have to blow all my money on magic weapons and armor. Add in the fact that since these scrolls benefit the whole party means that everyone is willing to chip in. As for getting raised, no one in my group has ever wanted their character raised after they have were killed, they just always rolled up new characters.

All of this ignores the fact that if a monster hits the fighter with a status condition, it's nearly always more efficient to put the monster out of comission than it is to heal the fighter, then watch him get hit by the same status condition in the next round. If the status condition is severe, we rest and then I prepare the relevent spell. Just like Durkon did after Roy ran into the strength dropped-to-zero trap.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-04, 08:07 PM
Unlike what the OP said, it isn't the weak classes that are the problem, it is the strong classes. All of the caster classes need to be fixed by making them worse. Like annother poster said, the level aimed at should be that of the Barbarian or Rogue (or bard, but diplomacheese needs some work, and so will he after the caster fixes).

Those two classes are an excellent benchmark. From there, we need to see what is better, what is worse, and bring them all closer to center. Really, if the ranger had trapfinding and scaling damage, he'd be okay too. Skirmish and TWF as a standard action make him decent (or free manyshot/greter manyshot if you want to have an archer ranger). For the monk, flurry as a standard action and full BAB help him a bit, as would changing the mechanics for the few options melee types have (like tripping and disarming) to make them more useful in different sitations.

ErrantX
2007-12-04, 08:13 PM
I would like to reiterate my point on this thread, as it seems to have been overlooked and I've seen a lot of bickering that will get this thread closed should a moderator decide to step in.


Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get out of people is why do players of the game say that fighter, monk, and to lesser extents paladin and ranger, not worth playing? The reasons I come up with are simply the expansion books. Scout replaces the need for rogue and ranger pretty handily. The ToB replaces Fighter, Monk, and Paladin handily as well. Cleric (and Druid too) is monstrous because every time a new source book comes out, they get more powerful as they have access to every single spell ever published for the cleric spell list. Wizards have a lessened version of that problem, having only to research the spell or learn it when they level.

All of the other classes have finite resources for where they can gather their powers from, where as Clerics and Druids and to some extent, Wizards, gain more power whenever WotC wants to make some more money. So keeping this in mind, with the game evolving to include new spells, feats, concepts, and classes, the original core classes seem to be neglected some (except for Wizard, Druid and Cleric). I think that those classes need to be evolved to keep up with this ever changing game of ours. New ideas, new class abilities, new skill sets, etc need to be given as freebies to balance out some of this.

As flyingpoo22 said, that in a real game a lot of this cheese won't be allowed due to common sense and the DM and players have a good rapport over what's lame and what's not (My DM and I have a gentleman's agreement that we won't use polymorph spells due to how ridiculous they are). If the DM is allowing source books beyond the original core set, then the DM needs to consider what kind of ramification this will have on the game. By expanding one end of the content, consideration must be paid to balancing out the other side (the core rules).

-X

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 08:16 PM
The cleric has the option to do those things, too. Those are more options, not less. By contrast, if somebody gets poisoned, or ability damaged, or frightened, the fighter just plain can't do anything about it. Note that I didn't advocate filling up one's entire spell allotment with direct attack spells. But with that many different ones available, and all of your spell slots to fill, you'll probably have two or three of them memorized, and if you've had the opportunity to plan for the battle, then it'll be the two or three most useful versus the enemy you're fighting.


Something you have to do on your turn to enable someone else to do what they want to do on their turn isn't an option.

You don't have that many spell slots after you account for your personal buffs - particularly if you're so buffed that you supposedly overshadow the fighter, your condition removal spells, your spells that you sponned out for cures, your heals - which probably can't be sponned, etc. And, when you do cast a direct attack spell, you function at less than 2/3 the effectiveness of an arcane caster. Aside from spiritual weapon and holy storm against specific adversaries in long combats, you don't get an action's worth of damage output from your direct damage spells.

And, the fighter does always have the option of buying a bunch of potions with his gold to run and dump them down people's throats...if he wants to cut into the wealth he should have.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 08:22 PM
It's my impression that scout is not generally regarded as a 'don't use rogue, use this' class. Something about having to move every turn to get your bonus damage being part of the problem there.


And, the fighter does always have the option of buying a bunch of potions with his gold to run and dump them down people's throats...if he wants to cut into the wealth he should have.
Well, except for costing twice as much and being limited to...3rd levels spells, wasn't it?

greenknight
2007-12-04, 08:28 PM
You don't have that many spell slots after you account for your personal buffs - particularly if you're so buffed that you supposedly overshadow the fighter, your condition removal spells, your spells that you sponned out for cures, your heals - which probably can't be sponned, etc.

An Extended Heroes' Feast does a good job of preventing several status conditions (poison and fear mainly, but it also removes diseases, sickness, and nausea), it's a decent buff in it's own right and by the time the Cleric can cast it, one casting will work for the entire party. And there's always items which can provide healing, so that shouldn't need many spell slots (although I'd recommend keeping at least one Heal ready, if the Cleric's high enough in level to cast it).


Aside from spiritual weapon and holy storm against specific adversaries in long combats, you don't get an action's worth of damage output from your direct damage spells.

The Cleric can go nuclear with Holy Word and similar spells, especially since the Cleric has significant Caster Level boosts (see Strand of Prayer Beads, Orange Ioun Stone and the Good Domain).


And, the fighter does always have the option of buying a bunch of potions with his gold to run and dump them down people's throats...if he wants to cut into the wealth he should have.

And this compares with the Cleric buying wands of Cure Light Wounds (or Vigor). These items are really to help the entire party, and should come from party treasure rather than any one character.

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 08:42 PM
Something you have to do on your turn to enable someone else to do what they want to do on their turn isn't an option.

You don't have that many spell slots after you account for your personal buffs - particularly if you're so buffed that you supposedly overshadow the fighter, your condition removal spells, your spells that you sponned out for cures, your heals - which probably can't be sponned, etc. And, when you do cast a direct attack spell, you function at less than 2/3 the effectiveness of an arcane caster. Aside from spiritual weapon and holy storm against specific adversaries in long combats, you don't get an action's worth of damage output from your direct damage spells.

And, the fighter does always have the option of buying a bunch of potions with his gold to run and dump them down people's throats...if he wants to cut into the wealth he should have.

Cleric needs only two spells to get better than a Fighter (note, not better than a Fighter in all possible conditions, since the Cleric has better things to spend his feats on than a Fighter's ultimate death cheese chains, but generally better than a fighter nonetheless): Divine Power, Righteous Might. If there already is a Fighter in the party, he probably doesn't have any real reason to cast those for every fight except for making the Fighter feel bad. If he's using DMM cheese, he only has to cast them once a day.

As far as repairing condition effects goes, there's only one question you really need to ask:
Can the other person contribute to the fight more effectively than anything else you could do with your action? If yes, definitely fix the condition (and reconsider your choice of spells.)

That's it. Your goal in a fight is to end the fight. You should only burn your actions healing people mid-fight if that is the best way you can contribute to ending the fight. If you have a good spell selection, you probably have a save/lose save/suck effect that would be more useful than converting the same spell to a spontaneous Cure. (And, incidentally, I don't know why you're talking about direct-damage spells. Direct damage magic sucks for everybody. If the only way you have available to bring something down is by HP damage, hit it with Power Attacking weapons. It's what they're there for.)

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 09:06 PM
An Extended Heroes' Feast does a good job of preventing several status conditions (poison and fear mainly, but it also removes diseases, sickness, and nausea), it's a decent buff in it's own right and by the time the Cleric can cast it, one casting will work for the entire party. And there's always items which can provide healing, so that shouldn't need many spell slots (although I'd recommend keeping at least one Heal ready, if the Cleric's high enough in level to cast it).


10 minutes to cast and 60 minutes to consume. That's 70 minutes of your active day (and the spell is ruined if the feast is interrupted). Immunity to poison and fear is nice, but using a 6th level slot in advance every day is a serious cut in your power for an 11th or 12th level cleric.



The Cleric can go nuclear with Holy Word and similar spells, especially since the Cleric has significant Caster Level boosts (see Strand of Prayer Beads, Orange Ioun Stone and the Good Domain).


It's a 7th level spell, so out of reach for a good portion of the game (and out of the reach of almost all of what tend to be the most commonly played levels). If he has significant caster boosts, he isn't also going to have all the things that make him a good melee fighter. A Strand of Prayer Beads (45,800 gp) and an Orange Ioun Stone (30,000 gp) is a lot of money - a 13th or 14th level character only has 110,000-150,000 gold. There is also the Good Domain itself, which isn't useful for trying to set up persistent buffs or for fighting in melee.



And this compares with the Cleric buying wands of Cure Light Wounds (or Vigor). These items are really to help the entire party, and should come from party treasure rather than any one character.

If you're using standard wealth gain, there isn't that much wealth gained over the top of your wealth by level to be using these items instead of clerical healing all the time, particularly at lower levels. Regardless of whether the party pays for the items out of a common fund or not, there is treasure found and a split. There isn't treasure found, a split, and an extra amount of money for the party to use instead of clerical healing. If you spend money on healing, regardless of whether you call it the party's money or an individual's money, you have less in your share. Too many expendables, and you cut into the wealth you should have.

Edit:Typo

Chronos
2007-12-04, 09:08 PM
Something you have to do on your turn to enable someone else to do what they want to do on their turn isn't an option.What do you mean, "have to do"? If being able to remove status afflictions is something that a character has to do, then all classes except cleric are unusable, since none of the rest can do it. Unless you've decided that healing is the cleric's responsibility, for some reason? But why should it be?

Consider two parties. Party A has the standard wizard, rogue, fighter, and cleric. Party B has a wizard, rogue, and two clerics. In Party B, the second cleric could, if he chose, do nothing but melee and the buff spells to support it, and he'd do everything the Party A fighter does, and leave all of the divine "duties" to his buddy. Or, if the situation changes, both clerics in party B can go full-on melee, or they can both go full-caster, or they can both do a mixture of both, with at most a day's notice. Party B is in every way at least as capable as party A, and in some ways more so.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 09:47 PM
Cleric needs only two spells to get better than a Fighter (note, not better than a Fighter in all possible conditions, since the Cleric has better things to spend his feats on than a Fighter's ultimate death cheese chains, but generally better than a fighter nonetheless): Divine Power, Righteous Might. If there already is a Fighter in the party, he probably doesn't have any real reason to cast those for every fight except for making the Fighter feel bad. If he's using DMM cheese, he only has to cast them once a day.


Those two spells don't make the cleric better than a well-built fighter. By discounting his feat chains, you're actually saying the cleric is a better fighter than the the Warrior (which is as it should be, that being an NPC class). At four encounters a day, the cleric is using all of his 4th and 5th level spells to get those spells up (and a significant amount of time). If your DM is completely tactically inept, you can get away with spending an initial round or two on self buffs continuously, otherwise, sooner or later, your time outs to buff will kill party members (unless your DM doesn't kill players).



As far as repairing condition effects goes, there's only one question you really need to ask:
Can the other person contribute to the fight more effectively than anything else you could do with your action? If yes, definitely fix the condition (and reconsider your choice of spells.)

That's it. Your goal in a fight is to end the fight. You should only burn your actions healing people mid-fight if that is the best way you can contribute to ending the fight. If you have a good spell selection, you probably have a save/lose save/suck effect that would be more useful than converting the same spell to a spontaneous Cure. (And, incidentally, I don't know why you're talking about direct-damage spells. Direct damage magic sucks for everybody. If the only way you have available to bring something down is by HP damage, hit it with Power Attacking weapons. It's what they're there for.)



Your goal in a fight is to complete your mission. Unless you can solo the adventure, you need to keep the other members of the party up and functional. If you can solo the combat and absorb all the punishment the enemy was going to dish out to two or three characters after a couple failed rolls, while dealing enough damage to all of the enemies to finish the combat, then it was too easy of a combat. If fleeing party members never encounter more trouble, you're in a nice quiet place that probably doesn't need adventurers. Save/sucks don't help if there is nobody there to take advantage of them and unless your DM doesn't let you die when the dice go against you, sooner or later, "He who lives by the save-or-die, dies by the save-or-die."

I'm talking about direct damage because that was what was posted earlier. And, that is one of the things that always comes up (particularly Flame Strike) when talking about the cleric.

But, direct damage isn't useless. In a campaign where dice matter, a spell like fireball does consistent, reliable damage - even on a successful save. In combination with a couple good melee characters, direct damage is a safe way to dispatch an enemy. It works much better over the long haul than the fighter running off, the rogue dying, and the wizard and cleric casting save or dies until the monsters go on a good rolling streak and complete the TPK.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-04, 10:33 PM
What do you mean, "have to do"? If being able to remove status afflictions is something that a character has to do, then all classes except cleric are unusable, since none of the rest can do it. Unless you've decided that healing is the cleric's responsibility, for some reason? But why should it be?


Unless you don't mind players sitting there with their characters spending entire combats and/or adventures dead, unconscious, paralyzed, fleeing or otherwise useless, somebody has to remove conditions. The game isn't fun when only one player can do anything, even for that player when the 1 is on his saving throw and the rest of the party is incapacitated. If the cleric is the only one that can remove conditions, doing so is no longer an option, it is a chore.



Consider two parties. Party A has the standard wizard, rogue, fighter, and cleric. Party B has a wizard, rogue, and two clerics. In Party B, the second cleric could, if he chose, do nothing but melee and the buff spells to support it, and he'd do everything the Party A fighter does, and leave all of the divine "duties" to his buddy. Or, if the situation changes, both clerics in party B can go full-on melee, or they can both go full-caster, or they can both do a mixture of both, with at most a day's notice. Party B is in every way at least as capable as party A, and in some ways more so.
[/QUOTE]
This isn't an example. It is just your argument without any corroborating evidence in a different form. A cleric that can fight as well as a well-built fighter won't be built in a way that allows him to be as good a caster as a cleric built for casting and will be a pitiful caster in comparison to a full caster such as a wizard.

Chronos
2007-12-04, 11:03 PM
A cleric that can fight as well as a well-built fighter won't be built in a way that allows him to be as good a caster as a cleric built for casting and will be a pitiful caster in comparison to a full caster such as a wizard.Even if we grant this for the sake of argument, a guy who can fight as well as a well-built fighter and is also a pitiful caster is better than a guy who can fight as well as a well-built fighter and who is no caster at all.

But there's nothing about any of the Clericzilla builds that makes them pitiful casters. Sure, they may not be completely awesome casters, like they could be if they didn't devote any resources to melee, but they still have full access to the entire base cleric spell list. Even if a cleric is optimized for melee, he can still say "Tomorrow, I'm not going to bother preparing any of my buff spells, and just devote all of my slots to direct attack spells, or healing spells, or summoning spells".

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 12:14 AM
Even if we grant this for the sake of argument, a guy who can fight as well as a well-built fighter and is also a pitiful caster is better than a guy who can fight as well as a well-built fighter and who is no caster at all.


Which means the fighter needs something else to contribute.

Looking 4ward, where everyone has some self healing, things could look something like this:

Fighter, Defender, Fights in Melee, Decreases damage party takes by 25%
Cleric, Leader, Fights in Melee, Increases damage party heals by 25%

With those capabilities in combat, both fighter and cleric could have equal combat effectiveness by default and a party with two of one or the other instead of one of each would be generally equally effective across a variety of situations. Then each would have other non-combat abilities. For the cleric, that's easy because of deity or domain selection (or whatever the 4e equivalent is). For the fighter, he needs to be framed through his ability selections. Combined with SAGA-ish skill advancement, having two of either class rather than one of each would be a different experience, but not necessarily better or worse. It may be that the Warlord is the melee Leader and the Cleric a caster Leader, but from what I've read it seems that both will be melee capable (though how capable is kind of blurry).




But there's nothing about any of the Clericzilla builds that makes them pitiful casters. Sure, they may not be completely awesome casters, like they could be if they didn't devote any resources to melee, but they still have full access to the entire base cleric spell list. Even if a cleric is optimized for melee, he can still say "Tomorrow, I'm not going to bother preparing any of my buff spells, and just devote all of my slots to direct attack spells, or healing spells, or summoning spells".

Having access to something doesn't do you any good after the fact. Without feat selection, domains/deity selection, stat allocation and gear to increase save DCs, increase damage, overcome Spell Resistance, and the other things you do to build a good direct attack caster, you're wasting actions on it.

The healing/condition removal thing is a party ability. If people consider the wand of lesser vigor something that belongs to everyone and everyone should pay for, healing is something everyone should pay for in actions and personal resources, but as things are, the cleric usually, bears the brunt of that for everyone. Subtracting those spells and the slots needed to fill that role adequately leaves less than a full caster's list.

The cleric is better off fighting in melee than via spells from the start. He'll be better off casting spells eventually, but it's not a this day or that day thing. It's a level breakpoint. He can be poor in melee for his beginning levels to bring the breakpoint where his spellcasting is better to an earlier level. But once it is, he doesn't just make the fighter's melee ability comparatively useless, he makes all melee combat useless, including his own, regardless of how optimized he is for melee. And the real problem if you want balance is that eventually even a crappy spellcaster is better in combat than an optimized melee character.

Snooder
2007-12-05, 12:34 AM
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get out of people is why do players of the game say that fighter, monk, and to lesser extents paladin and ranger, not worth playing? The reasons I come up with are simply the expansion books. Scout replaces the need for rogue and ranger pretty handily. The ToB replaces Fighter, Monk, and Paladin handily as well. Cleric (and Druid too) is monstrous because every time a new source book comes out, they get more powerful as they have access to every single spell ever published for the cleric spell list. Wizards have a lessened version of that problem, having only to research the spell or learn it when they level.

All of the other classes have finite resources for where they can gather their powers from, where as Clerics and Druids and to some extent, Wizards, gain more power whenever WotC wants to make some more money. So keeping this in mind, with the game evolving to include new spells, feats, concepts, and classes, the original core classes seem to be neglected some (except for Wizard, Druid and Cleric). I think that those classes need to be evolved to keep up with this ever changing game of ours. New ideas, new class abilities, new skill sets, etc need to be given as freebies to balance out some of this.

As flyingpoo22 said, that in a real game a lot of this cheese won't be allowed due to common sense and the DM and players have a good rapport over what's lame and what's not (My DM and I have a gentleman's agreement that we won't use polymorph spells due to how ridiculous they are). If the DM is allowing source books beyond the original core set, then the DM needs to consider what kind of ramification this will have on the game. By expanding one end of the content, consideration must be paid to balancing out the other side (the core rules).


Splatbooks aren't why people say the Fighter/Paladin/Monk e.t.c. are imbalanced compared to spellcasters. They say it for two reasons.

First, while casters can replicate a lot of the things that melee damage dealers do, melee types CANNOT replicate what casters do.

For example, a Cleric can simply pick Divine Power in the morning and he's exactly comparable in power to a Paladin. He's got the same number of feats, same choice of weapons and both are in heavy armor. Normally the Paladin has an edge because he has a higher BAB, but with Divine Power, that edge goes away. This doesn't mean that a Cleric is an exact replacement for a Paladin, or that he can smack the mobs with exactly the same amount of force, but he comes close enough. The one or two points of damage that he loses from not spending as much on his mount don't matter that much in the long run. Worse yet, since the Cleric has access to every spell on the list, he's not penalized in any way for choosing to pick spell that buffs himself rather than wasting the slot on helping someone else. The same Cleric is almost as good as a Fighter as well since there are few feats (the Weapon Focus tree only ends up with +2AB +4dmg) that simply improve damage. So the Fighter access to more feats ends up not being that useful.

Now lets try to have the Paladin/Fighter do the Cleric's job. The Fighter cannot cast spells on his own. If he wastes his meager skill points in UMD, it's still a cross-class skill so at best he'll be half as competent as the Cleric. And he still has to spend tons of gold on wands/scrolls e.t.c. which means his primary role suffers because he won't have his magic weapon or armor or belt of strength. The Paladin suffers from the same problem because a.) his spell casting progression is **** and b.) his spell list is execrable. You know what the most powerful spell a Paladin can cast is? Holy Sword. So while the Cleric is casting Miracles, the Paladin gets a magic weapon that he probably already has.

The second reason is that oftentimes, the casters don't even need a melee type around because his role is superfluous. The "primary role" for melee types is generally to soak hits so that the caster doesn't get killed or to get in close to attack opposing casters. Unfortunately, at higher levels the melee type is often more vulnerable than the caster anyway. Casters tend to have better saves than melee types. And if not, they have other ways of defending themselves against spells. Which means that once the save-or-die start flying, the melee type doesn't "soak damage, he just dies horribly.

And the second part of his role goes away once things like flight and teleport enter the picture. Spells make casters more maneuverable than melee types. Is the party fighter too close to the evil wizard? Just teleport him 20 feet away. Or cast grease, or hold person on the fighter. If the fighter decides to try using a ranged weapon, either teleport closer so the ranged weapon is useless or cast a spell to make arrows worthless. Wind Wall and Protection From Arrows are excellent spells to have as is Fog Cloud. Or the caster can just turn invisible.

In short, the reason people say that Fighters e.t.c. become useless in high level play are spells. Honestly, take a look at the spell list again, it does EVERYTHING. Then there tends to be an ingrained belief that casters should be better than melee types. You can see this in how casters can perform completely impossible feats without anybody batting an eye, but everyone feels it's "unrealistic" for a mundane character to do anything but swing a sword.

The real question to ask is why people feel that the melee type ISN'T much weaker than it should be compared to casters. I think a lot of that comes from having good DMs and players and taking it for granted. When your DM specifically designs encounters to give fighters an advantage and the players aren't gloryhounding, the game seems more balanced than it is. For example, Giacomo continually states that casters could cast all those unbalancing buffs on the other players rather than themselves. And that's probably how the game was meant. But people don't act like that in real life. For most Clerics if the choice is between casting bull's strength on the fighter so he can kill the Ogre, or killing the Ogre himself, he might as well do it himself. It's a problem if one class needs the other, but the other doesn't need the first.

Chronos
2007-12-05, 01:05 AM
Which means the fighter needs something else to contribute.Oh, no argument there. The fighter should have something that he does better than the cleric. He should in fact have something that he does better than any other class. And maybe in 4th edition, he'll have it, knock wood. Unfortunately, he doesn't have it yet.

Yrnes
2007-12-05, 01:25 AM
I know its been addressed, but I don't think the point has really been hammered down yet.

Yeah, the cleric can outshine a fighter in combat given the chance, but how often does that opportunity come up? More than likely, he's going to be spending all his actions healing his party so they freaking die on him whilst he's taking his full attack actions. Quickened spells and swift actions included.

And if he's on healing duty, you're going to need someone handing out damage and soaking up some hits. Enter the fighter.

And much like Cuddly pointed out, I understand this argument really only stands through about level 9, when Divine Power is on the table, but even still, you get my point.

horseboy
2007-12-05, 01:32 AM
I know its been addressed, but I don't think the point has really been hammered down yet.

Yeah, the cleric can outshine a fighter in combat given the chance, but how often does that opportunity come up? More than likely, he's going to be spending all his actions healing his party so they freaking die on him whilst he's taking his full attack actions. Quickened spells and swift actions included.

And if he's on healing duty, you're going to need someone handing out damage and soaking up some hits. Enter the fighter.

And much like Cuddly pointed out, I understand this argument really only stands through about level 9, when Divine Power is on the table, but even still, you get my point.Why is the party letting itself get hurt? I can't really remember the last time anyone was seriously hurt at the end of the D&D day. Of course, I'm usually very drunk. But as you're trying to point out, this is a team game. A good cleric/druid coupled with a half decent wizard and the fighter is there just because Jack likes playing fighters. He's not really needed, he's just hanging out with his buddies.

Counterspin
2007-12-05, 01:50 AM
Except that you're forgetting that a cleric is better in every way, so you don't need a fighter, you just need another cleric.

Yrnes
2007-12-05, 01:56 AM
Yeah, at higher levels having another cleric to fill the fighter role would do just fine.

But what about lower levels when those options aren't available?

tyckspoon
2007-12-05, 02:08 AM
Yeah, at higher levels having another cleric to fill the fighter role would do just fine.

But what about lower levels when those options aren't available?

A second cleric is still better. The advantages of full BAB and the fighter's extra feats don't really come into their own until higher levels. At low levels, which would you rather have: A guy who wears heavy armor and hits things well, or a guy who wears heavy armor, hits things well enough, and can cast Bless, Bull's Strength, and Magic Weapon?

horseboy
2007-12-05, 02:21 AM
Yeah, at higher levels having another cleric to fill the fighter role would do just fine.

But what about lower levels when those options aren't available?

One of my friend's most successful groups was three clerics and a wizard. They'd take that group to conventions and play in the big matches. They'd have their encounters done, and wait for people to shout for help. They'd Dim door over to their table, crush whatever was kicking their butt and be off to the next table. They work just fine.

Snooder
2007-12-05, 03:07 AM
Yeah, the cleric can outshine a fighter in combat given the chance, but how often does that opportunity come up? More than likely, he's going to be spending all his actions healing his party so they freaking die on him whilst he's taking his full attack actions. Quickened spells and swift actions included.

Or he could just let em die. He has options. If the choice is between healing some useless fighter or saving your own bacon, which way do you think most people follow? And if he's just as good as the fighter, why not just replace that fighter with a second cleric so now we still have the same tank/healer ratio, but a lot more healing cause the "fighter" still has healing spells.

greenknight
2007-12-05, 05:47 AM
10 minutes to cast and 60 minutes to consume. That's 70 minutes of your active day (and the spell is ruined if the feast is interrupted). Immunity to poison and fear is nice, but using a 6th level slot in advance every day is a serious cut in your power for an 11th or 12th level cleric.

You stated that a Cleric using personal buffs doesn't have many spell slots left to help out the party. As it happens, Heroes' Feast uses just one spell slot to buff the entire party, and comes from a spell level which doesn't have any Cleric self-buffs (in Core anyway). Even if you use a 7th level slot to Extend it, you still don't have any significant Core self-buffs. As for the time taken, it's a very worthwhile investment IMO.


It's a 7th level spell, so out of reach for a good portion of the game (and out of the reach of almost all of what tend to be the most commonly played levels).

What's that got to do with it? You said Clerics don't get an action's worth of damage output from their direct damage spells. You didn't qualify that with a level range, so Holy Word (and similar spells) directly refute that point regardless of their spell level.


A Strand of Prayer Beads (45,800 gp)

I suspect you got that price from d20srd.org, but the price in the DMG is 25,800gp and I can't find any official correction to that. But regardless of the base price, you can reduce it by removing one or more beads, such as the Bead of Smiting (which reduces the price by 16,800gp).


There is also the Good Domain itself, which isn't useful for trying to set up persistent buffs or for fighting in melee.

Again, what's that got to do with anything? Clerics can have the Good Domain, and it does increase their Caster Level for Holy Word.


If you're using standard wealth gain, there isn't that much wealth gained over the top of your wealth by level to be using these items instead of clerical healing all the time

You've missed a very important point. It's been shown by several people that disabling the foe is usually a far better tactic in combat than healing. The exception is if an ally is close to death (in which case, casting Heal is the best solution, if you can). Outside of combat, it's usually viable to use low cost items (such as a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, or Vigor) to heal your allies.


particularly at lower levels.

You have a point. But then again, C'Zilla doesn't exist at lower levels, so at that time those lower level spell slots are available for healing.

warmachine
2007-12-05, 08:36 AM
One trouble with the core classes is that primary spellcasters are puny at low level and rule at high levels. As these classes have a spell per day table, it should be possible to fine tune it for balance. The spellcaster classes aer a viable design. It just takes some trial and error testing, which WotC have seen fit not to bother with. Thank you for your committment to quality, WotC.

I think there might be a way to make spellcaster's power progression more linear: fixed number of spells per day regardless of level (plus attribute modifier). A fixed number of spells, concentrated at the high levels would mean no low level spells for high level charaters and more spells for low level characters. Low level spells can be cast in high level slots as always. This means high level casters have fewer, low level spells to use on weaker encounters and must rely on the non-casters. For weaker encounters, the non-casters shine. For dangerous encounters, the casters let loose and shine. For low level casters, they don't cast a few spells and then have to hide.

Alas, I don't have any numbers but I'm sure more experienced players can suggest some.

ALOR
2007-12-05, 08:59 AM
A second cleric is still better. The advantages of full BAB and the fighter's extra feats don't really come into their own until higher levels. At low levels, which would you rather have: A guy who wears heavy armor and hits things well, or a guy who wears heavy armor, hits things well enough, and can cast Bless, Bull's Strength, and Magic Weapon?

But while he is casting Bless, Bulls Strength and Magic Weapon what is that bad guy doing?? Twidling his thumbs? Drinking Tea? No sane DM is going to let a player use DMM/Persistent cheese. Who is going to be there holding off the bad guy while the cleric casts all of his mighty buffs??? The Fighter.
I remember a campaign in paticular where one player played a cleric, the other played a fighter and a ranger. Once the cleric was buffed then he was a complete tank. Of course by that time all he had left was mop up duty because the fighter and ranger had slaughtered everything else. But I tell you that cleric looked great while moping up. I guess in games I've played a fighter in, I have never felt outshined by the cleric.

Armads
2007-12-05, 09:27 AM
But while he is casting Bless, Bulls Strength and Magic Weapon what is that bad guy doing?? Twiddling his thumbs? Drinking Tea? No sane DM is going to let a player use DMM/Persistent cheese. Who is going to be there holding off the bad guy while the cleric casts all of his mighty buffs??? The Fighter.

Just because a DM can rule otherwise doesn't mean it's balanced. Also, the cleric doesn't actually cast Bull's Strength or Magic Weapon once he gets to level 7, because he has Divine Power, and Greater Magic Weapon. Bless is similiarly weak after the first few levels.

I remember a campaign in particular where one player played a cleric, the other played a fighter and a ranger. Once the cleric was buffed then he was a complete tank. Of course by that time all he had left was mop up duty because the fighter and ranger had slaughtered everything else. But I tell you that cleric looked great while moping up. I guess in games I've played a fighter in, I have never felt outshined by the cleric.[/QUOTE]

Quicken spell, or casting long-term buffs beforehand. For example, Extended Shield of Faith at level 12 lasts 4 hours - casting it twice is enough for the average adventuring day. Greater Magic Weapon's an hour/level buff.

Also, the cleric's standard buff routine (without DMM Persist cheese) is probably Quickened Divine Favor + Divine Power. It takes 1 round to buff, while the cleric spends his move action to move up to melee range. Then the cleric unloads death on his enemies for the next few turns (of course, if the opponent's a strong melee-er too, then the cleric shouldn't close in on the 1st round).

ALOR
2007-12-05, 10:00 AM
Just because a DM can rule otherwise doesn't mean it's balanced.


How is it unbalanced if the DM does not allow it into his game? I'm not sure I follow? Are you assuming because it's published that a DM must allow it into his game and if he doesn't then he is house ruling it?



Also, the cleric doesn't actually cast Bull's Strength or Magic Weapon once he gets to level 7, because he has Divine Power, and Greater Magic Weapon. Bless is similiarly weak after the first few levels.
Quicken spell, or casting long-term buffs beforehand. For example, Extended Shield of Faith at level 12 lasts 4 hours - casting it twice is enough for the average adventuring day. Greater Magic Weapon's an hour/level buff.

Also, the cleric's standard buff routine (without DMM Persist cheese) is probably Quickened Divine Favor + Divine Power. It takes 1 round to buff, while the cleric spends his move action to move up to melee range. Then the cleric unloads death on his enemies for the next few turns (of course, if the opponent's a strong melee-er too, then the cleric shouldn't close in on the 1st round).

And what happens if the cleric is dispelled? Since in the above example they say it's better without a fighter wouldn't the Melee monster close with the cleric the 1st round since there is nothing to keep him busy?

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 10:05 AM
You stated that a Cleric using personal buffs doesn't have many spell slots left to help out the party. As it happens, Heroes' Feast uses just one spell slot to buff the entire party, and comes from a spell level which doesn't have any Cleric self-buffs (in Core anyway). Even if you use a 7th level slot to Extend it, you still don't have any significant Core self-buffs. As for the time taken, it's a very worthwhile investment IMO.


If you have 70 continuous, safe, minutes every day, you're not on an adventure, you're on a vacation. If you're waiting until 13th level to start removing conditions, there isn't a party anymore.



What's that got to do with it? You said Clerics don't get an action's worth of damage output from their direct damage spells. You didn't qualify that with a level range, so Holy Word (and similar spells) directly refute that point regardless of their spell level.


Within the context of the thread, my point is valid. A cleric built to be a better fighter than the fighter isn't going to get an actions worth of damage from offensive spells. Taking a sub-par domain, and spending a chunk of gold on items to make you a better caster is going to take you away from being a better fighter than the fighter. And, without the caster level and the ability to penetrate spell resistance consistently from items, feats and domain selection, your offensive spells are a gamble with the other party members lives.

I suspect you got that price from d20srd.org, but the price in the DMG is 25,800gp and I can't find any official correction to that. But regardless of the base price, you can reduce it by removing one or more beads, such as the Bead of Smiting (which reduces the price by 16,800gp).




Again, what's that got to do with anything? Clerics can have the Good Domain, and it does increase their Caster Level for Holy Word.


Again, it has to do with the context of the argument in the thread, which is better melee fighter than fighter and effective offensive caster. At the points where melee matters at all, the good domain is a significant detractor from building a good melee character.



You've missed a very important point. It's been shown by several people that disabling the foe is usually a far better tactic in combat than healing. The exception is if an ally is close to death (in which case, casting Heal is the best solution, if you can). Outside of combat, it's usually viable to use low cost items (such as a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, or Vigor) to heal your allies.

I didn't miss anything. I didn't say it was better to heal and remove conditions all the time. The reason the cleric needs to be a strong melee fighter is to take down enemies as doing damage is more effective in general, than taking it and healing it. But, there are times when you do have to heal someone or remove a condition in combat. Adding those times to to the time you need to buff or adding those resources to the resources you need to persist your buffs leaves you as less than a full caster and nowhere near as effective as a caster that focused on casting. By the time you're casting Heal in combat, the effectiveness of melee in the game is almost over.

For the bulk of the time that melee is effective, your in-combat heals and condition removals are costing you the same slots you use for buffs. And, at four encounters a day, there aren't enough slots to cover both, let alone cover both and be acting as a "full" spellcaster. If you haven't focused on your offensive casting, you aren't disabling your enemies reliably, so you're passing up the guaranteed healing or condition removal of your ally for the chance you might take the enemy down on your turn. It's gambling with the other player's character.



You have a point. But then again, C'Zilla doesn't exist at lower levels, so at that time those lower level spell slots are available for healing.


Actually, posters have considered Clericzilla to start from the acquisition of Divine Favor at level one (which you can stack with first Magic Weapon and then Bull's Strength). And those are first and second level slots you need for healing at those levels. Cast each of those once per encounter at four encounters per day at low levels...

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-05, 10:10 AM
How is it unbalanced if the DM does not allow it into his game? I'm not sure I follow? Are you assuming because it's published that a DM must allow it into his game and if he doesn't then he is house ruling it?
Well, yes, if we assume we're talking about a game were the list of included rules counts the sources of DMM and Persistent Spell. It is perfectly reasonable to houserule against either or both of them, but it is a house rule.

Defining the rules scope used in the first place usually isn't considered house-ruling unless you accept some parts of a book and reject other parts of the same book. Though some people will criticize talking in the abstract about a game that, for instance, includes Cwar but not Carc.

Neither house ruling nor talking about house ruling is a bad thing, unless the house rules are being misrepresented as universal.

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 10:24 AM
If you have 70 continuous, safe, minutes every day, you're not on an adventure, you're on a vacation.

If you don't have 70 continuous safe minutes every day you are already dead. I have never played a game in which when you woke up in the morning you couldn't cast hero's feast and start eating. Get in a Rope Trick to do it if you really care that much. A Wizards Rope Trick lasts long enough for sleep/spell prep and the casting and consumption of a Hero's Feast. And that's assuming that you aren't you know, capable of just sitting down and eating whereever you are because any place you actually rested at is probably safe enough to eat at too.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 10:47 AM
If you don't have 70 continuous safe minutes every day you are already dead. I have never played a game in which when you woke up in the morning you couldn't cast hero's feast and start eating. Get in a Rope Trick to do it if you really care that much. A Wizards Rope Trick lasts long enough for sleep/spell prep and the casting and consumption of a Hero's Feast. And that's assuming that you aren't you know, capable of just sitting down and eating whereever you are because any place you actually rested at is probably safe enough to eat at too.

70 continuous safe minutes that you can always count on getting isn't a given, and a safe night's rest isn't either. Unless you completely leave the area of hostilities, there is always the chance that you're going to be interrupted and when that happens (and with the feast, there is nothing you can do to save it once it is interrupted), you're out that spell slot and without the protection/restoration it brings.

Plenty of real-life explorers, outlaws and soldiers have survived without getting 70 minutes of safe, continuous rest for days at a time. I expect my imaginary heroes to be as durable. That's also the time when those expendable items you've been saving come in really handy, unless you haven't been saving them and have instead been using them to keep the party going on a day-to-day basis so you can nova...

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-05, 11:04 AM
Plenty of real-life explorers, outlaws and soldiers have survived without getting 70 minutes of safe, continuous rest for days at a time. I expect my imaginary heroes to be as durable. That's also the time when those expendable items you've been saving come in really handy, unless you haven't been saving them and have instead been using them to keep the party going on a day-to-day basis so you can nova...
Uh, if you say so. But your imaginary heroes aren't that durable. Arcanists not allowed their rest become over-leveled commoners...even if they try to conserve magic, probably by somewhere in the third day.

Also...more that 20 encounters a day? Or is it just that trying to do anything productive miraculously attracts enemies, even when you do it inside your magical hideaway?

Cuddly
2007-12-05, 11:33 AM
For example, Extended Shield of Faith at level 12 lasts 4 hours - casting it twice is enough for the average adventuring day.

It lasts less than half an hour. Where'd you get 4 hours from?

Shadowdweller
2007-12-05, 11:42 AM
I personally see at least three big design flaws with the core classes. Note that each is mainly a result of general system changes:

1) Spells largely trump skills/class abilities. Amongst the many cases: Spider Climb (and later, Fly) make the Climb skill entirely obsolete. The Cleric is capable of casting the Slay Living spell at level 9, which from the beginning may be used multiple times per day; the monk's Quivering Palm analogue is received at 15th level, and can be only used once per week. Although spells are limited in usage per day, class abilities generally represent a much greater investment of personal resources. Thus, class abilities should generally be more powerful, not less.

2) Feats do not scale appropriately: Spell power increases considerably with succeeding spell levels. Even the effects of individual spells increase with level. Feat power does neither. The 1st level spell, Divine Favor, experiences a six-fold increase in effect over a 20th level progression. That Weapon Focus feat you took at 1st level never gets any better. Successive feats in chains frequently result in diminishing returns. Example: Increasingly difficult-to-qualify-for Two Weapon fighting feats give extra attacks at a decreasing bonus (and thus lower incremental amounts of damage). Or: The Improved Critical feat nearly doubles the incidence of critical hits; whereas the subsequent Power Critical feat only increases incidence by about 20%.

3) Casters pretty much use spells with impunity in 3.x. In previous editions, one of the major balancing points between casters and non-casters was that enemies could frequently put a lock on spells by getting in close melee with a given caster. This meant that there were a lot more circumstances where the front-liners really got to shine by virtue of there being frequent cases where spellcasting was difficult. Moreover, even back then there were many strategies a careful spellcaster could use to get around these problems. Many of which survive today (on top of the 5-foot step / defensive casting rules) in the form of spells like Mirror Image, Displacement, etc. While it's all well and good in 3.x to make sure that casters never have their periods of uselessness, a) it exacerbates the fact that non-casters still have periods of uselessness, and even worse b) was never effectively rebalanced by other means. System simplifications that have removed the relatively fast weapon speeds in comparison to slow casting times haven't helped either.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 12:02 PM
Uh, if you say so. But your imaginary heroes aren't that durable. Arcanists not allowed their rest become over-leveled commoners...even if they try to conserve magic, probably by somewhere in the third day.

Also...more that 20 encounters a day? Or is it just that trying to do anything productive miraculously attracts enemies, even when you do it inside your magical hideaway?

Your wizards don't have wands or staffs? No scrolls? Or did they use them all for things like Knock to do things other characters do for free? If so, your imaginary heroes aren't that durable. Mine do quite nicely, thank you.

On an up-tempo mission in hostile territory, which is what a lot of adventures are, time is a luxury. And by the time you're casting a 7th level spell to protect you from possible future effects, your opponents have the ability to see invisibility comparatively cheaply. A CR6 babau demon sees invisible at will, a lantern of revealing costs 30,000 gp - not a big drain for the resources of a community of evil beings that are a challenge for 13th level characters. Guards and patrols will consist of beings who have or are somehow granted the ability to see the window created by a rope trick, and forces will be mustered accordingly.

If you've been ignoring casting heals and condition removal spells, the wizard has probably died, if your party even had one, considering the cleric is a "full" caster himself. But, if you need the wizard to cast rope trick or other spells like teleport to create time and safe places for you, you aren't really a full caster...unless you have the Travel domain.

But at that point we aren't talking about a Cleric with 2 domains or Cloistered cleric with 2 domains and the Knowledge domain. This is the Message Board Cleric who has whatever domain he needs to support a specific post. Planning, Strength, Undeath, Good, Travel, Luck... He also has the all necessary combat and spellcasting feats, all the equipment of both a dedicated melee fighter and a dedicated spellcaster, and the ability to always have the right spells available to do both. The Message Board Cleric is able to fight better than a fighter and cast like a full caster, thankfully, he doesn't exist.

Where did you get 20 encounters a day. Your DM runs four encounters back to back in four game hours and calls it a day? No following tracks? No staying on the trail of a fleeing bad guy?

The spell is 70 minutes of the cleric doing nothing else and 60 minutes of everyone else doing nothing else. 45 minutes into your meal, "Hey what's that sound? I better check on it." *POOF* Don't go alone, take Fred with you." *POOF* There goes Fred's bonus too.

Snooder
2007-12-05, 12:36 PM
On an up-tempo mission in hostile territory, which is what a lot of adventures are, time is a luxury. And by the time you're casting a 7th level spell to protect you from possible future effects, your opponents have the ability to see invisibility comparatively cheaply. A CR6 babau demon sees invisible at will, a lantern of revealing costs 30,000 gp - not a big drain for the resources of a community of evil beings that are a challenge for 13th level characters. Guards and patrols will consist of beings who have or are somehow granted the ability to see the window created by a rope trick, and forces will be mustered accordingly.

The spell is 70 minutes of the cleric doing nothing else and 60 minutes of everyone else doing nothing else. 45 minutes into your meal, "Hey what's that sound? I better check on it." *POOF* Don't go alone, take Fred with you." *POOF* There goes Fred's bonus too.

The problem is that players won't deliberately put themselves in harms way. If the dm says there's a sound and the Cleric/Wizard is resting, NOBODY is going to suggest that he not rest so the story can continue. Instead they'll just ignore it. If the DM pushes it and has bad stuff happen to the caster to interrupt his rest time, one of two things happens.

a.) The Party dies. Messing with the casters that way weakens em to the point that they can't meaningfully contribute. If casters don't contribute, and you are tossing encounters designed for contributing casters people start dying.

b.) The Party stops resting in dangerous places. This is where the narcoleptic party comes from. If the party knows that the DM is going to interrupt the caster's sleep or memorization time if they stay out in the wild, they'll head back to town. Doesn't matter if they head back to town in the middle of the morning without exploring anything, when the choice is death or boredom, they'll choose boredom.

The DM cannot force players to go without rest if they don't cooperate. It just doesn't work. It leads to idiotic situations where ninjas attack at daybreak in the middle of the city every day for no good reason. And then players get frustrated and pick a new DM who is a railroader.

For an illustrative example, your hypothetical situation more often goes like this:
DM: You hear a sound in the bushes.
Player 1: "Hey what's that sound? I better check on it."
Player 2: "Cleric is still resting."
Player 1: "Oh, duh. I'll wait till he gets his spells back."
No *POOF*, no loss of spells or bonus.

horseboy
2007-12-05, 12:58 PM
Where did you get 20 encounters a day. Your DM runs four encounters back to back in four game hours and calls it a day? No following tracks? No staying on the trail of a fleeing bad guy?

The spell is 70 minutes of the cleric doing nothing else and 60 minutes of everyone else doing nothing else. 45 minutes into your meal, "Hey what's that sound? I better check on it." *POOF* Don't go alone, take Fred with you." *POOF* There goes Fred's bonus too.

Nope, we (my group) don't like the Monty Haul style hack-n-slash. We have, oh, maybe 3-4 combats per story arc. Nor do we have "evil kingdoms" where they automatically attack everything that pings as good. Course, we also don't usually play in game systems with alignments.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 01:18 PM
The problem is that players won't deliberately put themselves in harms way. If the dm says there's a sound and the Cleric/Wizard is resting, NOBODY is going to suggest that he not rest so the story can continue. Instead they'll just ignore it. If the DM pushes it and has bad stuff happen to the caster to interrupt his rest time, one of two things happens.

a.) The Party dies. Messing with the casters that way weakens em to the point that they can't meaningfully contribute. If casters don't contribute, and you are tossing encounters designed for contributing casters people start dying.

b.) The Party stops resting in dangerous places. This is where the narcoleptic party comes from. If the party knows that the DM is going to interrupt the caster's sleep or memorization time if they stay out in the wild, they'll head back to town. Doesn't matter if they head back to town in the middle of the morning without exploring anything, when the choice is death or boredom, they'll choose boredom.

The DM cannot force players to go without rest if they don't cooperate. It just doesn't work. It leads to idiotic situations where ninjas attack at daybreak in the middle of the city every day for no good reason. And then players get frustrated and pick a new DM who is a railroader.

For an illustrative example, your hypothetical situation more often goes like this:
DM: You hear a sound in the bushes.
Player 1: "Hey what's that sound? I better check on it."
Player 2: "Cleric is still resting."
Player 1: "Oh, duh. I'll wait till he gets his spells back."
No *POOF*, no loss of spells or bonus.

Adventuring is deliberately putting yourself in harm's way.

Heroes Feast ends for anyone affected being disrupted. If the Rogue is going to check on a noise, it ends for him. If your party refuses to take reasonable precautions on a consistent basis like keeping someone on watch or having a couple party members investigate a suspicious noise, the DM doesn't need to hit you with ninjas every daybreak. You only need one surprise encounter because the rogue and ranger are eating their feast rather than checking on a suspicious noise and a couple bad rolls to result in a TPK when the party is understrength.

Using the DM and everyone else's desire to have a good time to enable your character to overshadow others is going to result in the DM and other players replacing the offending player, rather than the other players joining the guy twisting the situation to overshadow them in finding a new DM.

If the DM is properly accounting for the adverse situations, an occasional late-night encounter adds a lot to the adventure, and provides opportunities for both the non-casters to shine and the casters to experiment with those goofy spells in wands and staves they would otherwise never bother memorizing. If what should be a challenging late night encounter followed by a few encounters that are balanced to be a challenge against a party with less than full resources turns deadly because one person uses all of his expendable items and all of his spells to overshadow everyone else on a daily basis, that isn't a railroading DM. It's a selfish player.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 01:28 PM
Nope, we (my group) don't like the Monty Haul style hack-n-slash. We have, oh, maybe 3-4 combats per story arc. Nor do we have "evil kingdoms" where they automatically attack everything that pings as good. Course, we also don't usually play in game systems with alignments.

So, if I don't play with expected encounter frequency or play another game system entirely, the cleric will be broken.

There is nothing Monty Haul about using the system as it is designed.

Monty Haul would be say, allowing the players to use all of the resources they are expected to have available for four encounters per day in significantly fewer encounters.

And, you could play this Monty Haul style in a highly realistic, non-hack-an-slash world where strangers are never investigated, everyone travels freely, those in opposition to power never generate a price on their heads, no mission is time critical....

horseboy
2007-12-05, 02:46 PM
So, if I don't play with expected encounter frequency or play another game system entirely, the cleric will be broken.

There is nothing Monty Haul about using the system as it is designed. Except the system itself is designed to be a Monty Haul, hack and slash system.


Monty Haul would be say, allowing the players to use all of the resources they are expected to have available for four encounters per day in significantly fewer encounters.

And, you could play this Monty Haul style in a highly realistic, non-hack-an-slash world where strangers are never investigated, everyone travels freely, those in opposition to power never generate a price on their heads, no mission is time critical....
No, Monty Haul means every coin is spent for mechanical efficiency, instead of character development. Things like WBL inhibit the swashbucker from donating to the Widows and Orphans Funds for Sailors instead of putting a +1 on his weapon, because the rules says at his level he needs a certain plus on his weapon if he's going to take on the next tier of monsters.

And, really how does one fit four encounters in every day of an adventure without turning into a hack-n-slash Gauntlet style game?

Snooder
2007-12-05, 03:11 PM
If your party refuses to take reasonable precautions on a consistent basis like keeping someone on watch or having a couple party members investigate a suspicious noise, the DM doesn't need to hit you with ninjas every daybreak. You only need one surprise encounter because the rogue and ranger are eating their feast rather than checking on a suspicious noise and a couple bad rolls to result in a TPK when the party is understrength.


That's my POINT. If you toss the surprise encounter at the players, they die. If you don't let the casters rest, they still die. Kind of a catch 22 don't u think?

And that assumes that the players will let you throw them a surprise encounter. Spell exist that put the kibosh on that sort of situation, like Magnificent Mansion, Augury, Alarm, e.t.c. Getting around those sorts of defenses requires unrealistic levels of knowledge about the PCs as well as ways of getting around the spellcasting that is probably over CR.

You are assuming that once the caster runs out of spells, the other players will force that player to come along and adventure anyway. This isn't the case, at least when I play. Usually when the caster runs out of spells, the game ends. Why? Because once the caster is out of spells, he is useless. A useless caster might as well not be in the game, and all players at the game know this. As you yourself stated, if the caster doesn't participate encounters get a LOT deadlier. So players tend to avoid having that situation ever happening. Usually this means that the caster reserves a few spells to get the whole party back to safety when he starts running out, or the party simply treks back to town once the caster is low on spells.

Players aren't stupid. They won't simply sit down and let the DM run the caster out of spells. Thus, the only way for the DM to run the caster out of spells is to put up arbitrary blocks against a sensible player action like retreat. Hence the ninjas. Doesn't have to be ninjas, could be a really short deadline for the mission, or a gate that closes after the party enters a tomb or constant ambushes that prevent the party from ever reaching safety. The problem is that players aren't stupid and if this happens often, will recognize and resent the hand of a railroading DM. And if it doesn't happen often, then the caster still overshadows everyone.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-05, 03:20 PM
20 encounters per day, incidentally, comes from needing to be interrupted every 70 minutes of a 24 hour period. Which apparently is a normal state of affairs to some people.:smallconfused:

If scrolls and wands are your staple casting resources, why even bother with casters? A rogue can use both of those. Of course, you use the casters because getting all your spells out of items is prohibitively, overwhelmingly expensive. But if you somehow manage to keep them from regaining spells every day, what's the point?

Seeing invisible is all well and good...no, really it makes a lot of sense that people likely to be attacked by invisibility-users would use countermeasures. But after a bit, hopefully your players will catch on, and next time they need to break they stick the rope trick in a broom closet or something. If they can't, they will (being not entirely suicidal) probably elect to teleport to somewhere safer. Even martial classes don't do well when not allowed to sleep.

Frosty
2007-12-05, 03:59 PM
My group and I used the spellpoint system variant from Unearthed Arcana, and I'm thinking of this house rule: If you rest less than 8 hours, you recharge whatever fraction of 8 hours you did rest. So if you rested 6 hours only, you'll only have access to 75% of the spell points. It allows me to rush things sometimes without completely gimoing the casters.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-05, 04:06 PM
20 encounters per day, incidentally, comes from needing to be interrupted every 70 minutes of a 24 hour period. Which apparently is a normal state of affairs to some people.:smallconfused:


It's not a normal state of affairs for anyone I know. It's an illogical assumption you're making for the sake of argument. You stand watch every night and you investigate suspicious sounds as a matter of course, because you only need one slip-up to cost you your life, and you don't know what night you'll be attacked or what sound will turn out to be important.



If scrolls and wands are your staple casting resources, why even bother with casters? A rogue can use both of those. Of course, you use the casters because getting all your spells out of items is prohibitively, overwhelmingly expensive. But if you somehow manage to keep them from regaining spells every day, what's the point?


I've posted previously in this thread that scrolls, staffs and wands shouldn't be your staple casting resources. It isn't possible to use them as such if you have standard wealth gain. It is possible to have enough on hand to get you through a period of time when you can't rest or in the case of clerics when something comes up before the time of day you meditate for 15 minutes to regain your spells. Unless, you're using expendables to enable you to use all of your other abilities or the expendables themselves to overshadow your fellow party members, in which case you're stuck.

Not being able to always get time to rest isn't the same as not being able to rest every day. One is an occasional situational disadvantage, the other is something you're making up.

The rules account for situations where the cleric doesn't get to rest immediately, thus the inclusion of the bit about regaining spells at the first opportunity. Similarly, the game accounts for encounters at night or when the characters are otherwise not fully prepared, thus the feat that allows for sleeping in some armor and the magic item that allows you to sleep in any armor...



Seeing invisible is all well and good...no, really it makes a lot of sense that people likely to be attacked by invisibility-users would use countermeasures. But after a bit, hopefully your players will catch on, and next time they need to break they stick the rope trick in a broom closet or something. If they can't, they will (being not entirely suicidal) probably elect to teleport to somewhere safer. Even martial classes don't do well when not allowed to sleep.

If your players never feel the need to continue on in the face of adversity or accept risks to complete a mission, they shouldn't be adventurers. they should get nice safe jobs in a well-protected town.


That's my POINT. If you toss the surprise encounter at the players, they die. If you don't let the casters rest, they still die. Kind of a catch 22 don't u think?

Your POINT is invalid. The players die not because of the surprise encounter, but because they took a surprise round in the surprise encounter rather than investigating a sound they heard. If they investigate the sound and interrupt the enemy's preparations for an attack, they'll seize the initiative, probably get a surprise round themselves and have an easier time of it.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-05, 04:32 PM
Jumping in here again, because I believe Snooder commits a widespread error that also leads to the perception of caster overpoweredness.

Before that, though, let me...sniff...express my full-hearted gratitude to posters like ClericWithNoGod, Cuddly and ADOR. I feel that I am not alone anymore with my opinion...nor even anymore in stark minority, I daresay.

There are apparently also others who feel the game is balanced once one factors in the drawbacks of casters. On with Snooder...


That's my POINT. If you toss the surprise encounter at the players, they die. If you don't let the casters rest, they still die. Kind of a catch 22 don't u think?

Well, this kind of thinking completely shuts down any suspense. And why should it be limited to the casters?
Hey, if casters get back their spells automatically/unharmed, then also let the non-casters get back their Hit Points automatically overnight. Since otherwise, you know, the party will die!
What a joke.


And that assumes that the players will let you throw them a surprise encounter. Spell exist that put the kibosh on that sort of situation, like Magnificent Mansion, Augury, Alarm, e.t.c. Getting around those sorts of defenses requires unrealistic levels of knowledge about the PCs as well as ways of getting around the spellcasting that is probably over CR.

Well, if pcs actually use those methods, a DM should not punish them for it, but take this into account for the probability of a surprise - same goes for non-caster pcs raising their spot/listen skills so as to better warn their comrades.
But once again, THIS IS NOT FOOLPROOF. Or suspense immediately ends. You cannot reasonably expect to always cast Alarm and Rope Trick and the enemy never being able to have access to spells, too, which may thwart your protective tactics.


You are assuming that once the caster runs out of spells, the other players will force that player to come along and adventure anyway. This isn't the case, at least when I play.

Well, I sincerely hope so! But still- once a caster runs out of spells, you know what? The non-casters shine! And help save the caster to retreat back to safety. This is called balance. The caster had his great moments, now the non-casters shine. Sounds like balance to me, not something to make the caster players feel bad.


Usually when the caster runs out of spells, the game ends. Why? Because once the caster is out of spells, he is useless. A useless caster might as well not be in the game, and all players at the game know this.

WHAT? OK, this I would call a severe misperception of a GROUP game. The caster player gets his great moments, miscalculates, and after only half the adventure realises he's out of spells (like the cleric trying to be better than the fighter at the fighter's job instead of learning, say, raise dead or something). And then, when his turn is "over", the others should not get their chance? This sounds like the kind of playing attitude which directly leads to the belief of caster overpowerdness "hey, I am so much better than a fighter. Oops, out of spells? OK, let's stop the game..." Very odd imo.
You will not see a fighter or rogue player asking for a stop of the game once they run our of hps or if they fail to open a door or chest or otherwise are at their class abilities' end.


As you yourself stated, if the caster doesn't participate encounters get a LOT deadlier. So players tend to avoid having that situation ever happening. Usually this means that the caster reserves a few spells to get the whole party back to safety when he starts running out, or the party simply treks back to town once the caster is low on spells.

Nope. This is what a party should do: Plan in advance that everyone does the job best suited for him or her, and then the caster most likely will not run out of spells. If this still happens, the retreat for lack of spells is as likely as retreating for lack of hit points of the rogue. No difference here.


Players aren't stupid. They won't simply sit down and let the DM run the caster out of spells. Thus, the only way for the DM to run the caster out of spells is to put up arbitrary blocks against a sensible player action like retreat. Hence the ninjas. Doesn't have to be ninjas, could be a really short deadline for the mission, or a gate that closes after the party enters a tomb or constant ambushes that prevent the party from ever reaching safety. The problem is that players aren't stupid and if this happens often, will recognize and resent the hand of a railroading DM. And if it doesn't happen often, then the caster still overshadows everyone.

So if a caster is faced with something unexpected and runs out of spells, you are saying that the DM railroaded the group? This is not a question of stupidity, it is a question of a well-balanced game.

Seriously. All those who say "hey, instead of the fighter let's take a second cleric". Please read through the disadvantages of the cleric class. They are there. If your DM is ignoring them, he is definitely doing something wrong.

Or, to put in a concrete example of what ALOR already posted above:
9th level fighter, 9th level cleric. Combat starts. Cleric casts divine power. Cleric casts rightous might.
In the two rounds the fighter shoots 8 arrows (rapid shot, boots of speed). Or charges and grapples/smashes, doing more damage than the cleric could hope even to equal by round 10 (when the buffs are over).
And the opportunity cost? The rogue got hit by a spell of the evil necromancer and dies. Where is the raise dead to help him? Oops, gone for the unnecessary rightuous might.
As for a second cleric trying to shoot 8 arrows and/or charge and grapple_/smashing: he has less hp, less BAB, less feats and thus way less effectiveness to do that unbuffed.

- Giacomo

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 04:57 PM
You will not see a fighter or rogue player asking for a stop of the game once they run our of hps.

Actually that's exactly what happens. When the Fighter runs out of HP and has no way to cure it, Adventuring is done for the day.


(like the cleric trying to be better than the fighter at the fighter's job instead of learning, say, raise dead or something)

Ignoring for a moment that Clerics don't "Learn" spells and that Divine Power is a lower level spell then Raise Dead, Why on Earth would you ever Prepare Raise Dead when someone wasn't dead? That's a wasted spell that you'll never use because people don't die on a daily basis (If they did then you actually lose levels faster then you gain them). And maybe someone dieing is a sign that you should leave, and come back at full strength. And maybe if you had devoted that spell slot towards something useful then he wouldn't have died. And maybe if all else fails then you take the Body with you and Raise him the very next day.


Please read through the disadvantages of the cleric class. They are there. If your DM is ignoring them, he is definitely doing something wrong.

Please tell me what these are.


In the two rounds the fighter shoots 8 arrows (rapid shot, boots of speed). Or charges and grapples/smashes, doing more damage than the cleric could hope even to equal by round 10 (when the buffs are over).

You mean he does as much damage as the Cleric does in Round 2? Because that's what actually happens.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-05, 05:12 PM
Now, actually trying to answer to something the OP put up two pages further up...actually the only one so far to answer as far as I saw was again - Snooder, and with (without irony) excellent comments, at that!

I'll comment on those after some remarks to ErrantX.


44 posts later, wow, look what I've started!

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get out of people is why do players of the game say that fighter, monk, and to lesser extents paladin and ranger, not worth playing? The reasons I come up with are simply the expansion books. Scout replaces the need for rogue and ranger pretty handily. The ToB replaces Fighter, Monk, and Paladin handily as well. Cleric (and Druid too) is monstrous because every time a new source book comes out, they get more powerful as they have access to every single spell ever published for the cleric spell list. Wizards have a lessened version of that problem, having only to research the spell or learn it when they level.

All of the other classes have finite resources for where they can gather their powers from, where as Clerics and Druids and to some extent, Wizards, gain more power whenever WotC wants to make some more money. So keeping this in mind, with the game evolving to include new spells, feats, concepts, and classes, the original core classes seem to be neglected some (except for Wizard, Druid and Cleric). I think that those classes need to be evolved to keep up with this ever changing game of ours. New ideas, new class abilities, new skill sets, etc need to be given as freebies to balance out some of this.


Yes, the expansion books go a long way to explain why casters are considered overpowered. For instance, the spell celerity alone seriously impairs the game balance imo. Conversely, the cheap belt of battle also alters the game in such a way that all characters would want to have one - they are too good. They go some way to balance casters and non-casters, but at the price to make everything less flexible and more unwieldy.
Additionally, there are no WoTC splatbooks on some core classes like the monk, which also explain a bit of the weak perception of this class on these boards. Still, I heard about feats that improve the stunning fist sky high, improve the spell resistance etc so there is definitely a lot out there.
Probably the choice of what to admit outside core or not to admit greatly influences what class is strongest in what campaign.
Hence my recommendation for DMs: stick to core to keep it simpler to balance things.



As flyingpoo22 said, that in a real game a lot of this cheese won't be allowed due to common sense and the DM and players have a good rapport over what's lame and what's not (My DM and I have a gentleman's agreement that we won't use polymorph spells due to how ridiculous they are). If the DM is allowing source books beyond the original core set, then the DM needs to consider what kind of ramification this will have on the game. By expanding one end of the content, consideration must be paid to balancing out the other side (the core rules).

Yep, the polymorph thing I'd view in a similar way. Flavourwise, it is highly specific (especially its availability at 4th level, also as buff to others, means, it could be fairly common in the campaign). And thus it is not to everyone's taste (I frequently play in groups where it is considered plain silly.
However, once it is removed, a great combat buff that helps some classes more than others is gone. And this can affect the game balance.

Swiching to Snooder's reply...


Splatbooks aren't why people say the Fighter/Paladin/Monk e.t.c. are imbalanced compared to spellcasters. They say it for two reasons.

First, while casters can replicate a lot of the things that melee damage dealers do, melee types CANNOT replicate what casters do.

They can. With UMD. And magic items replicating spell powers. Items even in core cover around 80% of all spells, I daresay - not counting custom items and scrolls, of course.


For example, a Cleric can simply pick Divine Power in the morning and he's exactly comparable in power to a Paladin. He's got the same number of feats, same choice of weapons and both are in heavy armor. Normally the Paladin has an edge because he has a higher BAB, but with Divine Power, that edge goes away. This doesn't mean that a Cleric is an exact replacement for a Paladin, or that he can smack the mobs with exactly the same amount of force, but he comes close enough. The one or two points of damage that he loses from not spending as much on his mount don't matter that much in the long run. Worse yet, since the Cleric has access to every spell on the list, he's not penalized in any way for choosing to pick spell that buffs himself rather than wasting the slot on helping someone else. The same Cleric is almost as good as a Fighter as well since there are few feats (the Weapon Focus tree only ends up with +2AB +4dmg) that simply improve damage. So the Fighter access to more feats ends up not being that useful.

This comparison I'd in part agree with - the paladin part, that is. Of course, the cleric can only emulate the paladin for some rounds. Which may be a bit hazardous to rely on. Plus, the CHR bonus to saves in core is awesome. (if the paladin focues on CHR, he can likewise have quite nice UMD and get divine wands for 1-4 th level spells. With one feat he can even craft wands of paladin spells to make up for the low number of spells/day, all without UMD.)
The core feats for fighters, when including archery feats, are enough to keep the balance, I'd say (do not only think melee when you think fighter, in particular not at high levels, where ranged combat rules).


Now lets try to have the Paladin/Fighter do the Cleric's job. The Fighter cannot cast spells on his own. If he wastes his meager skill points in UMD, it's still a cross-class skill so at best he'll be half as competent as the Cleric.

I would argue that the fighter is even less than half competent as the Cleric who gets the spells back every day (abstracting from the drawbacks).
Still, the fighter can concentrate on the spells that are, say, self buffs otherwise not available to him like divine power or divine favour. Or the incredibly cheap/efficient cure light wounds wand.


And he still has to spend tons of gold on wands/scrolls e.t.c. which means his primary role suffers because he won't have his magic weapon or armor or belt of strength.

True. This means the non-caster should have only very rarely, if at all, wands able to emulate spells in excess of 2nd level. But those already do the trick (like invisibility, mirror image, cure light wounds, enlarge etc.).


The Paladin suffers from the same problem because a.) his spell casting progression is **** and b.) his spell list is execrable. You know what the most powerful spell a Paladin can cast is? Holy Sword. So while the Cleric is casting Miracles, the Paladin gets a magic weapon that he probably already has.

This is truly sad. The paladin can get the holy sword spell earlier via a wand of holy sword, but still spellwise the paladin is much weaker than the cleric. Whether this is equalised by higher Hp, higher BAB, more special abilities is open for debate. I would feel it is. I have played both paladins and clerics in core environments and the save bonus alone is incredible. Add the mount (way superior to an animal companion) and you have basically two characters run by you. Yes, cleric and paladin are roughly balanced.


The second reason is that oftentimes, the casters don't even need a melee type around because his role is superfluous. The "primary role" for melee types is generally to soak hits so that the caster doesn't get killed or to get in close to attack opposing casters. Unfortunately, at higher levels the melee type is often more vulnerable than the caster anyway. Casters tend to have better saves than melee types. And if not, they have other ways of defending themselves against spells. Which means that once the save-or-die start flying, the melee type doesn't "soak damage, he just dies horribly.

You are correct, but maybe in a way you do not consider yet. The problem is not with melee vs casters, but with melee vs ranged tactics (there are also some casters using touch spells, while there are non-casters using missile weapons). In my view, the ranged tactics mostly beat the melee tactics. "Soaking" damage is always inferior to avoiding damage by defating the enemy first without the enemy able to hit back (hence the evolution of warfare from melee to ranged combat in history).
Save-or-dies affect all classes in their weak save (the monk an exception to this rule).


And the second part of his role goes away once things like flight and teleport enter the picture. Spells make casters more maneuverable than melee types. Is the party fighter too close to the evil wizard? Just teleport him 20 feet away. Or cast grease, or hold person on the fighter. If the fighter decides to try using a ranged weapon, either teleport closer so the ranged weapon is useless or cast a spell to make arrows worthless. Wind Wall and Protection From Arrows are excellent spells to have as is Fog Cloud. Or the caster can just turn invisible.

Well, only partly so.
Flight and teleport effects are available to all via magic items as they progress in levels. The casters may have them earlier, though, that is correct.
Archers are not stopped by wind walls (go through them or shoot from above while flying), or by protection from arrows (does not help vs magic bows or arrows) or fog cloud and invisibiltiy (50% still hit once pinpointed, and there is always the cheap seeker enchantment ability).


In short, the reason people say that Fighters e.t.c. become useless in high level play are spells. Honestly, take a look at the spell list again, it does EVERYTHING. Then there tends to be an ingrained belief that casters should be better than melee types. You can see this in how casters can perform completely impossible feats without anybody batting an eye, but everyone feels it's "unrealistic" for a mundane character to do anything but swing a sword.

Well, look at a truly maxed high-level non-caster and you will not believe what you see. While their 17th level caster brethren relish in 9th level spells, rogues can do the same via UMD and rob a caster blind of all (ALL) items with a free action, the monk has SR, 4 Save-or-dies in one hit (stun, massive damage, poison and quivering palm), the babarian does 200 damage per round in melee and the fighter does 200 damage per round both in melee and at range. Needless to say that they all likely can teleport via items, may have mind blanks up from npc casting (those with maxed diplomacy or leadership for free), and so on.


The real question to ask is why people feel that the melee type ISN'T much weaker than it should be compared to casters. I think a lot of that comes from having good DMs and players and taking it for granted. When your DM specifically designs encounters to give fighters an advantage and the players aren't gloryhounding, the game seems more balanced than it is. For example, Giacomo continually states that casters could cast all those unbalancing buffs on the other players rather than themselves. And that's probably how the game was meant. But people don't act like that in real life. For most Clerics if the choice is between casting bull's strength on the fighter so he can kill the Ogre, or killing the Ogre himself, he might as well do it himself. It's a problem if one class needs the other, but the other doesn't need the first.

Well, this is a very interesting analysis! And probably true. Forgive me for the harsher tone in my previous post - you also do not seem to like that casters behave egoistically in a game, I apparently misinterpreted that from the post I commented on above.
In my view, though, the game encourages group play not only because people like each other and/or would like everyone to have fun in a group game. It is also because the mechanics encourage it.
A polymorphed fighter, or even better a polymorphed monk is way better at combat than a polymorphed wizard or sorcerer.
Rogues make way more out of cat's grace than the sorcerer who cast it on him. Clerics get more out of casting bless for the group (affecting everyone with +1 to hit) then casting divine favour (only affecting themselves, with a bit more oomph for the buck).

The same holds true for the non-casters. The fighter gains more out of shielding the wizard (and fighting defensively to keep the enemy at bay until the full-round casting for summoning is over), than simply charging in for full Power attack damage.

- Giacomo

Chronos
2007-12-05, 05:26 PM
if the paladin focues on CHR, he can likewise have quite nice UMD and get divine wands for 1-4 th level spells.The paladin can use many divine wands without needing UMD at all: Even if he can't cast them himself, due to a low level or Wisdom, they're still on his class list. With UMD, he can also use arcane wands (albeit not as reliably).


rogues can do the same via UMD and rob a caster blind of all (ALL) items with a free action,Now you've got my attention. I'm one of the biggest proponents of rogues around here, so I know that a rogue can rob a caster (or anyone else) blind. But how does he do it as a free action?

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-05, 05:38 PM
Actually that's exactly what happens. When the Fighter runs out of HP and has no way to cure it, Adventuring is done for the day.

OK, fair enough. But why then the fuss for the spellusers? The characters still have to be able to retreat, and while they retreat to safety, those who are still stronger can help those who are weaker to survive. A spellcaster can lose both spells and hps, so the party will more often retreat because of them. While they do so, they will still have to face one or more encounters when the non-casters shine.



Ignoring for a moment that Clerics don't "Learn" spells and that Divine Power is a lower level spell then Raise Dead, Why on Earth would you ever Prepare Raise Dead when someone wasn't dead? That's a wasted spell that you'll never use because people don't die on a daily basis (If they did then you actually lose levels faster then you gain them).
And maybe someone dieing is a sign that you should leave, and come back at full strength. And maybe if you had devoted that spell slot towards something useful then he wouldn't have died. And maybe if all else fails then you take the Body with you and Raise him the very next day.

Well, if someone during a hazardrous part of the adventure dies, then this spell comes in very handy and should then be prepared instead of the rightuous might (the spell I referred to in this example, not divine might). You may carry the body, but that actually leaves you with two characters less than if you had the raise dead ready (one dead, one carrying the body).

Since you already have the fighter or babarian doing the mightuous right job, you should rather concentrate on such a calamity in most circumstances. You cannot come back at full strength, since on the way to coming back you have to retreat with two characters down (again the one dead and the one carrying him).



Please tell me what these are.

Drawbacks of the cleric class
- dependency on magic (i.e. your class abilities are highly vulnerable to saves, dispel magic, spell resistance and AMF. Feats, for instance, and skills are up 24/7 and cannot be thwarted by these methods).
- dependency on outside source (your deity, run by the DM)
- if you take the philosophy route, you are still bound to the set of beliefs and your alignment as agreed with your DM at the outset of the campaign (it is his campaign, after all!)
- dependency to relearn spells at exactly the same hour every day, also subject to being fully rested
- dependency on being able to speak, have one hand free and/or have material component at hand to work magic.


You mean he does as much damage as the Cleric does in Round 2? Because that's what actually happens.

Round 1. Fighter (highest stat DEX) shoots 4 arrows, doing around 4d8+32 damage.
Round 1. Cleric (highest stat WIS) casts divine power (provided he is NOT attacked, or otherwise disturbed)
Round 2. Fighter shoots another 4 arrows, again doing around 4d8+32, felling most opponents of CR 9.
Round 2. Cleric either casts more buffs or charges into melee, being able to only one attack once. The cleric is hit in return by the monster. Or does not hit anything at all, because the fighter (plus the other two with 1-2 rounds of actions!) have already cleared the path.
Great, eh? Dear cleric, better learn something useful that cannot be emulated by the fighter like tongues (with good diplomacy making some encounters unnecessary), air walk, death ward, neutralise posion etc-

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-05, 05:49 PM
Now you've got my attention. I'm one of the biggest proponents of rogues around here, so I know that a rogue can rob a caster (or anyone else) blind. But how does he do it as a free action?

Rogue, 17th level, human.
Sleight-of-Hand Bonus: +39
20 ranks, DEX +9 (assuming DEX 28, it certainly can be higher; 18 base, 4 stat gains, +6 item), bluff synergy +2, deft hands +2, skill focus +3, luck stone +1, potion of good hope (or better, wand of good hope) +2

You can lift a small item off someone with DC 20 (it does not matter if the opponent sees it/notices it, you lift it regardless). This takes a standard action. At a -20 penalty, you can do the attempt as a free action.
Voila, caster is naked of all items (except the staff, or stuff in his hands, you only get that with disarm).
This includes clothes, but not robes or armour, since everything on a normal sized-person is considered "small".

So what happens with boots of speed on the rogue is this; rogue moves close to wizard at 60ft (after winning initiative), robs him of all items (including that nuisance buckler of fortification), touches him with simple wand of paralysis (UMD is easily at +19 for a 17th level rogue). No save. No wards. No more sneak protection. Profit.

- Giacomo

Animefunkmaster
2007-12-05, 06:08 PM
It was always my assumption that barring Divine Metamagic Druids are superior. So they have less spells, they also have an animal companion at low levels with more HD than he does. Not to mention wildshape just turns the druid into the party roles that he doesn't already fill (mainly stealth and warrior) for little cost and summoning things.

Level 1 they are the melee monsters.

Dwarf Druid with a quarter staff + TWF, casting Shillelagh is a destroyer of families.

By level 10 they are made of win, Control Wind + Karma Beeds + Orange Ion Stone= Tornadoes... meaning lasting no save/screwed + save or damage in an on going effect that doesn't require concentration.

Edit: Your assuming the Wizard doesn't have contingency. And find a quote where you can slight of hand a robe, I only see you can Lift a "small object from a person" with a DC 20 check... also "Sleight of Hand attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10." So first item you "lift" as a free action is 20 with a -20 to your check then it becomes 30 at your -20 then 40 at your -20, I see this getting difficult.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-05, 06:10 PM
Unfortunately if you start trying to match the casters using magic items, and especially if you have to rely on Cross classed UMD to do it then they pull ahead even further... The money you've spent (and skillpoints) trying this can be spent by them on other power ups, that they're better at using than you. And CoDzilla doesn't need the huge magic bonuses on weapons and armour thanks to spells, so they get even more toys...

If fighters and pallys want to try turning themselves into fake casters to beat the casters they're onto a losing streak, UMD is a useful and occasionally powerful trick for rogues that costs money, so they can't pull it out of the hat every encounter. And Monks suck at it as much as the rest of the combatant classes do except they don't have a useful class to fall back on after they've blown their WBL:smallfrown:

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 06:31 PM
OK, fair enough. But why then the fuss for the spellusers? The characters still have to be able to retreat, and while they retreat to safety, those who are still stronger can help those who are weaker to survive. A spellcaster can lose both spells and hps, so the party will more often retreat because of them. While they do so, they will still have to face one or more encounters when the non-casters shine.

Or since it's unlikely that everyone runs out at the same time you can have the second Cleric or the Wizard help in your retreat, which is of course ignoring that at later levels consists of saying, "I ready an action to cast Dimension Door/Teleport when all my party members are touching me." And then waiting less then a round.


Well, if someone during a hazardrous part of the adventure dies, then this spell comes in very handy and should then be prepared instead of the rightuous might (the spell I referred to in this example, not divine might). You may carry the body, but that actually leaves you with two characters less than if you had the raise dead ready (one dead, one carrying the body).

If you die and Raise Dead every day then you actually are all level 1 characters with 2 Con. Dieing is Rare. Incredibly Rare compared to encounters. You should have 14 minimum, usually many more, encounters for every death or else you are going backwards in level. You waste Spell slots every day, no wonder you think Casters are balanced if they memorize spells under the assumption that they will never cast them. You can't come back at full Strength anyway even if you do prepare Raise Dead. Because you now have a 1 level lower character with 1 HP (That couldn't even survive when he was higher level) and fewer spell slots. And of course you have two fewer characters, but it doesn't matter because you leave because you are done for the day. (And leaving is instantaneous at the end of the fight or take 1-2 rounds in a fight.)


you should rather concentrate on such a calamity in most circumstances. You cannot come back at full strength, since on the way to coming back you have to retreat with two characters down (again the one dead and the one carrying him).

You should never concentrate of such a calamity because if it occurs you should leave. It won't even happen 1 in four days, which means you are wasting your resources every day. Why don't you just drop you magic weapons off a cliff? And yes, you are retreating down two characters. Which is perfectly fine because it doesn't matter how many characters you are down when you are retreating because you don't get in fights because you are done for the day.


Drawbacks of the cleric class
- dependency on magic (i.e. your class abilities are highly vulnerable to saves, dispel magic, spell resistance and AMF. Feats, for instance, and skills are up 24/7 and cannot be thwarted by these methods).

You mean vulnerable to saves, dispel magic, or spell resistance, and to a spell that makes you better then anyone else who can cast if and makes the fighter pretty damn useless too, and that you can just leave and/or never enter and just kill from afar?


dependency on outside source (your deity, run by the DM)

Oh you mean the Cleric can be in trouble if the DM is out to get him? That doesn't apply to everyone, oh wait it does.


if you take the philosophy route, you are still bound to the set of beliefs and your alignment as agreed with your DM at the outset of the campaign (it is his campaign, after all!)

Really the DM can do something to mess with your character? All Sarcasm aside, these are stupid objections because your character would never try to do anything against their alignment/philosophy/god just like the Fighter wouldn't do anything against his personality. This isn't actually a limit. It's one more reason to play Clerics of Fighters, because you can have more fun Rping.


dependency to relearn spells at exactly the same hour every day, also subject to being fully rested

A) Clerics don't need to rest. Ever. The can prepare all their spells even if they stay watch all night.
B) If they can't prepare spells do you know what happens? They deal with whatever is distracting them and then ass per the rules, get to prepare spells when things calm down.


dependency on being able to speak, have one hand free and/or have material component at hand to work magic.

Still/Silent Spell Lack of Verbal or Somatic Components on some Spells. Also, let me know how well you fighter fights without a hand free to hold his sword/without his sword. (Other types of weapon semantics will result in a Smite from Pelor.)


Round 1. Fighter (highest stat DEX) shoots 4 arrows, doing around 4d8+32 damage.
Round 1. Cleric (highest stat WIS) casts divine power (provided he is NOT attacked, or otherwise disturbed)
Round 2. Fighter shoots another 4 arrows, again doing around 4d8+32, felling most opponents of CR 9.
Round 2. Cleric either casts more buffs or charges into melee, being able to only one attack once. The cleric is hit in return by the monster. Or does not hit anything at all, because the fighter (plus the other two with 1-2 rounds of actions!) have already cleared the path.

Oh you mean:

Round 1: The prebuffed Cleric (because most fights have warning) charges in with the fighter/shoots his (better) arrows with the fighter?

Or did you mean:

Round 1: The Cleric casts both spells in one round and then goes into combat the next round.

Or did you mean:

Round 1: The permanently buffed Cleric charges/shoots.

And why on Earth are you comparing a Ranged Fighter with a melee Cleric? The appropriate comparison (Since we are talking about replaceing Fighters with Clerics) is to compare a melee fighter with a melee Cleric and a ranged fighter with a Cleric Archer.

But my favorite part is:

felling most opponents of CR 9.

If one Fighter at level 9 ( can easily take care of 6-7 CR 9 encounters a day (ignoring that I could optimize any class other then Monk/Soulknife to do that without even trying, which is why you play at an appropriate level of difficulty) Then why do we have other members of the party at all? Perhaps because all you payed attention to was HP and you ignored the fact that most CR 9 creatures are CR 9 for some other reason. (Like SLAs and Spells and Special Attacks and Qualities.)

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 06:36 PM
So what happens with boots of speed on the rogue is this; rogue moves close to wizard at 60ft (after winning initiative), robs him of all items (including that nuisance buckler of fortification), touches him with simple wand of paralysis (UMD is easily at +19 for a 17th level rogue). No save. No wards. No more sneak protection. Profit.

Except that as soon as he notices you with his Blindsense he casts Celerity and kills you. Or he just waits for you to take everything he has, then when you touch him with your wand he kills you, because of course he is immune to Paralysis.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-05, 07:15 PM
First @Animefunkmaster on the sleight of hand trick:
- contingency is incredibly difficult to word and prepare for every...well, contingency. Most casters will use it to ward against damage, or attack, but not theft.
- I explicitly mentioned that robes and armour is out to steal (because they are not small, but medium sized). Still, this reduces most casters quite considerably.
- the -10 cumulative penalty only applies after an initial failure. At +39 a rogue never fails in his sleight of hand check, even at -20 for free actions. Plus, the rogue could also have by then chosen sleight of hand to be a "take 10" action.

Then, druids are indeed mighty. Though not as mighty as you think. The animal companion is puny since it is...an animal! On of the cheapest items in the game, a potion of hide from animals (50gp), completely shuts it down.


Or since it's unlikely that everyone runs out at the same time you can have the second Cleric or the Wizard help in your retreat, which is of course ignoring that at later levels consists of saying, "I ready an action to cast Dimension Door/Teleport when all my party members are touching me." And then waiting less then a round.

Yep, the wizard can help, that's true. But neither dimdoor nor teleport will transport a whole party. If the wizard leaves with the dead body and the cleric, the rest of the party is severely weakened. A four-member party, though, can be saved with a teleport, that is true. But then it is still a question whether the cleric should have played zilla or rather be able to help the fallen comrade instantly and saving the 5th level slot for the wizard.
Highly situation-specific.


If you die and Raise Dead every day then you actually are all level 1 characters with 2 Con. Dieing is Rare. Incredibly Rare compared to encounters. You should have 14 minimum, usually many more, encounters for every death or else you are going backwards in level. You waste Spell slots every day, no wonder you think Casters are balanced if they memorize spells under the assumption that they will never cast them.

Pls word more appropriately. "Never" cast them means you expect no character is ever going to die. Ever. Great suspense, eh?
A raise dead prepared when the cleric believes the challenge is quite tough is like an insurance. If for whatever reason a party member dies, the cleric can immediately save him and still preserve that character's strength to some degree. This can be way more important than play a subpar fighter for some rounds.


You should never concentrate of such a calamity because if it occurs you should leave. It won't even happen 1 in four days, which means you are wasting your resources every day. Why don't you just drop you magic weapons off a cliff? And yes, you are retreating down two characters. Which is perfectly fine because it doesn't matter how many characters you are down when you are retreating because you don't get in fights because you are done for the day.

You do not get into fights when you retreat? In wonderland, maybe, but not in an adventure.


You mean vulnerable to saves, dispel magic, or spell resistance, and to a spell that makes you better then anyone else who can cast if and makes the fighter pretty damn useless too, and that you can just leave and/or never enter and just kill from afar?

Er..what spell exactly makes you better than anyone else? I do not know of such spell. Neither a spell that also does all the other things you mention. Even a wish can only emulate one spell at a time.


Oh you mean the Cleric can be in trouble if the DM is out to get him? That doesn't apply to everyone, oh wait it does.

Oh wait it is called a CHALLENGE. SUSPENSE. It applies to everyone in the group.


Really the DM can do something to mess with your character? All Sarcasm aside, these are stupid objections because your character would never try to do anything against their alignment/philosophy/god just like the Fighter wouldn't do anything against his personality. This isn't actually a limit. It's one more reason to play Clerics of Fighters, because you can have more fun Rping.

A fighter can change his personality and beliefs on a whim - it does not matter. A cleric cannot (hence there is a section "ex-clerics" and no section "ex-fighters" in the rules). So it is a limit. Houserule it if you like, but by RAW there is a limit, even if it is not worded exactly (guess why: because it is impossible to provide rules for religious misbehaviour! Apparantly the designers counted on good old common sense of the players.).



A) Clerics don't need to rest. Ever. The can prepare all their spells even if they stay watch all night.

Ah, you are right- sorry about that.
However, this is what the SRD says (bold emphasis mine):
"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."


B) If they can't prepare spells do you know what happens? They deal with whatever is distracting them and then ass per the rules, get to prepare spells when things calm down.

Refer to the bold part above. They need to stop to pray AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY or wait until the next day.
Well, for opponents, the tactics is easy: attack during that particular hour, then retreat and attack again. Cleric is blocked from relearning spells. This is called balance- after all, why should they get away with less restrictions than the arcane casters?


Still/Silent Spell Lack of Verbal or Somatic Components on some Spells. Also, let me know how well you fighter fights without a hand free to hold his sword/without his sword. (Other types of weapon semantics will result in a Smite from Pelor.)

How well a fighter fights without a a hand free? Easy. Improved unarmed strike feat. Throw in a monk's belt and you are fine.
And a fitghter will continue to fight in a silenced area, or when deafened, or when otherwise unable to speak.



Oh you mean:

Round 1: The prebuffed Cleric (because most fights have warning) charges in with the fighter/shoots his (better) arrows with the fighter?

"Most fights have warning"`Maybe in wonderland again, not in adventures. And maybe also only in wonderland will an opponent not retreat with (short-term)-buffed pcs.


Or did you mean:

Round 1: The Cleric casts both spells in one round and then goes into combat the next round.

Yes, the cleric will likely do that from levels 15 and up (when he can cast quickened versions of the spells) or a bit lower if he has access to expensive rod of quicken. At those levels, the fighter will not only have 4 arrows per round, I can tell you.


Or did you mean:

Round 1: The permanently buffed Cleric charges/shoots.

Nope, he can't do that - too few feats at lvl 9. Either one or the other.


And why on Earth are you comparing a Ranged Fighter with a melee Cleric? The appropriate comparison (Since we are talking about replaceing Fighters with Clerics) is to compare a melee fighter with a melee Cleric and a ranged fighter with a Cleric Archer.

Yes, that would the comparison. However, a 9th level cleric archer with divine power cast only gains +3 to hit, not really a great way to get on par with the fighter archer specialist. Likely, the cleric also has no magic bow for his enhanced STR, because it is too rare that he would be able to use it. So I simply assumed the typical Clericzilla divine power use in favour of the cleric (and still leaving the cleric at a disadvantage).


But my favorite part is:
If one Fighter at level 9 ( can easily take care of 6-7 CR 9 encounters a day (ignoring that I could optimize any class other then Monk/Soulknife to do that without even trying, which is why you play at an appropriate level of difficulty) Then why do we have other members of the party at all? Perhaps because all you payed attention to was HP and you ignored the fact that most CR 9 creatures are CR 9 for some other reason. (Like SLAs and Spells and Special Attacks and Qualities.)

Yep, you and me we could optimise a character to be able to overcome quite awesome opponents in two rounds. Doesn't this tell you something about the value of actions in combat? That buffing in combat has drawbacks and that in a 4-man group of rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric, the clericzilla will be 2 rounds late at 9th level to do anything meaningful? But that he will be applauded for having learned tongues to avoid the previous two encounters vs aberrations with strange langauges with his maxed diplomacy skill?

Again, do not try to play a fighter's role with a cleric. It's a fool's way. If you want to fight, play a fighter. If you want to be a religious caster, play a cleric.
Of course you can also play a war cleric who for religious reasons would use the zilla buffs. But as a player you should realise that the cleric would still be inferior to the fighter in that way.
Only greenknight with his nigh-absurd cleric archer build showed me that a fighter could be bested at archery in core by a cleric. And still able to cast. But it took some severe specialisation to do so. And the cleric was still subject to disadvantages (magic dependency, religion) that the fighter did not have.

Must sleep now...

- Giacomo

greenknight
2007-12-05, 07:34 PM
If you have 70 continuous, safe, minutes every day, you're not on an adventure, you're on a vacation.

Rope Trick's already been mentioned, that gives you more than 70 minutes right there. The fact that you can (usually) find a reasonably safe place to rest has also been pointed out, and that should give you 70 safe minutes too. And then there's game mechanics. Characters are expected to face a maximum of 4 challenging encounters per day. And if they face that many encounters per day on average, they'll go from level 1 to level 20 in just 10 weeks. Since that doesn't usually happen, I assume that on average characters face far fewer encounters per day than that.

And let's not forget that many encounters occur because the characters are actively seeking them out. I'd go so far as to say that in most campaigns, most encounters come from that. Which only leaves 1, maybe 2 encounters per day through wandering monsters, and if the DM is being anything like realistic, those are more likely to occur in the more dangerous areas, not the area where the party managed to rest for the night and found to be safe. If you have a campaign where the PCs are 13th level or higher, can't rely on finding safe resting places and they aren't making their own safe areas (through Rope Trick, teleportation or something similar), then they deserve whatever happens to them.


If you're waiting until 13th level to start removing conditions, there isn't a party anymore.

This is a straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). I never said the Cleric doesn't remove conditions prior to 13th level. In fact, I've stated the exact opposite.


Within the context of the thread, my point is valid. A cleric built to be a better fighter than the fighter isn't going to get an actions worth of damage from offensive spells.

And I've proven that statement is incorrect. Holy Word (and similar spells) can do far more than an action's worth of damage if the Cleric sets it up right.


Taking a sub-par domain, and spending a chunk of gold on items to make you a better caster is going to take you away from being a better fighter than the fighter.

Again, there are self-buffs which do make the Cleric better - Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might. And the Cleric can save a chunk of gold through Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, making ordinary weapons and armor roughly as good as high priced magical weapons and armor.


And, without the caster level and the ability to penetrate spell resistance consistently from items, feats and domain selection, your offensive spells are a gamble with the other party members lives.

How does spell resistance apply to Divine Favor, Divine Power or Righteous Might? And if you've boosted your caster level by 5 or more, you've already got a very good chance of penetrating the spell resistance of nearly all CR appropriate monsters.


Again, it has to do with the context of the argument in the thread, which is better melee fighter than fighter and effective offensive caster. At the points where melee matters at all, the good domain is a significant detractor from building a good melee character.

Why? A Cleric can still cast Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment regardless of what Domains the character has. How does having the Good Domain significantly detract from that?


I didn't say it was better to heal and remove conditions all the time.

But didn't you say:

If you're using standard wealth gain, there isn't that much wealth gained over the top of your wealth by level to be using these items instead of clerical healing all the time

??

So which is it? Does the Cleric need to reserve spell slots for healing and removing status conditions, or can the Cleric use items for that and spell slots for other things?


The reason the cleric needs to be a strong melee fighter is to take down enemies as doing damage is more effective in general, than taking it and healing it. But, there are times when you do have to heal someone or remove a condition in combat.

That's great and all, but isn't that agreeing with what I and others have already written? The Cleric's going to need fewer spell slots overall by being good at dealing damage to the foes.


Adding those times to to the time you need to buff or adding those resources to the resources you need to persist your buffs leaves you as less than a full caster and nowhere near as effective as a caster that focused on casting.

Which is the difference between Divine spellcasters and Arcane spellcasters. The Divine spellcaster is usually pretty good at surviving melee combat, while the Arcane caster concentrates on other stuff. They're still full casters, but their focus (and spell list) is different.


For the bulk of the time that melee is effective, your in-combat heals and condition removals are costing you the same slots you use for buffs.

Which is why most of the time you don't use in-combat heals, and also why you normally rely on relatively inexpensive items to provide healing.


If you haven't focused on your offensive casting, you aren't disabling your enemies reliably, so you're passing up the guaranteed healing or condition removal of your ally for the chance you might take the enemy down on your turn. It's gambling with the other player's character.

First off, who's to say the Cleric using self buffs isn't disabling enemies reliably? Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might are a very powerful set of self-buffs, and it's been shown they work quite well in combat. Holy Word is also an incredibly powerful spell which works very well regardless of what Feats the Cleric has chosen (although some Feats like Divine Spell Power from Complete Divine can power it up even more). And even if, despite all that, an ally is at the point of death, I've already mentioned that scenario as an exception where the Cleric should take time out to heal. So exactly why is this gambling with the other player's character?


Actually, posters have considered Clericzilla to start from the acquisition of Divine Favor at level one (which you can stack with first Magic Weapon and then Bull's Strength). And those are first and second level slots you need for healing at those levels. Cast each of those once per encounter at four encounters per day at low levels...

Ok, let's look at those "low levels" and see what the Cleric's best tactic is. For this, I'm ignoring Divine Metamagic cheese, which combined with Persist Spell can change the analysis considerably:

1st - 2nd: Generally best to help out in combat, then using spell slots to heal others once the fight's over. If a character is close to death, spell slots should be used for immediate healing. No spells should be used for self buffs, so no real C'Zilla at these levels.

3rd - 4th: The +1 bonus you're getting from Divine Favor isn't worth the round it takes to cast it. Bull's Strength is available, and it's a useful buff which lasts a reasonable amount of time. But it's not a self-buff, so you can use it on anyone you want to, and at this level, it's better to give it to someone with a full BAB. And even by 4th level, you probably won't be able to cast this once per encounter. C'Zilla is possible, but unless you're willing to spend 2 rounds and 2 spell slots per encounter (from the 9 1st & 2nd level spell slots you probably have), it's not going to be very effective, and you'll be taking some hits which are going to be relatively costly to heal at your level, so C'Zilla is a bad tactic at this time.

5th - 6th level: Divine Favor is giving a +2 bonus (at 6th level), but you can't quicken it yet so if you want to use it you'll need to spend a round to cast it and even then you'll probably be less effective in melee than the Fighter. You've gained a couple of buffing spells in Core, but none that are self-only, and generally your best tactic is to use them to buff someone else. C'Zilla is still not really viable.

7th - 8th level: You finally have Divine Power, but it's very unlikely you'll have enough spell slots to cast it once per encounter, and even if you do, you're probably not going to be quite as good as a Fighter without some other buffs. You can cast Divine Favor to make you more effective, but that's probably going to take a second round of buffing, which is still more than you'd want to spend. It's possible to match the Fighter at these levels, but it's hard to do, resource intensive (taking 2 spell slots and 2 rounds) and you probably couldn't manage it on every encounter.

9th - 10th level: You can finally pull off the dreaded quickened Divine Favor / Divine Power combo in a single round, so now you are C'Zilla. But there's a lot of other good 5th level Cleric spells even in Core, and you won't be able to do this every encounter anyway. So while C'Zilla is viable, it's probably only something you'd do once per day at most, at the moment. Also, I hope you've been paying attention, because we're now well past what most people consider to be "low levels".

11th level +: If you really want it, you can now afford a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Quicken Spell (barely, at 11th level), and that makes the C'Zilla tactic much more viable since you aren't burning those 5th level slots. Your enemies are also a bit tougher, and against the toughest of them you could probably spend a second round casting Righteous Might (although you shouldn't be doing this for every encounter). This is where C'Zilla really starts to become viable, but it's well past what most people consider to be "low levels".

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 08:24 PM
But then it is still a question whether the cleric should have played zilla or rather be able to help the fallen comrade instantly and saving the 5th level slot for the wizard.

That 5th level teleport is always useful and should always be prepared. That 5th level Raise Dead is never worthwhile and should never be prepared until after someone is dead.



"Never" cast them means you expect no character is ever going to die. Ever. Great suspense, eh? A raise dead prepared when the cleric believes the challenge is quite tough is like an insurance. If for whatever reason a party member dies, the cleric can immediately save him and still preserve that character's strength to some degree. This can be way more important than play a subpar fighter for some rounds.

You should Never Prepare Raise Dead when everyone is alive, and so therefore you are wasting that slot every time, that is not quite what I said though.

A Cleric preparing Raise Dead before going into a Tough encounter is wasting a slot and increasing the likelyhood of someone dieing. And he can't "immediately save him" because he in fact is Dead, and after getting to him he has to cast Raise Dead, and then the lower level character has 1HP and is still useless. And the casting time for Raise Dead is one minute. And so now your character is dead. And so is everyone else, because you thought you could Raise Dead in a fight. And if you have already finished the fight, then it is time to leave because that's the only smart choice, prepared Raise Dead or not.


You do not get into fights when you retreat? In wonderland, maybe, but not in an adventure.

No, In D&D. Because you can teleport, because you can finish the fight and then leave, because any situation you can cast Raise Dead in is a situation you could just walk away from carrying a body.


Er..what spell exactly makes you better than anyone else? I do not know of such spell. Neither a spell that also does all the other things you mention. Even a wish can only emulate one spell at a time.

There was a single letter typo. Cast it. Anyone who can cast AMF is weaker or equal to the cleric inside it. And once again, you can just stay outside of it and shoot them.


Oh wait it is called a CHALLENGE. SUSPENSE. It applies to everyone in the group.

Right, it's a challenge. That applies to everyone in the group. Which means it isn't a disadvantage to the Cleric. Which means you were wrong.


A fighter can change his personality and beliefs on a whim - it does not matter. A cleric cannot (hence there is a section "ex-clerics" and no section "ex-fighters" in the rules).So it is a limit. Houserule it if you like, but by RAW there is a limit, even if it is not worded exactly (guess why: because it is impossible to provide rules for religious misbehaviour!

Except that people only do things like that under extreme circumstances, and so it isn't a big deal. And if something so incredible happened that a Cleric changed into a different purpose then he should probably start worshiping a different God. And this is a "limit" which might conceivably come up once every 9 or 10 campaigns and hurts the Cleric for somewhere between a day and a few months.


Apparantly the designers counted on good old common sense of the players.).

Well I don't blame them, I didn't see you coming either.


However, this is what the SRD says (bold emphasis mine):
"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."

However as the SRD says right before the bolded part he can just pray later.




Refer to the bold part above. They need to stop to pray AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY or wait until the next day.
Well, for opponents, the tactics is easy: attack during that particular hour, then retreat and attack again. Cleric is blocked from relearning spells. This is called balance- after all, why should they get away with less restrictions than the arcane casters?

So first they have intimate knowledge of the Clerics personal routine. Then they have to know exactly where a high level party of Spellcasters are, and then they have to sneak up on them, and then they have to be strong and dangerous enough to warrant the Cleric ceasing his prayers, and then they have to run away from a party that is stronger then them, made up of Spellcasters, and then they have not lose a single person, or let any of them suffer a status effect that would prevent their escape because they have to do the same thing again in an hour.

Yeah, that's gonna happen. Ever.


How well a fighter fights without a a hand free? Easy. Improved unarmed strike feat. Throw in a monk's belt and you are fine.
And a fitghter will continue to fight in a silenced area, or when deafened, or when otherwise unable to speak.

You misunderstand. If a Fighter can punch someone then the Cleric can cast a spell. If he's paralyzed he can't but then the Fighter is useless too (And the Cleric is less likely to get paralyzed). If the Cleric had his material components taken then the Fighter had his belt taken.


"Most fights have warning"`Maybe in wonderland again, not in adventures. And maybe also only in wonderland will an opponent not retreat with (short-term)-buffed pcs.

Maybe in D&D where the PCs determine when to fight 90% of the time.


Nope, he can't do that - too few feats at lvl 9. Either one or the other.

Contrary to popular belief Charging requires zero feats.


Yes, that would the comparison. However, a 9th level cleric archer with divine power cast only gains +3 to hit, not really a great way to get on par with the fighter archer specialist. Likely, the cleric also has no magic bow for his enhanced STR, because it is too rare that he would be able to use it. So I simply assumed the typical Clericzilla divine power use in favour of the cleric (and still leaving the cleric at a disadvantage).

However a 9th level Cleric Archer would cast 9th level Cleric Archer spells instead of melee ones. See how well your Bow specked fighter does at level 9 without a bow. Oh wait, that would never happen, just like a Cleric would never cast the wrong spell if he was specked for a certain kind of combat.


Yep, you and me we could optimise a character to be able to overcome quite awesome opponents in two rounds. Doesn't this tell you something about the value of actions in combat?

It tells me that I don't use those builds when facing CR 9 encounters because then if I beat my party in Initiative they never get to do anything.


That buffing in combat has drawbacks and that in a 4-man group of rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric, the clericzilla will be 2 rounds late at 9th level to do anything meaningful? But that he will be applauded for having learned tongues to avoid the previous two encounters vs aberrations with strange langauges with his maxed diplomacy skill?

First of all, the Cleric won't be two rounds late because they will cast before hand because they have that option.

Second, If I was going to use diplomacy cheese it wouldn't be with a Cleric.


But as a player you should realise that the cleric would still be inferior to the fighter in that way.

Unless you build them well, in which case you wouldn't be.


Only greenknight with his nigh-absurd cleric archer build showed me that a fighter could be bested at archery in core by a cleric. And still able to cast. But it took some severe specialisation to do so. And the cleric was still subject to disadvantages (magic dependency, religion) that the fighter did not have.

Well I already showed that Religion and Magic aren't disadvantages. But how exactly did it take "severe specialization" to be able to do exactly what your fighter does and then do something else that you could never do? He's doing two things to your one. He's not specialized, you are.

Fawsto
2007-12-05, 08:27 PM
I think, instead of giving the Paladin Domains, we should give him those divine feats as bonus feats. C'mon, they just rock to shine the paladin as a divine powered bastion of defense and offesnse.

You know why I ain't going to give him domains? Well... Most of those powers are good for clerics... not for paladins:

Lets see: They go for Turning outsiders from other species, like elementals... Ok... But the Pally sucks when turning... Not effective. Chaos, Death and Evil domains, evidently not a Pally's stuff... Sorry. Besides that, casting spells with + 1 caster level... Best for Clerics... Good, Healing, Law and Knowledge... Damn some few useless stuff there... At least for the Pally. Luck? Once in a day, dude. Magic Domain? Pehaps... We are starting something here... Protection, paladinish? Pehaps... Usefull, not even by chance... Strenght? Seems good but it is once in a day for one round... Sucky... Sun means Greater turning... Paladins are not main "turners" forget it... Travel...hmmm freedon of movement once per day... I am not buying it... Trickery? Seems good, but pallys don't have skillpoints to spend there. War? Weapon Focus!?!? C'mon!!! These, off course are the core domains... I can pinpoint many more.

See? Domains won't help the paladin. Divine feats for free would. Also, Charging Smite Please!!! Much better in many more situations than a Mount and won't require the entire feat selection the paladin can get. I am not complaining for the spells, I like'em. d12 as hit dice? Hmmm... I would like to see this while I am still breathing... A few more skillpoints, maybe... Turning him into a outsider at lvl 20 would look great as a "I am the Epitome Paragon of Good", exactly as he would enter a estate of Nirvana or Epiphany, being so close with the holy forces to be tainted by them.

Ok, for the other classes:

Fighter: I like what you did. IMO. It looks nice. But I think Fighter should be turned into a weapon master. Free weapon focus tree is a good start, keep goind. But let it apply to ALL fighter weapons after some point. Let him, after a while (after lvl 10, for example) use all exotic weapons as martial ones. After lvl 12, all weapons a fighter holds should be granted a + 1 magic improvement that accumulates with the weapon's natural spell bonuses. When he arrives at level 14, make it a + 2, a + 3 by lvl 18 and + 4 at lvl 20 (let him choose spell bonusesup to + 2, like keen and energy burst). I like the "I am the best with armors" thing.Seriously, I like it. Also, make the fighter the only class to have, as a class feature, a extra attack at half of his hightest BAB when making a full attack. Also d12 as Hit Dice. Also, if possible, more skill points and decent skills. Also, uncunny dodge seems necessary, as you placed it.

Monk: Let's start with this: d10 hit dice. The monk is now able to stand a chance against those damn 1 hit KOers. His fists count as magical weapons after a while, right? Ok, give him what I gave the fighter, magical bonuses for his fists. Also, please, let him walk at least half of his movement before using a flurry. This would be fun. He has enough skills. Let him be. Remove tongues of sun and moon, give him something usefull instead! Let the poor bastard use at least light armor... Damn...

Barbarian: They are good! Best noncheesed core meleers! Give'em a few fighter bonus feats. Theyr skills are nice, no need to change here. If we are now giving the Fighter, Paladin and Monk better hit die, let's give the Barbarian a sweet + 1 HP per level. Neat! More life for the powerhouse! I can't think of anything more specific...

Ranger: They are quite nice... I don't think they need to change... Do they get 2weapon defense tree with the 2wf one? If no, give them such. Also, improve their movement speed. I dunno... Pehaps like the barbarian... Pehaps too cheesy... Definetly, give him a 2 or 3 better spells. Give 'em some free feats to improve their bow fighting... Just that, they'd be allright after that.

Sorcerer: PH2 variant, of course!! This the only thing needed here. Those heritage feats are up for the flavour.

Now... Ok, we improved the meleers, right? Ok... Also, I think that the stances given to Martial Adepts are up to the modifications I made, so we wont change anything on them, let they stay with their Hit Die, skillpoints and class features.

The casters... Wow... Improved Meleers even at first levels... Hmmm... Poor casters will be outshined from lvl 1 to 10... But they will still destroy everything else after lvl 12, again... So lets improve the way they receive magic. Not by giving them more spells per day, but rather by letting them refresh the lower levels spell slots by spending a few minutes on it. It won't hurt to let a Wizard refresh his lvl 3 spell slots by reading his book again for 1 hour, will it? Now, as a coup de grace, eliminate those overpowered senseless broken spells. And let it be.



Ok... these ideas will seem crappy for mostly everybody... I thought of them right now, so they should be lame with a 80% chance, but they are a begining. I am at least trying to take an atitude. I respect casters. I love magic, indeed! But, seriously, who kills the dragon and defeats the BBEG in the fairy tales, at least in most of the times? The Meleers: Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians. They do not deserve to be outshined, not even by other meleers like the Martial Adepts. Nothing against them. I also enjoyed the idea of more supernatural warriors. I buy it. I ahve the book and I am planing a Crusader. But I do not agree to let them simply overcome and outshine some classes. C'mon, what is happening here?! We are leting a "noncore" class to come and overcome the core ones. It is not right... Sorry.

Dode
2007-12-05, 08:36 PM
Then, druids are indeed mighty. Though not as mighty as you think. The animal companion is puny since it is...an animal! On of the cheapest items in the game, a potion of hide from animals (50gp), completely shuts it down. Unless of course the druid simply directs the animal (Talk to Animals, another 1st person Druid spell) to attack your square, where it has a mere 50% chance of missing you. So to be accurate, it half-shuts it down. Of course, that's including the caveat that you forfeit your ability to fight back against the animal tearing into you. So from the animal companion's perspective, Hide From Animals completely shuts you down.


Yep, the wizard can help, that's true. But neither dimdoor nor teleport will transport a whole party. Given a standard party of 4 members, yes it will.

But then it is still a question whether the cleric should have played zilla or rather be able to help the fallen comrade instantly and saving the 5th level slot for the wizard.
Highly situation-specific. Healing is, out of gameplay necessity, less effective then offensive might. If it weren't, a cleric would be even better then it is now, as a party of 4 clerics could just walk through encounters without making an attack but simply healing off all the damage they took. In pragmatic terms, the zilla approach is better then simply keeping less effective, non-self-sustaining characters in play.


Pls word more appropriately. "Never" cast them means you expect no character is ever going to die. Ever. Great suspense, eh?
A raise dead prepared when the cleric believes the challenge is quite tough is like an insurance. If for whatever reason a party member dies, the cleric can immediately save him and still preserve that character's strength to some degree. This can be way more important than play a subpar fighter for some rounds. He can carry a scroll of it, since scribing it only increases the total price (5000gp diamonds) by 11% and frees up your spells. Preparing Raise Dead every day is simply poor strategy.

You do not get into fights when you retreat? In wonderland, maybe, but not in an adventure. Well, in my experience, our party's foes tend to build their lairs in easily defensible bottlenecks to ensure that they cannot be flanked or routed. The situation where we fight our way into the fortified, desecrated undead lair with the only exit the way we came in comes into play a lot. While it makes sieging incredibly difficult, it makes retreat relatively easy.

A fighter can change his personality and beliefs on a whim - it does not matter. A cleric cannot (hence there is a section "ex-clerics" and no section "ex-fighters" in the rules). So it is a limit. Houserule it if you like, but by RAW there is a limit, even if it is not worded exactly (guess why: because it is impossible to provide rules for religious misbehaviour! Apparantly the designers counted on good old common sense of the players.). Non-worded limits imposed by the DM are applicable to every character.


However, this is what the SRD says (bold emphasis mine):
"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."

Refer to the bold part above. They need to stop to pray AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY or wait until the next day.
Well, for opponents, the tactics is easy: attack during that particular hour, then retreat and attack again. Cleric is blocked from relearning spells. This is called balance- after all, why should they get away with less restrictions than the arcane casters? Not really. The tactic of "preventing the cleric from praying at the proper time" simply imposes the cleric to restart praying once the enemy has left and the cleric "the first opportunity to stop and pray for spells", as an unavoidable interruption hardly counts as an opportunity for the cleric to gain his spells back. Maybe in wonderland.

So for your counter-cleric "balance" tactic, enemies have to attack every 59 minutes for it to work. Which is absurd to present as proof of balance, since fatigue and exhaustion penalties would shut any character down under such circumstances. Such circumstances of course being countered by a 2nd level spell: Rope Trick.

How well a fighter fights without a a hand free? Easy. Improved unarmed strike feat. Throw in a monk's belt and you are fine.So the answer to the question is "Terribly, because he has to resort to fighting like a Monk"

"Most fights have warning"`Maybe in wonderland again, not in adventures. And maybe also only in wonderland will an opponent not retreat with (short-term)-buffed pcs. Only in wonderland would a party give an opponent the chance to retreat. And only in wonderland would they not be able to be able to see (and therefore prepare) for an imminent attack or ambush. That's of course ignoring that adventurers nearly always pick the time they go into the dungeon or the dragon's cave, and buff themselves accordingly.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-05, 08:47 PM
It's not a normal state of affairs for anyone I know. It's an illogical assumption you're making for the sake of argument. You stand watch every night and you investigate suspicious sounds as a matter of course, because you only need one slip-up to cost you your life, and you don't know what night you'll be attacked or what sound will turn out to be important.
Well first of all, what you said was:

If you have 70 continuous, safe, minutes every day, you're not on an adventure, you're on a vacation. If you're waiting until 13th level to start removing conditions, there isn't a party anymore.
Secondly...yes, you stand watch, or do something better. There's a level 1 spell called alarm, a familiar, and the purely mundane option of taking a position from which you don't need to go out and beat the bushes for security. Along with Rope Trick and MMM, either of which has a good likelihood of making you completely safe. And of course teleport...yes, you need two per night, but you can sleep hundreds of miles from the nearest enemy.

I've posted previously in this thread that scrolls, staffs and wands shouldn't be your staple casting resources. It isn't possible to use them as such if you have standard wealth gain. It is possible to have enough on hand to get you through a period of time when you can't rest or in the case of clerics when something comes up before the time of day you meditate for 15 minutes to regain your spells. Unless, you're using expendables to enable you to use all of your other abilities or the expendables themselves to overshadow your fellow party members, in which case you're stuck.
So it's better to spend a fortune on inefficient items for a day when you screw up camp security, rather than put in the effort not to have the problem in the first place?

Scrolls and wands of offensive magic, in particular, get insanely expensive and inadequate. At least, that's my impression. A staff might at least have an acceptable save DC, but it's going to be expensive. One of the major strengths of expendable items is holding spells that you don't expect to need on any given day, but which are urgently needed when you do need them. Unless you're expecting to particularly need them, this is where most condition-removal spells end up.

Incidentally, rather than prepare a bucket of petty spells every day in case your Hero's Feast is interrupted...why not just carry one scroll of Hero's Feast? If you get interrupted twice in one day, you're doing something wrong. And may still be better off for the day having all those useful spells rather than Remove Fear.


Not being able to always get time to rest isn't the same as not being able to rest every day. One is an occasional situational disadvantage, the other is something you're making up.

The rules account for situations where the cleric doesn't get to rest immediately, thus the inclusion of the bit about regaining spells at the first opportunity. Similarly, the game accounts for encounters at night or when the characters are otherwise not fully prepared, thus the feat that allows for sleeping in some armor and the magic item that allows you to sleep in any armor...
The rules account for it, yes. That doesn't mean it's something that you actually have to let happen to you.

Divine casters and martial classes can get by without rest in a pinch, possibly. But arcane casters can't. Unless you want to go for a day without your enormously powerful and critical arcane support, you'll protect that sleep period.
If your players never feel the need to continue on in the face of adversity or accept risks to complete a mission, they shouldn't be adventurers. they should get nice safe jobs in a well-protected town.
They accept risks every time they go into combat. That's why they ought to be professional and proficient enough not to botch their resting period and then charge ahead with grossly inadequate magical support as a result. D&D adventurers can't and don't do anything on guts alone. They get through their days by systematically overwhelming all opposition until their available resources run down far enough that they need to rest.

Also...teleport isn't quitting. It's just going out of bounds for the night. You can pop right back in the morning.

Yahzi
2007-12-05, 09:22 PM
If you have 70 continuous, safe, minutes every day, you're not on an adventure, you're on a vacation.
Your characters don't sleep?

The reason Figthers are no good is because there is nothing that a fighter and a clerics can achieve that two clerics couldn't achieve more easily.

clericwithnogod
2007-12-06, 12:24 AM
Rope Trick's already been mentioned, that gives you more than 70 minutes right there. The fact that you can (usually) find a reasonably safe place to rest has also been pointed out, and that should give you 70 safe minutes too. And then there's game mechanics. Characters are expected to face a maximum of 4 challenging encounters per day. And if they face that many encounters per day on average, they'll go from level 1 to level 20 in just 10 weeks. Since that doesn't usually happen, I assume that on average characters face far fewer encounters per day than that.


Downtime. You aren't in the field adventuring all the time.



And let's not forget that many encounters occur because the characters are actively seeking them out. I'd go so far as to say that in most campaigns, most encounters come from that. Which only leaves 1, maybe 2 encounters per day through wandering monsters, and if the DM is being anything like realistic, those are more likely to occur in the more dangerous areas, not the area where the party managed to rest for the night and found to be safe. If you have a campaign where the PCs are 13th level or higher, can't rely on finding safe resting places and they aren't making their own safe areas (through Rope Trick, teleportation or something similar), then they deserve whatever happens to them.


I've played in quite a lot of games since 3.0 was released in both 3.0 and 3.5, and in pretty much all of them, there were planned encounters on the way to whatever encounters we were seeking out.

Making safe areas isn't always a given for groups. I've played in games without an arcane caster, and some with casters that didn't have rope trick or teleport as spells. And if the mission is time critical, being able to make the space for resist doesn't also allow you to take all the time you'd like to rest.




This is a straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). I never said the Cleric doesn't remove conditions prior to 13th level. In fact, I've stated the exact opposite.


Yeah, sorry about that. What I get for trying to write and babysit at the same time. But, you did tout the benefits of this spell because there were no self buffs at this level. I latched on to the seventh level in your post that you used for an extended casting, so it would actually be waiting until 11th level to buff if the condition is no spells that are self buffs being available, as every other level has a self buff along the way (considering Bull's Strength as a self buff, since the context is trying to be a better fighter than the fighter here). At 6th level, you'd be choosing this over Heal though... And at seventh level, this is competing with the Holy Word spell that you're fond of, as well as Destruction for a slot if you want to try offensive casting.



And I've proven that statement is incorrect. Holy Word (and similar spells) can do far more than an action's worth of damage if the Cleric sets it up right.

You haven't proven anything. You stated that. If the cleric sets it up right, he is building away from being a better fighter than the fighter.

Holy Word is a 7th level spel. To quote myself, from earlier in this thread,

"The cleric is better off fighting in melee than via spells from the start. He'll be better off casting spells eventually, but it's not a this day or that day thing. It's a level breakpoint. He can be poor in melee for his beginning levels to bring the breakpoint where his spellcasting is better to an earlier level. But once it is, he doesn't just make the fighter's melee ability comparatively useless, he makes all melee combat useless, including his own, regardless of how optimized he is for melee. And the real problem if you want balance is that eventually even a crappy spellcaster is better in combat than an optimized melee character."

If you consider Holy Word ti be your breakpoint spell where even though he isn't a focused caster, his offensive casting is superior to his melee abilities and thus more deserving of an action than either engaging in melee or healing. His melee combat abilities aren't a balance issue at level 13 and up, because melee is irrelevant.



Again, there are self-buffs which do make the Cleric better - Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might. And the Cleric can save a chunk of gold through Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, making ordinary weapons and armor roughly as good as high priced magical weapons and armor.

Again, the buffs alone won't cut it. You need to tailor your feats and domains as well. And what's left after you do so doesn't compare to a dedicated casting cleric, let alone a wizard.




How does spell resistance apply to Divine Favor, Divine Power or Righteous Might? And if you've boosted your caster level by 5 or more, you've already got a very good chance of penetrating the spell resistance of nearly all CR appropriate monsters.


Spell resistance applies to Holy Word.



Why? A Cleric can still cast Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment regardless of what Domains the character has. How does having the Good Domain significantly detract from that?

The spells alone don't make you a better fighter than the fighter. You domains and feats to pull that off.



But didn't you say:

If you're using standard wealth gain, there isn't that much wealth gained over the top of your wealth by level to be using these items instead of clerical healing all the time

??

So which is it? Does the Cleric need to reserve spell slots for healing and removing status conditions, or can the Cleric use items for that and spell slots for other things?


There is no inconsistency in my position on this. I've said that after using your spell slots to buff and other spell slots to heal and remove conditions, you no longer have the ability to be an offensive spellcaster (which would be a wizard, which has a full complement of spells that he can use consistently to devastating effect pretty much completely as he sees fit). Your spells aren't as effective as those improved by feats, you have fewer slots left, your domains aren't those that provide the best offensive spells or best abilities for offensive casting, or anything else you would do to optimize a cleric for casting.



That's great and all, but isn't that agreeing with what I and others have already written? The Cleric's going to need fewer spell slots overall by being good at dealing damage to the foes.


I'm trying to discuss what's wrong with the classes, not just argue. If we agree on a common fact, I don't see why that's a problem for you.



Which is the difference between Divine spellcasters and Arcane spellcasters. The Divine spellcaster is usually pretty good at surviving melee combat, while the Arcane caster concentrates on other stuff. They're still full casters, but their focus (and spell list) is different.

A divine spellcaster is good in melee combat because of the spells he uses to make himself good at it. After using the spells, domains, feats and everything else he needs to do to hone that ability to the point that he is a better melee fighter than the fighter, he doesn't cast as well as the wizard. If the wizard is the "full" caster, casting less effectively makes you less than a "full" caster.






First off, who's to say the Cleric using self buffs isn't disabling enemies reliably? Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might are a very powerful set of self-buffs, and it's been shown they work quite well in combat. Holy Word is also an incredibly powerful spell which works very well regardless of what Feats the Cleric has chosen (although some Feats like Divine Spell Power from Complete Divine can power it up even more). And even if, despite all that, an ally is at the point of death, I've already mentioned that scenario as an exception where the Cleric should take time out to heal. So exactly why is this gambling with the other player's character?


Using your self buffs and melee abilities wasn't what I was referring to in regard to disabling enemies reliably. It was the offensive casting of a cleric that isn't a focused caster that isn't reliable. It's gambling when a cleric who built for melee and focused on melee tries to rely on his "good chance" to penetrate spell resistance to end a combat before a death rather than using his sure thing Heal to avoid a death.




11th level +: If you really want it, you can now afford a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Quicken Spell (barely, at 11th level), and that makes the C'Zilla tactic much more viable since you aren't burning those 5th level slots. Your enemies are also a bit tougher, and against the toughest of them you could probably spend a second round casting Righteous Might (although you shouldn't be doing this for every encounter). This is where C'Zilla really starts to become viable, but it's well past what most people consider to be "low levels".

The C'zilla (CoDzilla isn't actually tied to just melee combat, but I'll stick with that term), by your reasoning, is viable at a point at which melee combat by a dedicated character is becoming irrelevant compared to the offensive casting of a dedicated spellcaster (or if we accept that a cleric that doesn't focus on casting is an effective caster at level 13 using Holy Word, even a non-dedicated caster). So for 10 levels the cleric is kind of crappy, then at 11th level, he is unbalanced if he sometimes spends 2 rounds against the toughest enemy doing nothing but buffing himself? Calculating efficency across the entire length of most combats, whether the cleric comes out ahead in outfighting the fighter, especially since at 11th level, he's got a Heal to throw around (and if he took 2 rounds to buff against a tough enemy he probably needs it) and he's not outfighting the fighter. He's going to need to have spent feats and domain abilities to make up the difference in his melee abilities to get this to add up.

Armads
2007-12-06, 02:31 AM
Then, druids are indeed mighty. Though not as mighty as you think. The animal companion is puny since it is...an animal! On of the cheapest items in the game, a potion of hide from animals (50gp), completely shuts it down.

The druid can direct the animal to attack the enemy if the druid can see the location. It's like feeling your way through the darkness. Even if you can't detect it, you can still hit it.

Yrnes
2007-12-06, 03:36 AM
Maybe in D&D where the PCs determine when to fight 90% of the time.

Where is that number coming from? A clever DM could spring surprises more times than not on the players. Surprise and what terms the battles are fought on could go either way.

I agree with most of your points, Kaelik, but that's not really an argument, it's subjective to the DM and the players, all the way to situation they're in.

Kaelik
2007-12-06, 03:46 AM
Where is that number coming from? A clever DM could spring surprises more times than not on the players. Surprise and what terms the battles are fought on could go either way.

I agree with most of your points, Kaelik, but that's not really an argument, it's subjective to the DM and the players, all the way to situation they're in.

If you say, roll on random encounter tables, then a party with can easily escape almost every encounter.

Yes a DM can set up situations in which someone tracks your teleport, or after you finish an encounter there is an invisible rogue just hiding around tracking you. But the DM can also just make it so you teleport into the middle of a Beholder Hive. DM deciding to do something out of the ordinary to mess with you isn't something that you can declare happens like Giacomo does.

Freelance Henchman
2007-12-06, 04:41 AM
If the wizard is the "full" caster, casting less effectively makes you less than a "full" caster.

I think clerics (and druids) are called full casters because they get *full nine levels of spellcasting*, unlike bards and rangers for example who only get [whatever levels it was, but less than 9]. That the cleric may choose to cast a lot of spells on himself does not mean he suddenly isn't a full caster anymore.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-06, 06:24 AM
Characters are expected to face a maximum of 4 challenging encounters per day. And if they face that many encounters per day on average, they'll go from level 1 to level 20 in just 10 weeks. Since that doesn't usually happen, I assume that on average characters face far fewer encounters per day than that.

The holes in that argument are big enough for a dragon to fly through. This so called maximum is the average number of CR appropriate encounters on a given day of adventuring. Which doesn't take into account the number of encounters that are a few CRs below the party level, and doesn't take into account the amount of time spent not adventuring.

greenknight
2007-12-06, 08:58 AM
The holes in that argument are big enough for a dragon to fly through. This so called maximum is the average number of CR appropriate encounters on a given day of adventuring.

P49 ("What's Challenging") of the DMG explains that each challenging encounter should consume about 20% of the party's resources. Therefore, 4 such encounters should use approximately 80% of the party's resources, and a fifth would use approximately 100% of the party resources (this is otherwise known as a TPK). Perhaps I should have said 4 challenging encounters per day is the maximum the party should face and still have a reasonable chance of survival, but I thought most people would understand that dead parties generally don't continue having adventures.


Which doesn't take into account the number of encounters that are a few CRs below the party level, and doesn't take into account the amount of time spent not adventuring.

Of course not, since I specified challenging encounters. And you forgot to add very difficult and overpowering encounters, which I also didn't take into account. Generally speaking, the less difficult encounters balance out with the more difficult ones, so in the end they average out to (roughly) challenging.


Downtime. You aren't in the field adventuring all the time.

Of course not. But as I explained above, that still doesn't mean you have more than 4 challenging encounters per day.


there were planned encounters on the way to whatever encounters we were seeking out

I didn't say otherwise. However, most of the time, your PCs would be moving into those planned encounters, rather than have those encounters come up on your PCs. And if you've got a decent scout, most times your party will be aware of what's ahead. That's what the scout is for, right?


Making safe areas isn't always a given for groups. I've played in games without an arcane caster, and some with casters that didn't have rope trick or teleport as spells. And if the mission is time critical, being able to make the space for resist doesn't also allow you to take all the time you'd like to rest.

If the party doesn't have rope trick or similar spells available and it's a higher level game, then the party is making things much more difficult on themselves. As you've pointed out, without things like that resting can be difficult, and without properly rested and prepared spellcasters a higher level party is toast. And spellcasters can also be very useful in time critical situations, since they can help overcome obstacles which would otherwise take hours or maybe even days to get past otherwise.


considering Bull's Strength as a self buff, since the context is trying to be a better fighter than the fighter here

Nope, that doesn't wash. I've already explained why Bull's Strength is a bad choice for the Cleric, provided there's someone else in the party with a full BAB. On the other hand, if there isn't someone with a full BAB in the party, the Cleric might need that edge, but even then it's probably better to give it to the Druid, the Druid's Animal Companion or maybe even the Rogue.


At 6th level, you'd be choosing this over Heal though... And at seventh level, this is competing with the Holy Word spell that you're fond of, as well as Destruction for a slot if you want to try offensive casting.

As a 6th level spell, it lasts 12 hours, which isn't a bad deal considering that's probably all the time you're going to be actively moving about for. I'd still prefer an extended version because you could run into trouble outside that time window. But in preventing poison and fear, it might just save you that Heal spell.

You could use a 7th level slot to Extend it, but as you mentioned there are a few good offensive spells on that spell level so you might not want to. But there are other options. You could just put up with 12 hours of protection, and maybe go into a Rope Trick for the rest of the time. And at these levels, a Rod of Metamagic (Extend Spell) is also quite affordable.


You haven't proven anything. You stated that. If the cleric sets it up right, he is building away from being a better fighter than the fighter.

Holy Word has a 40' radius and doesn't allow a save (except in the case of extraplaner non-good creatures, who get a save to avoid being banished to their home plane). All that is needed is the ability to hear and the Cleric's caster level being sufficiently higher than the foe's hit dice. To achieve that, all the Cleric usually needs is an orange Ioun Stone and a Bead of Karma (the Good Domain and the Divine Spell Power Feat are also useful, but not essential).

While the items do require a significant share of the Cleric's WBL at 13th level, the caster level increase can be useful for a lot of different things, including casting Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon with better bonuses and longer durations. Which in turn makes the character both a better caster and a better fighter. How much more proof do you need?


If you consider Holy Word ti be your breakpoint spell where even though he isn't a focused caster, his offensive casting is superior to his melee abilities and thus more deserving of an action than either engaging in melee or healing. His melee combat abilities aren't a balance issue at level 13 and up, because melee is irrelevant.

Except that even a caster level boosted Holy Word has it's limitations, at which point the Cleric can use physical combat as a backup plan. My case has always been that past a certain level, the Cleric is capable of being just as good as the Fighter in physical combat and do other stuff besides. So when that "other stuff" is more tactically useful than combat, the Cleric can do that, otherwise the Cleric can just rely on physical attacks. Once that class level is reached, the Cleric is never significantly worse than a Fighter, and often better because of all the other stuff the character can do.


Again, the buffs alone won't cut it. You need to tailor your feats and domains as well. And what's left after you do so doesn't compare to a dedicated casting cleric, let alone a wizard.

If you're playing Core Only, you don't need to take many Feats to improve your spellcasting, as my Core Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2244519&postcount=389) build shows. Or if you prefer, you can refer to my non-Core Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2826740&postcount=76), which uses more spellcasting feats but is even more powerful in melee.


Spell resistance applies to Holy Word.

Yes, and if you look at my post, you'll find that Holy Word wasn't one of the spells I asked if spell resistance applied to. On the other hand, I did mention that a boosted Caster Level does help in overcoming Spell Resistance...


I've said that after using your spell slots to buff and other spell slots to heal and remove conditions, you no longer have the ability to be an offensive spellcaster (which would be a wizard, which has a full complement of spells that he can use consistently to devastating effect pretty much completely as he sees fit).

So what about the Wizard as a utility spellcaster? Isn't that Wizard better off using some of that full complement of spells to do things like divination, party buffs (haste etc), debuffs, self protection and general utility spells? How is that any different to the Cleric using some spells for buffs, healing and status removal? Especially since Clerics generally get more spell slots per spell level than Wizards.


A divine spellcaster is good in melee combat because of the spells he uses to make himself good at it. After using the spells, domains, feats and everything else he needs to do to hone that ability to the point that he is a better melee fighter than the fighter, he doesn't cast as well as the wizard.

If the Cleric has purchased the Orange Ioun Stone and the Bead(s) of Karma I mentioned, in many ways the Cleric's casting is better than the Wizard, although with a very different spell selection and range of available PrC's (which can make a huge difference non-Core).


Using your self buffs and melee abilities wasn't what I was referring to in regard to disabling enemies reliably. It was the offensive casting of a cleric that isn't a focused caster that isn't reliable.

The self buffs are part of a Cleric's abilities - you can't just ignore them because you want to. And if the Cleric determines that something else would give a better result (such as a Holy Word), then the Cleric can do that instead. Wizards approach problems in a different way to Divine casters, and usually won't bother with physical combat unless they cast Shapechange.


So for 10 levels the cleric is kind of crappy, then at 11th level, he is unbalanced if he sometimes spends 2 rounds against the toughest enemy doing nothing but buffing himself?

Hold on there, that's another Straw Man. I've never said the Cleric is kind of crappy for 10 levels, just that the Cleric isn't really viable as C'Zilla for those levels. The Cleric is still a good secondary physical combatant (but not as good as a Fighter) and has some good spells and other very useful abilities. That's not "kind of crappy". But once the Cleric can reliably go C'Zilla on practically all the day's encounters, the class does become overpowered.


He's going to need to have spent feats and domain abilities to make up the difference in his melee abilities to get this to add up.

The character will need to dedicate some Feats to pull it off, but not Domain abilities so much. Both the Clerics I created gained relatively little from the granted Domain powers when it came to physical combat.

Yrnes
2007-12-06, 01:12 PM
If you say, roll on random encounter tables, then a party with can easily escape almost every encounter.

Yes a DM can set up situations in which someone tracks your teleport, or after you finish an encounter there is an invisible rogue just hiding around tracking you. But the DM can also just make it so you teleport into the middle of a Beholder Hive. DM deciding to do something out of the ordinary to mess with you isn't something that you can declare happens like Giacomo does.

I'm not arguing for DMs screwing with a party or not, I'm just saying it's not always possiblefor a party to fight pre-buffed.

What if the encounter happens immediately after a trap where the cleric is dispelled, and worse yet, busy fixing ability damage or healing massive hit point loss to his party?

I think it's silly to assume that the PCs would (or even be able to) run from every fight if they're not buffed entirely. And even they did, who's to say intelligent NPCs would let them fight it on their own terms? If the PCs can port away, the NPCs could too.

Kaelik
2007-12-06, 01:26 PM
I'm not arguing for DMs screwing with a party or not, I'm just saying it's not always possiblefor a party to fight pre-buffed.

What if the encounter happens immediately after a trap where the cleric is dispelled, and worse yet, busy fixing ability damage or healing massive hit point loss to his party?

I think it's silly to assume that the PCs would (or even be able to) run from every fight if they're not buffed entirely. And even they did, who's to say intelligent NPCs would let them fight it on their own terms? If the PCs can port away, the NPCs could too.

I'm sorry, the part you quoted had only to do with running away, nothing to do with pre-buffing.

Yes I agree that you can't fight every fight pre-buffed (Though if you go the DMM Persist route you can for 90% of them). I was saying that if you need to run away because in a Party of Cleric/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue (or Beguiler) one person ran out of spells that 90% of the time you can either leave in the middle of the fight, or finish the fight and leave.

I'm not saying that every fight starts pre-buffed, some do, some don't, depends on a lot of things (one of the most important of which is how much effort you are willing to put into starting pre-buffed). The part you quoted though was me explaining that if a Party needs to stop fighting that day (Say because someone is dead, or because someone is out of spells) then before they even finish that combat encounter, or right after they do, they can manage to get to safety and rest to regain spells against the vast majority of opponents.

Yrnes
2007-12-06, 01:29 PM
Ok, I understand where you're coming from now. I think I just misunderstood the original statement.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-06, 06:30 PM
Hi everyone,

just a quick one since I only have a few minutes before going to sleep:

- I think I was wrong about the raise dead being a good 5th level spell choice. Actually Greenknight further up made a nice summary of why CoDzilla may be a good tactics from lvl 11 or so, but not below that.
- similarly, the teleport tactics should guarantee retreat quite often. I overlooked that aspect in mid-high-level play. Of course, there is a teleport error probability which can be non-negligible if the party wishes to stay next to the dungeon.

On the other stuff I'm still not convinced.
- In my view cleric do not do everything better than fighters; their drawbacks and vulnerability to anti-magic tactics alone make the balanced iconic four-class party (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric) better than a party with two clerics
- the scenario caster supporters use (going often buffed into a dungeon) does not appear to me as representative of average game play that tries to achieve a certain suspense (and the many posters dissenting support my impression on this). So casters SHOULD get attacked when they are weak from time to time and the SHOULD NOT gain back automatically their spells (just like all pcs do not gain back their hps).

Ah, and apart from that let me try to correct the druid supporter notion that hide from animals is like an "invisibility" to animals.

SRD (bold emphasis mine): "Animals cannot see, hear, or smell the warded creatures. Even extraordinary or supernatural sensory capabilities, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense, cannot detect or locate warded creatures. Animals simply act as though the warded creatures are not there. If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients."

So the druid can do all he wants, including talk to the poor critter, but all he will learn is that the animal will convey to him that it is convinced no one is there (as in not invisibile, but noone there!).
By pushing the animal, as a move action, directing it to strike may help, but this needs to be done every round. And of course the druid will first have to realise something is odd (one round of the animal companion will be certainly wasted).
If you combine with a normal invisibility effect at higher levels, then the scent, blindsense what have you ability of the ac is no longer an asset and the druid who cannot see the opponent will not be able to direct it.

- Giacomo

PirateMonk
2007-12-06, 09:26 PM
vulnerability to anti-magic tactics

Part of the problem with casters is that the DM has a very difficult time challenging casters without turning them into commoners with better saves. Anti-magic fields may "give the noncasters a chance to shine" after the casters have been shining up until then, but this does not make good balance, because most people like to have fun most of the time, not less than half the time.


SRD (bold emphasis mine): "Animals cannot see, hear, or smell the warded creatures. Even extraordinary or supernatural sensory capabilities, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense, cannot detect or locate warded creatures. Animals simply act as though the warded creatures are not there. If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients."

So the druid can do all he wants, including talk to the poor critter, but all he will learn is that the animal will convey to him that it is convinced no one is there (as in not invisibile, but noone there!).

What makes you think an animal wouldn't attack empty space if ordered to by its master?

Armads
2007-12-07, 01:58 AM
So the druid can do all he wants, including talk to the poor critter, but all he will learn is that the animal will convey to him that it is convinced no one is there (as in not invisible, but noone there!).

That only happens if the animal's obstinate and refuses to do pointless things. Considering that humans do pointless things (like fighters being a meatwall when Wall of Force exists), and animals have a lower intelligence score than humans, why won't they do 'pointless' things like attack something their master knows is there but they can't see it?



By pushing the animal, as a move action, directing it to strike may help, but this needs to be done every round. And of course the druid will first have to realise something is odd (one round of the animal companion will be certainly wasted).

Read what you quoted. If the animal touches the warded creature, the effect ends.



If you combine with a normal invisibility effect at higher levels, then the scent, blindsense what have you ability of the ac is no longer an asset and the druid who cannot see the opponent will not be able to direct it.

True Seeing, anyone? Besides, if you're using spells to do whatever you want to do, why not play a caster, instead of a UMD-user?



- In my view cleric do not do everything better than fighters; their drawbacks and vulnerability to anti-magic tactics alone make the balanced iconic four-class party (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric) better than a party with two clerics

Not really. When in an AMF against a flying creature, the whole party's screwed. Unless you go non-core, when AMFs don't affect clerics because they have Initiate of Mystra, AMFs don't affect wizards because they have Invoke Magic, and AMFs STILL affect fighters and rogues who have natural flight because their weapons don't work, and they can't use their UMD tricks (rogues can UMD a scroll of invoke magic, but then they can't cast a spell after that because they used their standard action and they can't use any +action items because it's an AMF).

On a separate counter to your point, if the way to balance casters is to use AMF tactics against them (and thus turning them into commoners), then doesn't it prove that they're broken (because they swing between brokenness and utter uselessness)?

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-07, 05:58 PM
It is pretty clear that Sir Giacomo is either trolling or does not understand how D&D works, probably because he doesn't play a whole lot of it, especially not with people who play the way many people do. Arguing with him in either circumstance is pointless.

However, in case it IS the latter, I will point out one thing:


Ah, you are right- sorry about that.
However, this is what the SRD says (bold emphasis mine):
"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."


[quote="Kaelik"]B) If they can't prepare spells do you know what happens? They deal with whatever is distracting them and then ass per the rules, get to prepare spells when things calm down.

Refer to the bold part above. They need to stop to pray AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY or wait until the next day.
Well, for opponents, the tactics is easy: attack during that particular hour, then retreat and attack again. Cleric is blocked from relearning spells. This is called balance- after all, why should they get away with less restrictions than the arcane casters?

You failed to read the rules you quoted here. The bold part is important, but what is pertinant is what comes immediately before it: "If some event prevents a character from playing at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible." This clause explicitly PREVENTS this trick that you think works, indeed for precisely the stated reasons. It basically acts as a way to prevent clerics from being screwed in their prayers while simultaneously allowing the DM to stage an encounter at the designated time without screwing the Cleric over for the day. Basically, the rules state the exact opposite of what you think they state. Please try and read and understand the rules before you post like this, as it looks a lot like trolling rather than actual discourse.

The "balance" is actually that the rules are designed such that clerics and wizards have no real special disadvantages compared to the other classes; their abilities are pretty much ensured to be usable every day regardless of what happens. From the SRD:


Rest: To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.


Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells.

As for Clericzilla:


7th - 8th level: You finally have Divine Power, but it's very unlikely you'll have enough spell slots to cast it once per encounter, and even if you do, you're probably not going to be quite as good as a Fighter without some other buffs. You can cast Divine Favor to make you more effective, but that's probably going to take a second round of buffing, which is still more than you'd want to spend. It's possible to match the Fighter at these levels, but it's hard to do, resource intensive (taking 2 spell slots and 2 rounds) and you probably couldn't manage it on every encounter.

At 8th level it is quite reasonable to be Clericzilla, assuming you have the normal 2 4th level slots, +1 for high Wisdom, and +1 for your domain - that's four castings of the spell, and even with only three, that's pretty much "good enough" for most encounters. At this point you aren't -always- better than the fighter though; in encounters where you don't have rounds to pre-buff and in long series of encounters, you can't be Clericzilla every battle.

And while this is past "low levels", this is "mid levels", really, and is I think the point around which fighters start sucking. Up to this point being better than the fighter requires a fair bit of work that really isn't worth it.


The spells alone don't make you a better fighter than the fighter. You domains and feats to pull that off.

Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might = you're way better than a fighter is. You have +14 strength (which gives you probably +4 strength over them), +4 Constitution (probably brings you even to above them), +4 to hit on top of fighter BAB (whereas a fighter only has +2, weapon focus/improved weapon focus), +4 damage (the same as they do), DR, and a bonus to your natural AC which is sufficient to put you probably 2 points above theirs (and this is assuming you haven't used any other buffs on yourself). You also have reach.


A divine spellcaster is good in melee combat because of the spells he uses to make himself good at it. After using the spells, domains, feats and everything else he needs to do to hone that ability to the point that he is a better melee fighter than the fighter, he doesn't cast as well as the wizard. If the wizard is the "full" caster, casting less effectively makes you less than a "full" caster.

You're wrong. Sorry. This is totally irrelevant. What spells you spend on that, they're spending on other spells; it isn't unreasonable to expect to expend a spell a round in combat, and whether you do it in pre-combat buffs like the cleric or during combat spells like the wizard is irrelevant. Not to mention, neither class has to do so.


I think it's silly to assume that the PCs would (or even be able to) run from every fight if they're not buffed entirely. And even they did, who's to say intelligent NPCs would let them fight it on their own terms? If the PCs can port away, the NPCs could too.

Its not at all unreasonable to run from a fight you're disadvantaged in. Moreover, there is nothing unreasonable about NPCs teleporting out, but relatively few NPCs have the ability to do so.

Fundamentally, the problem with the core classes are as follows:

1) Many classes have few out of combat abilities, which means they need to shine in combat; however, as combat is fairly universal, everyone needs the ability to shine in combat. As such, these classes inherently get less screen time.

2) On top of this problem, many classes do not have the opportunity to shine in combat at all levels, and worse still, these are the classes that tend to be the worst outside of combat as well. Fighters are the primary example of this, but many/most of the nonspellcasting classes have this difficulty.

3) Magic can duplicate every class ability outside of combat. Between shapeshifting, flying, and some divination spells it is entirely possible for the wizard and the cleric or druid to overcome every out of combat obstacle with the use of a spell or two or a shapechange usage by the druid. This means that at higher levels, those skills and abilities the other classes have outside of combat are largely useless; invisibility and fly beat hide, jump, and climb, and there are many other such examples.

4) When two characters between them can solve every situation, the game has a major flaw, namely that the party never consists of anyone but those two characters, yet the game is intended for four (or more!) players. This means that the game and its premise do not work together, and that the party only needs two characters, not four, and if there are more than that many characters they can and probably will have little "screen time".

The solution is as follows:

1) Every class should have a variety of out of combat abilities which make them useful in a variety of situations, and as such, none of them need to shine any more in combat than anyone else.

2) Every class should be able to contribute in combat in their own way; these roles should overlap minimally. Someone who is a healer should not also be able to deal lots of damage, for instance.

3) Magic should not be nearly as versatile. Either the spell list on the whole needs to be majorly cut down, removing fly, invisibility, and similar spells that are much better than class abilities, or spellcasters need to be much more specialized, such that the same guy cannot cast fireball who can cast invisibility. Spells which enable replacement of classes should simply be removed or be only available to mages who lack the ability to duplicate others, so that no character takes up too many roles.

4) If all of the above occur, then you'll want a variety of characters for your parties, and two people won't be able to handle everything and anything and thus get all the attention.

greenknight
2007-12-07, 07:09 PM
At 8th level it is quite reasonable to be Clericzilla, assuming you have the normal 2 4th level slots, +1 for high Wisdom, and +1 for your domain - that's four castings of the spell, and even with only three, that's pretty much "good enough" for most encounters. At this point you aren't -always- better than the fighter though; in encounters where you don't have rounds to pre-buff and in long series of encounters, you can't be Clericzilla every battle.

The basic premise here is for the Cleric to be able to match or outperform the Fighter in combat using only Core Rules (Non-Core you can DMM: Persist Divine Power). But even if you can cast Divine Power every encounter, you still won't quite match the Fighter with this spell alone because the Fighter probably has Weapon Specialization, higher base Strength and a magical item which boosts that Strength by at least 4. The Fighter could also easily have a Constitution score higher than yours, since the Fighter can use the neck slot for an Amulet of Health, while the Cleric's used it for a Periapt of Wisdom. If the Cleric can spend 2 rounds on buffing, then the character might be able to match the Fighter, but it's not likely otherwise.


And while this is past "low levels", this is "mid levels", really, and is I think the point around which fighters start sucking. Up to this point being better than the fighter requires a fair bit of work that really isn't worth it.

They do, but that's because the Druid has stolen the Fighter's thunder. Barring DMM: Persist cheese, the Cleric needs just a few more levels before he or she starts making the Fighter cry.


Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might = you're way better than a fighter is. You have +14 strength (which gives you probably +4 strength over them), +4 Constitution (probably brings you even to above them), +4 to hit on top of fighter BAB (whereas a fighter only has +2, weapon focus/improved weapon focus), +4 damage (the same as they do), DR, and a bonus to your natural AC which is sufficient to put you probably 2 points above theirs (and this is assuming you haven't used any other buffs on yourself). You also have reach.

They fixed some of that in official errata (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm). Righteous Might now only gives +6 Strength and +2 Constitution. And Divine Favor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divineFavor.htm) is limited to a +3 bonus. The combo is still very good, but not quite as good as you wrote.


2) Every class should be able to contribute in combat in their own way; these roles should overlap minimally. Someone who is a healer should not also be able to deal lots of damage, for instance.

While I agree with the basic principle, when classes have a very similar focus (eg Barbarian and Fighter, or Sorcerer and Wizard) you're going to have to accept that there's going to be more than minimal overlap.


3) Magic should not be nearly as versatile. Either the spell list on the whole needs to be majorly cut down, removing fly, invisibility, and similar spells that are much better than class abilities, or spellcasters need to be much more specialized, such that the same guy cannot cast fireball who can cast invisibility. Spells which enable replacement of classes should simply be removed or be only available to mages who lack the ability to duplicate others, so that no character takes up too many roles.

I think the versatility is mostly ok, but spellcasters shouldn't be able to outshine skill monkeys (so things like Knock should just increase the Open Lock skill of the caster, not automatically open the lock). And by the time they can cast stuff like (Greater) Invisibility and Fly there should be plenty of useful counter tactics available - even for non-spellcasters.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-07, 09:10 PM
While I agree with the basic principle, when classes have a very similar focus (eg Barbarian and Fighter, or Sorcerer and Wizard) you're going to have to accept that there's going to be more than minimal overlap.

Or I could say that one of them shouldn't be exist or they should be merged. However, I don't think it is "really" a problem to have similar classes, so long as the "size" of what they can do is the same.


I think the versatility is mostly ok, but spellcasters shouldn't be able to outshine skill monkeys (so things like Knock should just increase the Open Lock skill of the caster, not automatically open the lock). And by the time they can cast stuff like (Greater) Invisibility and Fly there should be plenty of useful counter tactics available - even for non-spellcasters.

The versatility is not okay. Invisibility is too much better than hide. Someone who can cast invisibility can hide better than someone who can hide. That's bad. Same with the others, such as fly and similar. Mages should not have spells to let them superscede other classes' major abilities.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-08, 05:52 AM
It is pretty clear that Sir Giacomo is either trolling or does not understand how D&D works, probably because he doesn't play a whole lot of it, especially not with people who play the way many people do. Arguing with him in either circumstance is pointless.

Pointless arguing? And yet you continue with a lot of argument. And useless, imo, as I will point out easily.


u failed to read the rules you quoted here. The bold part is important, but what is pertinant is what comes immediately before it: "If some event prevents a character from playing at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible." This clause explicitly PREVENTS this trick that you think works, indeed for precisely the stated reasons.

Do you actually realise what "as soon as possible means"? Cleric gets disturbed, flees, then he immediately has to resume praying. This is his last chance. After that, it's over for the day. More easily thwarted than you apparently would like to see.
Well, you have to realise - of course fighters would also love to have double hit points. But unfortunately, the rules do not back this up.



It basically acts as a way to prevent clerics from being screwed in their prayers while simultaneously allowing the DM to stage an encounter at the designated time without screwing the Cleric over for the day. Basically, the rules state the exact opposite of what you think they state. Please try and read and understand the rules before you post like this, as it looks a lot like trolling rather than actual discourse.

Well, so far your post seems like true trolling to me.
"...acts as a way to prevent clerics from being screwed..." what kind of rules impression do you have? That some classes are sacrosanct vs drawbacks or what? Incredible.
Read the rules again. Cleric has to prepare spells during the same hour for one hour. The same hour every day. Easily found out by opponents. In case the hour is not followed, he has to try again the next opportunity or has to wait for a day. It is as easy a drawback to understand as the fighter drawback not to be able to cast spells. What is so difficult to accept about this?


The "balance" is actually that the rules are designed such that clerics and wizards have no real special disadvantages compared to the other classes; their abilities are pretty much ensured to be usable every day regardless of what happens. From the SRD:

Yeah, they have no real disadvantages. And the non-caster classes all have spell resistance. Pls try to realise that the designers put in "ex-xxxx" class sections for a reason.
Plus, you list yourself the (severe) SRD restrictions of both arcane and divine casters in regaining their spells. What do am I to learn from this?


As for Clericzilla:
At 8th level it is quite reasonable to be Clericzilla, assuming you have the normal 2 4th level slots, +1 for high Wisdom, and +1 for your domain - that's four castings of the spell, and even with only three, that's pretty much "good enough" for most encounters. At this point you aren't -always- better than the fighter though; in encounters where you don't have rounds to pre-buff and in long series of encounters, you can't be Clericzilla every battle.

And while this is past "low levels", this is "mid levels", really, and is I think the point around which fighters start sucking. Up to this point being better than the fighter requires a fair bit of work that really isn't worth it.

Well, greenknight's post already showed where you are wrong. And I would even go further that you severely underestimate the fighting potential of a fighter in core.


Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might = you're way better than a fighter is. You have +14 strength (which gives you probably +4 strength over them), +4 Constitution (probably brings you even to above them), +4 to hit on top of fighter BAB (whereas a fighter only has +2, weapon focus/improved weapon focus), +4 damage (the same as they do), DR, and a bonus to your natural AC which is sufficient to put you probably 2 points above theirs (and this is assuming you haven't used any other buffs on yourself). You also have reach.

Well, the fighter meanwhile (if pursuing this route) has enlarge (via UMD or friendly spellcaster). He could even have the kings of 4th level buffs, divine power or polymorph available that way. The best thing a fighter actually can do is to focus first on ranged combat and then on melee, of course. And this is, at these levels, where the fighter clearly exceeds the cleric.
Cleric 9th level: martial weapon proficiency - composite longbow, point blank shot. rapid shot, manyshot.
Fighter 9th level: point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot, weapon focus comp. longbow, weapon spc. comp. longbow, improved initiative, far shot, power attack.
Notice the difference?
Just give up on attaining the same level as the fighter in fighting as a cleric at that (mid-)level.


Its not at all unreasonable to run from a fight you're disadvantaged in. Moreover, there is nothing unreasonable about NPCs teleporting out, but relatively few NPCs have the ability to do so.

Yes, but it is equally unreasonable to assume that opponents will not be able to flee, by whatever their means allow.


Fundamentally, the problem with the core classes are as follows:


1) Many classes have few out of combat abilities, which means they need to shine in combat; however, as combat is fairly universal, everyone needs the ability to shine in combat. As such, these classes inherently get less screen time.

Well, all classes can do stuff outside of combats and adventures. I do not see any problem here.


2) On top of this problem, many classes do not have the opportunity to shine in combat at all levels, and worse still, these are the classes that tend to be the worst outside of combat as well. Fighters are the primary example of this, but many/most of the nonspellcasting classes have this difficulty.

You apparently have never seen a fighter in action. Pls read the thread I posted above on an archer fighter.
Then, there are the chaintripper fighters (courtesy Snow Savant), lockbuild fighters (courtesy Aelyrinth), charger fighters (courtesy...do not know) and the charisma-based UMD fighter making use of all spells out there that disproportionately help the fighter. And I guess there are many more (corresponding the vast amount of feats)


3) Magic can duplicate every class ability outside of combat. Between shapeshifting, flying, and some divination spells it is entirely possible for the wizard and the cleric or druid to overcome every out of combat obstacle with the use of a spell or two or a shapechange usage by the druid. This means that at higher levels, those skills and abilities the other classes have outside of combat are largely useless; invisibility and fly beat hide, jump, and climb, and there are many other such examples.

Guess what? Magic is also easily accessible by all classes. UMD, magic items, special abilites - all classes easily can emulate a large part of the core spells if they wish to do so.


4) When two characters between them can solve every situation, the game has a major flaw, namely that the party never consists of anyone but those two characters, yet the game is intended for four (or more!) players. This means that the game and its premise do not work together, and that the party only needs two characters, not four, and if there are more thant that many characters they can and probably will have little "screen time".

I do not understand what you mean. Four characters are always better than two. And two characters never can solve consistently the challenges of the regular four-character group. Do not try to make up problems that never existed in the game.



The solution is as follows:

1) Every class should have a variety of out of combat abilities which make them useful in a variety of situations, and as such, none of them need to shine any more in combat than anyone else.

Well, this defies combat-oriented classes. Skills, divination magic and item creation magic are typical out-of combat abilities. But the fighter is strong enough in combat that it can be called balanced overall.


2) Every class should be able to contribute in combat in their own way; these roles should overlap minimally. Someone who is a healer should not also be able to deal lots of damage, for instance.

Nope. A healer player should still be able to do combat if he likes to. There is no technical reason to suggest otherwise.



3) Magic should not be nearly as versatile. Either the spell list on the whole needs to be majorly cut down, removing fly, invisibility, and similar spells that are much better than class abilities, or spellcasters need to be much more specialized, such that the same guy cannot cast fireball who can cast invisibility. Spells which enable replacement of classes should simply be removed or be only available to mages who lack the ability to duplicate others, so that no character takes up too many roles.

Hide is better than invisibility since it cannot be countered with spells.
Flying can be achieved in so many ways in mid-level it is not really that great of an ability in mid-level play as intended by the rules. No core spell replaces a class. No more specialisation in magic needed.


4) If all of the above occur, then you'll want a variety of characters for your parties, and two people won't be able to handle everything and anything and thus get all the attention.

???? Before calling others a troll, pls word this a bit more clearly. I do not understand this last point.

- Giacomo

Armads
2007-12-08, 06:18 AM
Do you actually realise what "as soon as possible means"? Cleric gets disturbed, flees, then he immediately has to resume praying. This is his last chance. After that, it's over for the day. More easily thwarted than you apparently would like to see.
Well, you have to realise - of course fighters would also love to have double hit points. But unfortunately, the rules do not back this up.

No, he prays whenever it's the next opportunity. So if he gets disturbed, flees, starts praying, gets disturbed, flees again, he must resume praying. So it is possible to counter a caster with lots of interruptions, but then it'll become pretty obvious to players that it's DM fiat, and annoying DM fiat at that.



Yeah, they have no real disadvantages. And the non-caster classes all have spell resistance. Pls try to realise that the designers put in "ex-xxxx" class sections for a reason.
Plus, you list yourself the (severe) SRD restrictions of both arcane and divine casters in regaining their spells. What do am I to learn from this?

The point of "ex-xxxx" sections is to prevent stuff like "I kill that obviously LG commoner and loot it's corpse!" as a paladin. It's also for a plot-hook (and to punish clerics that annoy the DM), but if it happens every single time, it's blatant Rule Zero that clerics cannot do stuff. And if DMs constantly have to resort to using "you're an ex-cleric, nyaah", then it proves that the cleric is imbalanced, isn't it?



Well, greenknight's post already showed where you are wrong. And I would even go further that you severely underestimate the fighting potential of a fighter in core.

Yeah, this is true.



Well, the fighter meanwhile (if pursuing this route) has enlarge (via UMD or friendly spellcaster). He could even have the kings of 4th level buffs, divine power or polymorph available that way. The best thing a fighter actually can do is to focus first on ranged combat and then on melee, of course. And this is, at these levels, where the fighter clearly exceeds the cleric.

You can't actually get Divine Power, since it's a Personal buff, unless you buy a ring of spell storing (and it'll cost a 4th level slot every combat, since the cleric has to refill it). Also, you don't actually need Divine Power: you already have full BAB. Polymorph's broken, but you disagree, and nothing will change your mind on that issue, so I'll sidestep it.



Cleric 9th level: martial weapon proficiency - composite longbow, point blank shot. rapid shot, manyshot.
Fighter 9th level: point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot, weapon focus comp. longbow, weapon spc. comp. longbow, improved initiative, far shot, power attack.
Notice the difference?
Just give up on attaining the same level as the fighter in fighting as a cleric at that (mid-)level.

The cleric uses his spells to make up for the gap. For example, he'll cast Divine Favor for a quick boost to attack and damage (yes, a fighter can get it, but again, it can't be done for every single fight), Shield of Faith for a nice boost to AC, Greater Magic Weapon to save up on money, etc.



Well, all classes can do stuff outside of combats and adventures. I do not see any problem here.

Fighters can't do stuff outside combat. Their class skills simply don't support it (and they have too few skill points to invest in cross-class ranks, if they try to max UMD as well).



Guess what? Magic is also easily accessible by all classes. UMD, magic items, special abilites - all classes easily can emulate a large part of the core spells if they wish to do so.

Unfortunately it burns gold really quickly, and UMD is quite a problem for a fighter (not a class skill+fighter's not prioritize cha+not enough skill points).




Well, this defies combat-oriented classes. Skills, divination magic and item creation magic are typical out-of combat abilities. But the fighter is strong enough in combat that it can be called balanced overall.

Umm, you're contradicting yourself: "Well, all classes can do stuff outside of combats and adventures. I do not see any problem here." was said by you earlier.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-09, 01:57 AM
Again, not going to respond to you other than correcting rules errors in case you aren't trolling and just don't understand the rules:


Do you actually realise what "as soon as possible means"? Cleric gets disturbed, flees, then he immediately has to resume praying. This is his last chance. After that, it's over for the day. More easily thwarted than you apparently would like to see.
Well, you have to realise - of course fighters would also love to have double hit points. But unfortunately, the rules do not back this up.

Actually, what you're missing is reading comprehension. You don't have to flee; you can fight it out. As long as the cleric is in a pressing situation, they don't need to worry about praying. Being attacked is a pressing situation. The problem is that you're just going to kill the people who attacked you or retreat, then pray. You aren't screwed at all.

Indeed, what you seem not to understand, which is a pretty common mistake with people who don't really comprehend the rules or rules design well, is that the spellcasting rules in D&D are set up such that while they are somewhat inconvenient at times, the spellcaster has to take concious action in order to AVOID regaining their spells; otherwise, you'll always be able to do so outside of being disturbed once every hour on the hour, in which case the party is being moronic for camping there and should retreat or the DM is trying to kill off the party; the first is avoidable and the second only happens in a bad game.


Cleric 9th level: martial weapon proficiency - composite longbow, point blank shot. rapid shot, manyshot.
Fighter 9th level: point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot, weapon focus comp. longbow, weapon spc. comp. longbow, improved initiative, far shot, power attack.
Notice the difference?
Just give up on attaining the same level as the fighter in fighting as a cleric at that (mid-)level.

Question: Why does that fighter have power attack? It doesn't actually allow you to add damage to ranged weapon attacks. I'm not sure if you think it can, but it seems like you do...


I do not understand what you mean. Four characters are always better than two. And two characters never can solve consistently the challenges of the regular four-character group. Do not try to make up problems that never existed in the game.

This isn't made up, it is true I'm afraid. And while yes, four characters are mostly better than two, they aren't necessarily MUCH better than two, and there are circumstances where fewer characters is more advantageous. But mostly, the two extra people are just that - extra. They're warm bodies to put in the way oftentimes, and that's about the limit of their usefulness. This is the core of the complaints.


Nope. A healer player should still be able to do combat if he likes to. There is no technical reason to suggest otherwise.

There are two balanced systems:

Every character can do everything equally well.
Every character has their own specialities.

Note that the prior state is more balanced than the latter state, but games trend towards the latter state because the former state is unfun. It is because of this that making healers capable of dealing lots of damage is bad; they can't, otherwise they strictly superscede the tank role, which is a role people like playing but is strictly inferior to the tank-healer. This is basic game design. A game could have tank-healers, but then there couldn't be a tank or healer role; this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but having a tank-healer makes the other roels superflorous.


Hide is better than invisibility since it cannot be countered with spells.

Hide can be countered with something known as "eyes". Over the course of your adventuring carreer, it is reasonable to expect roughly a 100:1 ratio of enemies with eyes: enemies who can dispel invisibility or see through it.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-09, 10:58 AM
Hmmmm...

(thinking for a while)

...I'll try a different approach.

Let us assume you play the game with the iconic four-class group (fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue).

During the course of the game by mid-level, you realise: hey, the cleric can cast divine power in all of the four encounters per day, equalising the fighter. This is unbalanced!
Similarly, the wizard tosses around summons, no-saves like black tentacles and the rogue and fighter never reach the enemy - the fight is always over before that.

Then the diagnosis starts. Why does this happen this way? Have the designers committed grievous errors?
Then your eyes wander over "ex-xxx" sections, the many conditions for spellcasters that their spells work, one among them the "spells/DAY" section etc.
Then you realise the many, many pages of rules already in core are not clear enough for you - or let us rather say, they are open for interpretation. Of course I believe all the drawbacks are worded as clearly as the advantages of the spellcasting classes, but hey - there are many rules discussions apparently.

So what do you do then? Two possibilities:
1) you interpret them in the way that distances you most from fixing the problem of imbalance which you have perceived above
or
2) you interpret them in the way so as the balance the casters. Which as a nice side effect would also put in more suspense and challenge.

Many of you apparently take option 1). And then start zillions of threads and discussions of "monk fixes" or "fighter fixes". Which in my view treads on very difficult ground.
First of all, it is highly difficult to balance spellcasters that never face any challenge to their ability to cast spells. The solutions many post here are (in my view truly broken) permanent abilities for the non-casting classes that are like powerful spells (fighter should get feats to fly, to dispel magic, what have you, monk should get full BAB and flurry as standard action).

You can try all this, but as soon as you enter this houseruling territory in my view you can end up with more problems than you started with. You basically start an arms-race of the classes that makes the job for the DM to give challenging tasks all the more difficult.

If you perceive a core class as "weak" try first to check what it really can do, what is its niche. And then see if it really is ALWAYS unnecessary in a group.


- Giacomo

PS: the example fighter above took power attack to show that besides being an archer expert, this fighter can also melee better than the cleric

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-09, 11:03 AM
Ah, Titanium Dragon, just one more remark...


Again, not going to respond to you other than correcting rules errors in case you aren't trolling and just don't understand the rules:
...
Hide can be countered with something known as "eyes". Over the course of your adventuring carreer, it is reasonable to expect roughly a 100:1 ratio of enemies with eyes: enemies who can dispel invisibility or see through it.

You see, before reprimanding others with lack of rules knowledge you should check them first.
Hide is a skill, not a spell, and thus cannot be dispelled. Neither do 100 spot checks by enemies with up to +19 to spot (extremely rare occurance, I daresay) give them any chance at detecting that rogue with +40 to hide, since a "20" in skill check is not an automatic success.

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain
2007-12-09, 11:14 AM
So what do you do then? Two possibilities:
1) you interpret them in the way that distances you most from fixing the problem of imbalance which you have perceived above
or
2) you interpret them in the way so as the balance the casters. Which as a nice side effect would also put in more suspense and challenge.

It is worth noting that, compared to second edition, many of the rules intended to balance the casters were weakened or removed outright - for instance, in 2E, if you were hit while casting a spell, you lost your spell. In 3E you have to make a rather easy concentration check instead.

Furthermore, many of those balancing rules in third edition can be bypassed by a splatbook spell or prestige class that was specifically made to bypass it. There is even a prestige classes that allows one to cast within an anti-magic field.

Given these tendencies, it is hardly surprising that the end result is that casters are very powerful.

greenknight
2007-12-09, 04:40 PM
Invisibility is too much better than hide. Someone who can cast invisibility can hide better than someone who can hide.

So do the same as I suggested with Knock, and change Invisibility so that it grants a bonus to Hide. Greater Invisibility might give a bigger bonus, and a Hide in Plain Sight type ability.


Same with the others, such as fly and similar.

Fly is difficult because even some high CR creatures can't attack flying foes (the Tarrasque is a good example). This is why the designers need to give more thought to monsters countering flying foes as their CR increases.


Mages should not have spells to let them superscede other classes' major abilities.

So which base class (with the possible exception of Druid) gives flight as a major ability?


Hide is a skill, not a spell, and thus cannot be dispelled. Neither do 100 spot checks by enemies with up to +19 to spot (extremely rare occurance, I daresay) give them any chance at detecting that rogue with +40 to hide, since a "20" in skill check is not an automatic success.

Well, if that 100 were a single group, the Rogue might be in trouble. Have 99 do an "aid another" action to help the last one spot. Assuming about half of them roll 10 or higher, that gives a +100 bonus, making it very likely the Rogue will be seen. The Rogue could try similar tactics by having 99 people help the character hide, in which case the Rogue will probably remain unseen, but the 99 helpers would stand out like a sore thumb.


During the course of the game by mid-level, you realise: hey, the cleric can cast divine power in all of the four encounters per day, equalising the fighter. This is unbalanced!
Similarly, the wizard tosses around summons, no-saves like black tentacles and the rogue and fighter never reach the enemy - the fight is always over before that.

In fairness, the Wizard is often better off simply disabling the foes, so the Rogue and Fighter get some use finishing them off. The Rogue still has some other stuff to do (although with the rules as they are now, the Wizard can replace many of those uses as well), but the Fighter is largely reduced to a sideshow.


Then your eyes wander over "ex-xxx" sections, the many conditions for spellcasters that their spells work, one among them the "spells/DAY" section etc.

There's no real ex-sorcerer or ex-wizard section, although if someone reduced their primary casting ability score below 10, that would do it. But even those spellcasters who can get the ex-xxx status need only be careful about what they do. And once spells like Rope Trick become available, it's very difficult to stop a spellcaster from being able to regain their spells.

Antimagic fields are a good way to shut a spellcaster down, but they can only be cast by relatively high level spellcasters. Even if you use something like a ring of spell storing (and it would have to be the really rare and expensive major version), that means it's really a spellcaster vs spellcaster tactic.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-10, 07:13 AM
Ex-xxxxx is meaningless. Have you ever, ever, ever seen an ex-xxxxx PC? Ever? No. Here's why: it doesn't happen. Ever. The rules are set up in such a way that it simply will not occur unless the player explicitly wills it to occur. The only times you'll see someone become an ex-whatever, either that person is doing something dramatic with their character or is a jerk and the DM is essentially trying to punish the player vicariously through their character. The ex-xxxxx is ENTIRELY under the power of the player as all of them require the player to take active steps to cease being a member of that class.

Paladins would be no more or less powerful if they could be any old alignment. They are restricted to Lawful Good for flavor reasons, for roleplaying reasons, NOT for power reasons. Same goes with the cleric's association with their deity, the bard and barbarian's non-lawful alignment, ect. These are not actual restrictions in any way, shape, or form on character power. They're simply arbitrary flavor choices. They have no influence on actual character power in-game.

Spellcasters which have to rest 8 hours a day seem like they have a disadvantage, but in reality, the pacing in D&D is mostly dramatic anyway; having to rest for 12 hours versus 8 hours because the wizard can't take watch is irrelevant, especially given that generally parties are assumed to only travel eight hours a day anyway. Likewise, clerics having to prepare their spells at dawn may affect watch order somewhat, but it is far from an irresolvable issue. Basically the disadvantages are ignorable because time simply doesn't exist in D&D for most intents and purposes; the time it is in the plot is dictated by the needs of the plot, and you can fast forward through however much sleeping.

Really, there are three kinds of disadvantage that people actually get saddled with in D&D; AC restrictions via what armor people can wear (which is the most common), bad hit dice, and bad BAB. Wizards have all three and yet are insanely broken; Clerics and Druids lack these disadvantages and are powerful inherently. This is why the caster classes are so powerful; on the one hand, the Wizard in no way relies on his hit points, armor class, or base attack bonus to get the job done; all of his abilities ignore those things and indeed mostly completely circumvent them, making them a non-issue. Clerics and druids simply lack any disadvantages, and being inherently powerful, they are powerful indeed as they have no downside and pure upside.


Fly is difficult because even some high CR creatures can't attack flying foes (the Tarrasque is a good example). This is why the designers need to give more thought to monsters countering flying foes as their CR increases.

Actually, this is why Fly needs to not exist, at least if you want Fighters to exist as well.


So which base class (with the possible exception of Druid) gives flight as a major ability?

Rogues have climb, as do several other classes; it is a very interesting skill which can lead to cool and dramatic in-game situations which simply cannot exist with flight. I'd argue climb is a major ability of classes with the climb ability, as without flying, climbing becomes important. Though maybe I just enjoy throwing characters off of cliffs and putting gems in the foreheads of idols more than most GMs, but given the inherent dungeon setting... Not to mention that Swim is also largely circumvented by Fly as well.

It doesn't help when you look at, say, the fighter skill list, and see Swim and Climb as two of their abilities, and both are supersceded by Fly.

shaggz076
2007-12-10, 01:09 PM
Sorcerer should be a diffrent spell list IMO or something to give it a diffrent feel than mage without a spellbook.

In my eyes a Sorcerer should be able to pick and choose any spell arcane or divine depending on his life experiences and focus. Example if a Sorcer was raised in a small town deep in the woods why shouldn't he have Good Berry. Sure the spell kind of sucks and all but it would make sense.

Stephen_E
2007-12-10, 06:39 PM
Then the diagnosis starts. Why does this happen this way? Have the designers committed grievous errors?
Then your eyes wander over "ex-xxx" sections, the many conditions for spellcasters that their spells work, one among them the "spells/DAY" section etc.
Then you realise the many, many pages of rules already in core are not clear enough for you - or let us rather say, they are open for interpretation. Of course I believe all the drawbacks are worded as clearly as the advantages of the spellcasting classes, but hey - there are many rules discussions apparently.

So what do you do then? Two possibilities:
1) you interpret them in the way that distances you most from fixing the problem of imbalance which you have perceived above
or
2) you interpret them in the way so as the balance the casters. Which as a nice side effect would also put in more suspense and challenge.


- Giacomo


The problem with this analysis is that it relies on rather false posits. Often called straw dummies or "have you stopped beating your wife" points.

The two possibilities you're talking about in actuality are -
1) You take the rules as RAW, and where interpretation is needed follow common practice of core rules and FAQs.
2) You interpret the rules in the most disadvantageous way possible for the casters, even when it wouldn't seem to be much interpretation needed, even if this is contrary to common practice within rules, FAQs or the english language.

When the possibilities are put honestly we see that the problem isn't one of players/DM causing their own difficulties, as the fake posits suggest, but a legitimate problem within the game. A problem that can be controlled by some acrobatic interpretations of the rules, and what is effectively house rules/interpretations (but without calling them house rules). The difficulty with the 2nd option is that it will engender unhappiness and confusion amongst anyone not on exactly the same page as the DM applying it, and if the DM is been as deceptive as Giacomo here, it is extremely difficult for anyone to get on the same page.

Stephen

mostlyharmful
2007-12-10, 06:45 PM
The problem with this analysis is that it relies on rather false posits. Often called straw dummies or "have you stopped beating your wife" points.

The two possibilities you're talking about in actuality are -
1) You take the rules as RAW, and where interpretation is needed follow common practice of core rules and FAQs.
2) You interpret the rules in the most disadvantageous way possible for the casters, even when it wouldn't seem to be much interpretation needed, even if this is contrary to common practice within rules, FAQs or the english language.

When the possibilities are put honestly we see that the problem isn't one of players/DM causing their own difficulties, as the fake posits suggest, but a legitimate problem within the game. A problem that can be controlled by some acrobatic interpretations of the rules, and what is effectively house rules/interpretations (but without calling them house rules). The difficulty with the 2nd option is that it will engender unhappiness and confusion amongst anyone not on exactly the same page as the DM applying it, and if the DM is been as deceptive as Giacomo here, it is extremely difficult for anyone to get on the same page.

Stephen

Plus if the only way your DM can balence casters is by crippling them with total loss of their main class ability, then the campaign sure soesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to be in.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-11, 09:24 AM
Wow, some interesting comments.

@Kurald Galain:
Yep, there are some changeovers from 2nd edition that make casters stronger. Although outside core, there is a feat somewhere (forgot its name - maybe "mageslayer") which basically no longer allows defensive casting.
The main advantage of spellcasters which is largely unchanged throughout the editions, I guess, is that they can find out stuff with magic and journey magically which greatly puts them ahead of the non-casting classes in the way they can influence the adventure and/or campaign world.
Imo it balances with their drawbacks and my impression that for combat situations/encounters, the game 3.5 is largely balanced.

@greenknight:
good thoughts. On the aid another thing: the rules are not worded exactly in such a way how 100 npcs can aid another to spot a rogue with +x hide check. It is explicitly mentioned that too many helpers can step on each others' toes. But it's a good idea, nonetheless!

@Titanium Dragon:
1) why would designers put in rules of ex"xxx" if they believed it never came up? I once played a paladin who did stuff in a non-lawful good way and had to atone (basically barring him from his powers through 2 adventures). A cleric of mine once went against his order (was my decision in that part of the campaign) and had to atone. A friend once played a druid who transgressed agains what had been defined as nature worship by her and her DM. They are rare example, but they tend to heighten a group feeling if everyone in the group than sticks to that particular player.
But if you play it like it never even CAN come up, you are doing - guess what - houseruling. Which is entirely OK with me. But it's not OK, if you say that the game is imbalanced.
2) If time does not exist as a factor in your DD games, it is similarly fine. Of course it is one of the great advantages in the game to simply say "2 weeks later...", "...as you wake up in the morning completely refreshed...", "...after the druid receives another animal companion and the wizard has completed his rod of quicken in peace..."...
But again, it's not representative. The game is meant to put pcs under time pressure or let them be suprise, or there would not be
- a feat that allows a wizard to learn spells without a spellbook
- a spell that allows its caster to never be surprised
- skills which heighten the chance that you locate the enemy before they note you
- spells or skills that lets you rest safely during the night
- an initiative roll
etc...
3) Once you reduce the parameters of non-caster advantage over casters to hps, armour proficiency and weapon proficiency you clearly indicate that you have not realised what advantages certain skill, feat or even magic item combination can provide to the non-casters. And how vulnerable magic is to really work reliably.

@shaggz076:
For your sorcerer variant idea maybe you can use the witch example class in the DMG which would then be able to cast spontaneous spells.
Otherwise, I think the sorcerer is OK because actually he is the least dependent of all caster classes on outside sources for his magic. Additionally, the ability to choose which spell to cast at the time when you need it is really great (also facilitates play greatly!).

@StephenE:
Actually I went with your interpretation up to a certain point, since I do not think there is anything amiss with the core classes in terms of balance, but you do.
If your diagnosis from the style you play comes to this conclusino how can you then go and say the game in general is broadly unbalanced, although you ignore the parts of the rules you do not like? Makes no sense to me.

@mostlyharmful:
What you wrote actually is at the heart of what I believe is so misguided about the perception that the (core) game is unbalanced.
Somehow there is the notion everywhere that casters should never encounter any difficulty, but non-casters should.
It is entirely OK to block a grapple monk with antilife sphere, or evard's black tentacles or a freedom of movement cleric.
But once a non-caster or DM challenge makes use of dispel magic, readied actions, AMF, stealing of spell components, loss of sight (smoke, fog, darkness, etc.), disruption of spell-relearning all the caster supporters go through the roof and call foul.
In my view a very odd double standard.

- Giacomo

Armads
2007-12-11, 09:49 AM
What you wrote actually is at the heart of what I believe is so misguided about the perception that the (core) game is unbalanced.
Somehow there is the notion everywhere that casters should never encounter any difficulty, but non-casters should.
It is entirely OK to block a grapple monk with antilife sphere, or evard's black tentacles or a freedom of movement cleric.
But once a non-caster or DM challenge makes use of dispel magic, readied actions, AMF, stealing of spell components, loss of sight (smoke, fog, darkness, etc.), disruption of spell-relearning all the caster supporters go through the roof and call foul.
In my view a very odd double standard.

The problem is, Casters can make the non-casters useless with their spells, but non-casters cannot do so with their class features (since the casters can defend themselves with their MMM, Rope Trick, blah spells). UMD is irrelevant, because if you use UMD to cast spells, are you a "non-caster" anymore?

Also, since the problem of casters is 2 scenarios:
1. HAHA I HAVE MY SPELLS AND NO NERFS: Caster destroys encounter easily.
2. OH NOES I HAVE USED UP ALL MY SPELLS AND AM IN AN AMF + SILENCED: Caster is a dead weight (at best, a flanking buddy).

If the caster is allowed to do his 'caster' thing, then he'll destroy encounters. However, if he's unable to cast spells, with his low hp and poor BAB, he's a commoner with a good will save (in a wizard's case).

However, for non-casters, the 'brokenness' isn't as bad. The 2 scenarios are:
1. WHEE I HAVE MY SWORD: Fighter can do his stuff, as long as he can overcome his mobility restrictions (flight, freedom of movement, etc).
2. OH NOES I AM GRAPPLED AND DISARMED IN AN AMF: The fighter is useless. He'll survive for a while, but he has no contribution to the party.

So, the DM can avoid putting the fighter into obviously disadvantaged situations, since he isn't gamebreaking when no nerfs are present (unless he's a cheesy shock trooper fighter, but that's because shock trooper is broken). Unfortunately, the DM can't do the same for casters.

KoDT69
2007-12-11, 12:16 PM
But again, it's not representative. The game is meant to put pcs under time pressure or let them be suprise, or there would not be
- a feat that allows a wizard to learn spells without a spellbook
- a spell that allows its caster to never be surprised
- skills which heighten the chance that you locate the enemy before they note you
- spells or skills that lets you rest safely during the night
- an initiative roll
etc...
3) Once you reduce the parameters of non-caster advantage over casters to hps, armour proficiency and weapon proficiency you clearly indicate that you have not realised what advantages certain skill, feat or even magic item combination can provide to the non-casters. And how vulnerable magic is to really work reliably.

-snip-

@mostlyharmful:
What you wrote actually is at the heart of what I believe is so misguided about the perception that the (core) game is unbalanced.
Somehow there is the notion everywhere that casters should never encounter any difficulty, but non-casters should.
It is entirely OK to block a grapple monk with antilife sphere, or evard's black tentacles or a freedom of movement cleric.
But once a non-caster or DM challenge makes use of dispel magic, readied actions, AMF, stealing of spell components, loss of sight (smoke, fog, darkness, etc.), disruption of spell-relearning all the caster supporters go through the roof and call foul.
In my view a very odd double standard.

- Giacomo

I have to agree with Giacomo on these points (but not the RAW is balanced thing, cuz it's not). The game was designed with those inhibiting factors being an option in actual play. And we all know darn well he is dead-on about the caster double standard. When anything affects a caster and makes it harder on him, the forum cries foul. Being a full caster does not entitle you to just say "I win" because if you inhibit my abilities in any way, you are a crappy DM. Not true. It means you figure out a different solution and be creative instead of complaining that you're being nerfed. I have yet to see a melee class player complain about a flying or invisible creature. They are willing to accept that there are things they can't control as a player. Why do those hardcore caster lovers think they SHOULD control the entire environment of the DM's campaign?

And about the "OH noes I'm a disarmed grappled fighter I'm useless" that's utter crap too. I'm willing to bet most fighters in that case disarmed themselves and are attempting a WWE Smackdown, just for flavor! I've seen it done in actual play. The fighter grapples the BBEG's henhmen and threw him at the BBEG. Kudos to him for having fun!

And when I was playing a high level cleric under a different group, I never cried foul when we entered NULL MAGIC ZONES, not that crappy AMF spell, but real zones where magic simply did not function unless cast by something with DIVINE RANKS! That is a real challenge. AMF has too many loopholes.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-11, 04:17 PM
If the caster is allowed to do his 'caster' thing, then he'll destroy encounters. However, if he's unable to cast spells, with his low hp and poor BAB, he's a commoner with a good will save (in a wizard's case).This is the root of the problem. A wizard is either as powerful as a deity or as wimpy as benign bacteria. Some middle ground would be nice.

Telonius
2007-12-11, 04:40 PM
I think the problem with Dispel Magic isn't that it hurts casters. IMO, the problem is that it's too much stuff to keep track of. A single Dispel could turn off a dozen different spells or enchantments; any of which may or may not be what the caster was trying to dispel, and all of which have mechanical effects that need to be tracked and recalculated. Dispel bogs down the combat, which is Not Fun.

Readied actions and line of sight issues are fair game, in my experience in gaming and on the boards.

But most of the other methods of screwing with the caster have the MAD problem - not multiple abilities, but Mutually Assured Destruction. If one side starts using it, the other one will start, too. Our Wizard gets his spell component pouch stolen? You can bet that the enemy wizard will suddenly find himself Disarmed of his own pouch, woken up in the middle of the night, spellbook stolen, etc. Again, this is Not Fun. It turns the whole game into a Wizards' Duel. Nobody wants to deal with it.

PirateMonk
2007-12-11, 09:26 PM
The often quoted pun-pun is one of the rare examples of a broken build, but that is outside core.

How is Pun Pun broken, by your standards? Any character with the proper alignment and knowledge ranks, even a commoner, can call upon Pazuzu and become Pun Pun. Additionally, it can be stopped by sketchy rules interpretations that a few would call perfectly reasonable and many would call outright DM fiat.

horseboy
2007-12-12, 12:03 AM
I have to agree with Giacomo on these points (but not the RAW is balanced thing, cuz it's not). The game was designed with those inhibiting factors being an option in actual play. And that's the clutch. If you have to do it to make the game balanced, it's not optional, now is it? Then there's the question of how many times can you go to that well before it becomes hackneyed?


And we all know darn well he is dead-on about the caster double standard. When anything affects a caster and makes it harder on him, the forum cries foul. Being a full caster does not entitle you to just say "I win" because if you inhibit my abilities in any way, you are a crappy DM. Not true. It means you figure out a different solution and be creative instead of complaining that you're being nerfed.Yeah, I do agree it's about there being no middle ground with a caster.

I have yet to see a melee class player complain about a flying or invisible creature. They are willing to accept that there are things they can't control as a player. Why do those hardcore caster lovers think they SHOULD control the entire environment of the DM's campaign? Well, if my buddy's ranger is pushing 40 on his spot check. Invisibility doesn't really affect him much. If it's flying, it's no longer my problem. It's up to the mage to ray of enfeeblement it into falling or dispelling it.


And about the "OH noes I'm a disarmed grappled fighter I'm useless" that's utter crap too. I'm willing to bet most fighters in that case disarmed themselves and are attempting a WWE Smackdown, just for flavor! I've seen it done in actual play. The fighter grapples the BBEG's henhmen and threw him at the BBEG. Kudos to him for having fun! Okay.......


And when I was playing a high level cleric under a different group, I never cried foul when we entered NULL MAGIC ZONES, not that crappy AMF spell, but real zones where magic simply did not function unless cast by something with DIVINE RANKS! That is a real challenge. AMF has too many loopholes.And how many times did it come up? If it was simply once in a while then that's completely different from oh, at least once a day or so. Kinda like what would be needed to make it a "balancing" factor.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-12, 01:54 AM
1) why would designers put in rules of ex"xxx" if they believed it never came up? I once played a paladin who did stuff in a non-lawful good way and had to atone (basically barring him from his powers through 2 adventures). A cleric of mine once went against his order (was my decision in that part of the campaign) and had to atone. A friend once played a druid who transgressed agains what had been defined as nature worship by her and her DM. They are rare example, but they tend to heighten a group feeling if everyone in the group than sticks to that particular player.
But if you play it like it never even CAN come up, you are doing - guess what - houseruling. Which is entirely OK with me. But it's not OK, if you say that the game is imbalanced.

And you wanted to do all of those things. You, as a player, made the very concious decision to go and do things that'd make you an ex-whatever. That was your choice, and entirely under YOUR control. As such, they aren't balancing factors. Maybe if you read my post you'd know I'd already pointed exactly this out. Too bad you didn't and spent the time writing this already refuted response.


2) If time does not exist as a factor in your DD games, it is similarly fine. Of course it is one of the great advantages in the game to simply say "2 weeks later...", "...as you wake up in the morning completely refreshed...", "...after the druid receives another animal companion and the wizard has completed his rod of quicken in peace..."...

This is the norm. Over 90% of the time, probably close to 99% of the time, time is not a factor. I'm sorry, but I've played in or run probably a hundred D&D campaigns (some very short, some longer) and virtually never was time ever a factor.


But again, it's not representative. The game is meant to put pcs under time pressure or let them be suprise, or there would not be
- a feat that allows a wizard to learn spells without a spellbook
- a spell that allows its caster to never be surprised
- skills which heighten the chance that you locate the enemy before they note you
- spells or skills that lets you rest safely during the night
- an initiative roll


First off, this IS representative; RARELY is time an issue.

Second, the feat that allows casters to learn spells without spellbooks is patently useless. I've never played in a single campaign where it would have been useful. I know there are certainly situations in which it is useful (particularly, say, when you're thrown in jail) but such circumstances, again, arise only very rarely.

Third, the spells and abilities which decrease your odds of being surprised and initiative have NOTHING to do with the sort of time that I'm talking about. I'm not even sure WHERE you pulled them from. Obviously you do not comprehend in the least what we mean by "time not being an issue". D&D is long periods of nothing (in game time) punctuated by extremely short periods of activity (in game time). Initiative and surprise have NOTHING to do with spell preparation and fast forwarding. They're entirely seperate things. You obviously don't comprehend this. Again, points towards you being a troll or just not having basic reading comprehension/logical thinking skills. People don't "fast forward" through relevant combat, which is what we're talking about when we say time is meaningless in D&D. :\

And alarm and similar spells which protect you during the night COMPLETELY NULLIFY YOUR ARGUMENT that this spell preparation is a disadvantage at all because you can make it completely irrelevant. Or didn't you notice all those people pointing it out?

Oh, right, you're trolling. My bad...


3) Once you reduce the parameters of non-caster advantage over casters to hps, armour proficiency and weapon proficiency you clearly indicate that you have not realised what advantages certain skill, feat or even magic item combination can provide to the non-casters. And how vulnerable magic is to really work reliably.

No, what you don't understand is what matters. Magic IS reliable; you don't understand that. What actually matters in D&D can be fairly easily boiled down to hp, AC, damage, and a few other things (enemy action control, movement, reach).


I have yet to see a melee class player complain about a flying or invisible creature. They are willing to accept that there are things they can't control as a player. Why do those hardcore caster lovers think they SHOULD control the entire environment of the DM's campaign?

Do you miss that, well, they CAN? Its not that they THINK they should, its that they CAN control everything in the campaign. That's what you don't understand or, more precisely, don't want to understand.

KoDT69
2007-12-12, 07:55 AM
And how many times did it come up? If it was simply once in a while then that's completely different from oh, at least once a day or so. Kinda like what would be needed to make it a "balancing" factor.

It was used only 3 times in a campaign that spanned 15 years of the characters' lives and 2 years or more in real time. Oddly enough, we found ways to use this scenario to get the advantage over the bad guys. It was fun for everyone involved so it's all good. And I was even a full caster (cleric) and never felt I needed to cry foul. It's more fun to me to overcome challenges than to just say "I kill it with spell X, no save, I win", because I don't think that's fun like some others might.



No, what you don't understand is what matters. Magic IS reliable; you don't understand that. What actually matters in D&D can be fairly easily boiled down to hp, AC, damage, and a few other things (enemy action control, movement, reach).

-snip-

Do you miss that, well, they CAN? Its not that they THINK they should, its that they CAN control everything in the campaign. That's what you don't understand or, more precisely, don't want to understand.

I agree with the first point to some degree, but the problem is that magic is only reliable when there is no chance of counter magics or class featuires that override your spell. You can cast See Invisibility, but the Rogue hiding with natural skill is not invisible to be revealed by the spell, you just can't see him from his natural hiding talent.

And the second. Yes they can control a lot of things, but not the whole campaign. Sure, by RAW the spell says something and you assume casting it guarantees some specific result, except that the player can't dictate the results every time they cast something. And I'm glad you know what I understand and/or want to understand. Thanks, but I don't have comprehension issues. I have common sense enough to know in an actual campaign, only a complete pushover DM just allows a caster to run the campaign world. So NO, they can't control the entire campaign, nor would any player acting as such be welcome at my table. But, everybody has their own style. C'est la vie!

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 10:23 AM
Hi again,

it appears we are getting nearer to the true problem of core class balance - I completely agree with Armads, Telonius, Horseboy, Wood Spitum and KoDT69.

It is that the casters, in particular the highly focused casters with low combat capability as the wizard and sorcerer, often turn out to be of binary degree of fun to play/effectivness: Either dominating or completely losing.

How to fill this gap? And is there anything in the rules that provide it?
1) Well, first of all, caster players can already do something themselves to be able to still do something if they run out of spells, face stronger dispellers or AMFs, or if spells for some other reason do not work. For instance, vs magic-resistant foes you could buff your non-casting comrades to make your magic effective still.
2) Then, a DM should remain fair and consistent. Robbing a spellcaster of his ability to relearn spells should not result in a total loss of spells - but merely reducing it (similar to hp loss). This is because enemies will not strike with the complete knowledge of how much power the caster has already used over the day.
This way, the binary result is avoided. And, say, a clericzilla will think twice about preparing divine power with a remaining open 4th level slot if instead there is a better option than trying to outshine the fighter in every encounter.
3) in higher levels, the binary outcomes dominate play for all classes due to widespread buffs and magic items, since magic becomes more and more available for all. Both fighter and wizard will have high saves, but still lose on a low roll (or at least making the suck/stop for that combat).

But maybe you have more suggestion what the current rules already offer to overcome the binary caster fun problem (henceforth short "BCFP")?


How is Pun Pun broken, by your standards? Any character with the proper alignment and knowledge ranks, even a commoner, can call upon Pazuzu and become Pun Pun. Additionally, it can be stopped by sketchy rules interpretations that a few would call perfectly reasonable and many would call outright DM fiat.

Ah, this one needs clarifying before wrong interpretation can spread further.
First of all, the pun-pun combo guarantees an all-powerful character. Not merely a character able with an 8,000some item to overcome ONE encounter or get ONE wish for a several thousand gold pieces less than allowed by other items. And this happens only in the MOST favourite of circumstances.
First of all, to actually use the candle for summoning a specific creature from the planes beyond you need to have knowledge-the planes to even have a chance to name any of the creature, or know the name of the creature type alongside the version with the high HD from your actual gaming experience (makes sense to cast the highest-level spells only if you also have the appropriate knowledge).
Then, even a very high knowledge skill will NEVER guarantee that you know any creature's ability as listed in the monster manual. That includes wish as a SLA (i.e. coming at no cost to the caster or creature).
What the user of the candle with enough spellcraft ranks and spellcasters who can cast the spell know, though, is that it is uncertain that the entitiy summoned will become your enemy after the casting or not ("willing or unwilling entry"). An archmage may be able to protect vs a 34 HD demon, but the 9th level party? Doubt it.
So it is a risky item. Very much unlike the pun-pun strategy.

As for the troll-suspecting Titanium Dragon, probably our opinions cannot be reconciled, and you will realise that the discussion has already moved on, with you apparently in the minority with maintaining that caster drawbacks NEVER occur.
- I never said anything about me being completely happy with a total loss of my powers with the characters I played, but I accepted it. Or when you play a rogue are you always happy when your skill bonus is not high enough to disarm a trap? But you accept it. This is what rules are for. KoDT69 provided excellent examples of how caster players should behave once things do not go as they like for a change.
- as for time manipulation: everyone would likely agree to the great advantage of table top RPG to be able to handle time in such a way as to focus on the truly relevant plot sequences (like combat). But in no way does this mean that only those scenes are played with an element of risk for the party when the party is 100% prepared for the encounter. It may be that for you that is the norm, but I can guarantee you, even from hack and slay sytle of games on game cons, that often the typical element "night in the wilderness outside the dungeon - who keeps watch" occurs. AND creatures in that dungeon who will notice the party before you notice them.

And on that troll thing: would you stop calling me a troll once I completely agree with your opinion? I'm asking because I am interested in what you think trolling is. And whether you would also call other posters here who in part agree with me a troll.
Seriously. I kindly ask to stop that.

- Giacomo

Kaelik
2007-12-12, 12:46 PM
Ah, this one needs clarifying before wrong interpretation can spread further.
First of all, the pun-pun combo guarantees an all-powerful character. Not merely a character able with an 8,000some item to overcome ONE encounter or get ONE wish for a several thousand gold pieces less than allowed by other items. And this happens only in the MOST favourite of circumstances.

The problem is that limited power was never the reason you claimed Candle of Invocation was balanced. You claimed it was balanced because anyone could use it and it was equal no matter who used it. Therefore all classes are balanced because all classes are equally as powerful. That is to say, they are all Pun-Pun because all of them can become him, and so therefore it is balanced.

You can't add a new section to the argument without changing your previous one.



As for the troll-suspecting Titanium Dragon, probably our opinions cannot be reconciled, and you will realise that the discussion has already moved on, with you apparently in the minority with maintaining that caster drawbacks NEVER occur.

While it his mistake to say "Never" (assuming he did) he is not in the minority at all.

About half the posters agree that caster drawbacks don't actually affect the game. Half the posters think that they do. Half of the posters that think they do think that 3 encounters across 2 years of gameplay equate to coming up.

As such, if we can assume that in playing for 2 years you will encounter several hundred encounters, and only three of them will ever have the Wizard at any kind of disadvantage (And not even a serious one since any Wizard worth his salt can beat an AMF), then we can easily say that the Wizard doesn't need to worry about them.

KoDT69
2007-12-12, 01:20 PM
About half the posters agree that caster drawbacks don't actually affect the game. Half the posters think that they do. Half of the posters that think they do think that 3 encounters across 2 years of gameplay equate to coming up.

As such, if we can assume that in playing for 2 years you will encounter several hundred encounters, and only three of them will ever have the Wizard at any kind of disadvantage (And not even a serious one since any Wizard worth his salt can beat an AMF), then we can easily say that the Wizard doesn't need to worry about them.

Just to be clear, that was my example which I stated that one specific case came up 3 times in 2 years. It was not an AMF either. As I stated, a TRUE NULL MAGIC ZONE, one that trumps any and all magic. Period. No casting of any kind, no functioning magic items or artifacts even, no invocations, no supernatural abilities, nothing with even a hint of magic. Please read the complete post before trying to claim that it's wrong. Other inhibiting factors came up aside from that in the same campaign too, although they were not required all that much because the DM was a munchkin himself, and most of the players were not lookng to break the game in the first place. So yes, the restrictions can come up. If your DM lets Wizard players just run amok doing anything they want without opposition, it's not a group game, it's a solo mission that you are pigeon-holing your friends into witnessing.

Kaelik
2007-12-12, 02:34 PM
Just to be clear, that was my example which I stated that one specific case came up 3 times in 2 years. It was not an AMF either. As I stated, a TRUE NULL MAGIC ZONE, one that trumps any and all magic. Period. No casting of any kind, no functioning magic items or artifacts even, no invocations, no supernatural abilities, nothing with even a hint of magic. Please read the complete post before trying to claim that it's wrong. Other inhibiting factors came up aside from that in the same campaign too, although they were not required all that much because the DM was a munchkin himself, and most of the players were not lookng to break the game in the first place. So yes, the restrictions can come up. If your DM lets Wizard players just run amok doing anything they want without opposition, it's not a group game, it's a solo mission that you are pigeon-holing your friends into witnessing.

1) I did read the entire post. A couple days ago when it was made, I did not remember all the specifics when I replied to Gia...
2) Nobody cares about the specifics of your "True Null Magic Zone" because it came up three times in the course of 2 years of gaming. Planar Apocalypse occurs more frequently in most games.
3) The point has never been that DMs can't stop Wizards. Dausuul would just point you to his sig and the Straw DM fallacy. I will just say that AMFs should come up maybe once every 100 or so encounters. And they are easily bypassed by most Wizards. And Wizards can easily avoid any possible interruption of rest barring massive DM fiat. Yes a DM can do things to curtail Wizards. That was never the point, the point was that DMs have to go several steps out of their way to stop a mediocre Wizard from making a decent fighter useless.

*Enter jaybal... who searches every day for the word useless just to come in and say that they aren't useless.*

KoDT69
2007-12-12, 03:11 PM
So then would we call it the "Pushover DM Fallacy" for those DM's that can't handle casters in their campaign? Seriously, I know a powergaming player can trump an inexperienced DM and run the show. I won't argue that. I've been the powergaming full caster that could thwart the DM when I felt like it, but that same DM who plays when I am DM has never thrown me for a loop in return. Why? I'm the better optimizer. That's really what it boils down to. If you are a better player than the DM, you will win. But experience is the main thing. I have grown quite accustomed to DMing parties of 50% or more full casters, and normally at least 1 or 2 other half-caster types. He was used to fighters and rogues, or very poorly played bards. You really gotta be ready for cheese when DMing. The DM can always use more than the player :smallbiggrin:

Who cares what class you are if you have a noob DM that pits 14th level characters against the standard group of 4HD ogres? Sadly, I played a few sessions with a DM that was too inept at designing encounters, and I broke his game with a 14th level single classed fighter... AND THERE WERE 2 FULL CASTERS IN THE GROUP!!! But somehow a human fighter weilding only a scimitar and a buttload of feats in battlefield control. Supreme Cleave was the biggest deal to that group, because I used 2 hands on the scimitar for the STR and PA bonuses and cleaved his army of 12 ogres. Really, you had to see the look on his face. I was more suprised at his reaction than anything. I thought the encounter was meant to be a joke! Apprently it wasn't. I still laughed.

Kaelik
2007-12-12, 03:42 PM
So then would we call it the "Pushover DM Fallacy" for those DM's that can't handle casters in their campaign? Seriously, I know a powergaming player can trump an inexperienced DM and run the show. I won't argue that. I've been the powergaming full caster that could thwart the DM when I felt like it, but that same DM who plays when I am DM has never thrown me for a loop in return. Why? I'm the better optimizer. That's really what it boils down to. If you are a better player than the DM, you will win. But experience is the main thing. I have grown quite accustomed to DMing parties of 50% or more full casters, and normally at least 1 or 2 other half-caster types. He was used to fighters and rogues, or very poorly played bards. You really gotta be ready for cheese when DMing. The DM can always use more than the player :smallbiggrin:

No, I would not call it the "Pushover DM Fallacy" because no one is talking about Casters controlling the universe. The entire line of argument by those who think Casters are unbalanced has always been that a party is better off with two full casters then a one and a noncaster. This has nothing to do with breaking or outplaying the DM. It has to do with the natural power disparity and the fact that the few drawbacks can be easily countered.

Only DMs who work very hard at punishing casters can make casters equal to noncasters. Yes optimization is important, but since assumably the same person is going to create and play the caster or noncaster, it's a safe bet that he will optimize equally well (unless of course he deliberately gimps his casters because he knows they are too powerful.)

Stephen_E
2007-12-12, 04:26 PM
casters, in particular the highly focused casters with low combat capability as the wizard and sorcerer, often turn out to be of binary degree of fun to play/effectivness: Either dominating or completely losing.


Amazing, you said something I consider sensible and non-slanted with no backbreaking rules interpretations that I can agree with.:smallsmile:
Although I did have to snip it slightly out of context to make it so.:smallwink:

The problem that you mention with Wizards/Sorcerors (and it is only those that this applys to) is why you simultaneously get people talking about the uber power of Wizards and others who talk about how weak their wizards are (oe even more bizzarely claim they "balanced"). I was recently posting about this in an "upgrading 3.5" forum. You either get/play Wizards right, in which case they're virtually as strong as you wish them to be, or you don't understand them and put the required planning into them, in which case they're very squishy. And to cap things off, the "right" way to play them is rather focused and many don't really enjoy the style.

I pointed out that the uber power/unbalanced nature of the Wizard doesn't com from the ability to cast reality warping magic, but from the ability to cast it for upto twice a round (6 secs) until the enemy is crushed, combined with their is little else they can do other than cast reality warping spells, be they using the daily spells or magic items.

I suggested melding the Sorceror, Warlock and Wizard into one class, and slowing casting (and activating spell casting items) down so that many rounds occur between each spell, and quickened spells get to be standard actions. In between casting spells (which are spontaneously chosen, saving a lot of hassles) they can blast away with eldritch blasts, which are useful as support, but not uber-powerful.

Stephen

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 06:15 PM
The problem is that limited power was never the reason you claimed Candle of Invocation was balanced. You claimed it was balanced because anyone could use it and it was equal no matter who used it. Therefore all classes are balanced because all classes are equally as powerful. That is to say, they are all Pun-Pun because all of them can become him, and so therefore it is balanced.

You can't add a new section to the argument without changing your previous one.

Nice try. But this is not how I put forward the arguments so far.
You see, gate IS powerful but not ALLpowerful as many claim. Similarly, the candle IS powerful but not game-breaking.
So there is no contradiction here.
Giving access to a powerful, but non-breaking spell to all greatly balances those casters who believe have a monopoly on this spell at 17th+ level. It is already available to all classes before.
So it serves to balance the game, and does not break it, since the many caveats I outlined mean that the spell is highly risky, difficult to obtain the maximum result with it (magic item without XP cost), and no avenue to infinite loops that mean anything for game balance.



While it his mistake to say "Never" (assuming he did) he is not in the minority at all.

I referred to the recent posts in this thread, where I feel the sentiment has changed - but I may be wrong about this.
Likely most posters do not agree to all I say. But likely they agree to the problem not being of casters being uber, but that they either win or lose completely in most games, so that most DMs shy away from challenging them at all.
My point is that fixing it simply requires using the core rules as they are imo intended.


About half the posters agree that caster drawbacks don't actually affect the game. Half the posters think that they do. Half of the posters that think they do think that 3 encounters across 2 years of gameplay equate to coming up.

As such, if we can assume that in playing for 2 years you will encounter several hundred encounters, and only three of them will ever have the Wizard at any kind of disadvantage (And not even a serious one since any Wizard worth his salt can beat an AMF), then we can easily say that the Wizard doesn't need to worry about them.

Well, such a post is typical for someone who never saw a wizard "worth his salt" being beaten - by intelligently played monsters, plots or non-casters.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 06:19 PM
Amazing, you said something I consider sensible and non-slanted with no backbreaking rules interpretations that I can agree with.:smallsmile:
Although I did have to snip it slightly out of context to make it so.:smallwink:


Well, I guess I have to thank you for backbreaking into such a praise...:smallsmile: But to help you with it: you did not snip it out of context, it was exactly what I mean.
Where we differ, likely, is in how to handle it.
You would change the rules, whereas I look for balancing stuff inside the rules. That is the only difference. I like your idea of slowing the casting time, though. This was once part of the Lankhmar campaign to make magic more special. You have to give spellcasters some more strength (skill points or feats or higher hps) to give them a chance when not being able to use magic.

- Giacomo

Kaelik
2007-12-12, 06:43 PM
I referred to the recent posts in this thread, where I feel the sentiment has changed - but I may be wrong about this.
Likely most posters do not agree to all I say. But likely they agree to the problem not being of casters being uber, but that they either win or lose completely in most games, so that most DMs shy away from challenging them at all.
My point is that fixing it simply requires using the core rules as they are imo intended.

The reason "recent posts in this thread" feel differently is because many people (like myself until that correction) have dropped of arguing because:
1) You are wrong.
2) Titanium Dragon and horseboy where doing a plenty good job of showing that.

You will find that actually, most people agree that the problem is casters being uber. That's why everyone talks about it an agrees except you. No one else, not even your erstwhile allies, has said otherwise.

And quite simply, your opinion about how the core rules where intended is wrong. We have statements about how the core rules where intended from the designers. Every single one indicates that they did not intend for the rules to be used as you think they are.


Well, such a post is typical for someone who never saw a wizard "worth his salt" being beaten - by intelligently played monsters, plots or non-casters.

Such a horrible misconception of what I said is typical of you. Did I say anything about Wizards not being beaten by non-casters or monsters? No. I said that he can deal with an AMF. Those are entirely separate statements.

However, that said, any Wizard worth his salt is going to beat your intelligently played monsters or non-casters. This is because he is smarter. If you play your monsters as smarter then a Wizard, you are playing them wrong. And since the Wizard is more capable, and more intelligent, he wins. Occasional exceptions for Dragons, and Illithids using the Psionic Illithid variant.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-12, 06:48 PM
And the second. Yes they can control a lot of things, but not the whole campaign. Sure, by RAW the spell says something and you assume casting it guarantees some specific result, except that the player can't dictate the results every time they cast something. And I'm glad you know what I understand and/or want to understand. Thanks, but I don't have comprehension issues. I have common sense enough to know in an actual campaign, only a complete pushover DM just allows a caster to run the campaign world. So NO, they can't control the entire campaign, nor would any player acting as such be welcome at my table. But, everybody has their own style. C'est la vie!

What I mean by "control the campaign" is "do things that make the other party members irrelevant". I don't mean "Rule the world"; those are seperate things. The campaign, as far as it goes, is what happens around the PCs, and they can more or less control that at high levels.


1) Well, first of all, caster players can already do something themselves to be able to still do something if they run out of spells, face stronger dispellers or AMFs, or if spells for some other reason do not work. For instance, vs magic-resistant foes you could buff your non-casting comrades to make your magic effective still.

Well, first off, there are virtually no magic-resistant foes that really are difficult to cast spells on. SR is fairly easily overcome, in general, and additionally it doesn't scale well; something CR 2 lower than the party, but you're fighting two of them, has a SR that is significantly easier to pierce to the point where it rapidly becomes a joke. And nothing to my knowledge has an SR so high that a wizard of the appropriate level has less than even chances of penetrating it.

That said, there ARE a very small number of monsters who are by and large immune to magic; even they, though, tend to be vulnerable to a small category of spells directly, but mostly, they're vulnerable to HUGE numbers of spells indirectly. Spells which don't allow SR, for instance. A good example is Solid Fog, which is an excellent spell to mess up a golem with. Or you can make walls with magic. Or similar effects. Or just fly, which tends to own them.

All in all, this is a flawed argument because there are VERY few creatures who have something like an antimagic field (indeed, I can't think of one in core, but there probably is one somewhere), you run into them rarely, mostly the things "immune" to magic can still be messed up by it, and a lot of spells allow you to circumvent many of them completely.


2) Then, a DM should remain fair and consistent. Robbing a spellcaster of his ability to relearn spells should not result in a total loss of spells - but merely reducing it (similar to hp loss). This is because enemies will not strike with the complete knowledge of how much power the caster has already used over the day.
This way, the binary result is avoided. And, say, a clericzilla will think twice about preparing divine power with a remaining open 4th level slot if instead there is a better option than trying to outshine the fighter in every encounter.

If you're playing to win (and when you're testing a system for flaws, you ALWAYS play to win, not like a scrub) you take the optimal path, and how often is Clericzilla not optimal? If Clericzilla was non-optimal, I don't think it'd be a problem, but it appears that it is at levels where fighters matter.

Also, how often does disrupting their spell preparation work? As I pointed out above, it is effectively never because the rules are designed such that it ISN'T a "real drawback" and that even if they are attacked during the night/during prayer they can still regain their spells just fine and dandy. This is called a "flawed argument"; you go on as if you were right when it was pointed out that it is wrong. Its not a "real weakness".


As for the troll-suspecting Titanium Dragon, probably our opinions cannot be reconciled, and you will realise that the discussion has already moved on, with you apparently in the minority with maintaining that caster drawbacks NEVER occur.

Lots of people agree with me, on the whole, and moreover, most people who DO agree with me are wise enough to avoid such threads in order to avoid dealing with people like you.


And on that troll thing: would you stop calling me a troll once I completely agree with your opinion? I'm asking because I am interested in what you think trolling is. And whether you would also call other posters here who in part agree with me a troll.
Seriously. I kindly ask to stop that.

No, I wouldn't, and here's why: because you have the strong appearance of trolling. A troll, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me, is someone who does things in order to rile up other people, often by ignoring what they say/twisting it, and basically arguing for the sake of argument.

I'm done with this thread because you're either a troll or simply the sort of person who suffers from "Alice in Wonderland" thinking; that is to say, you have decided on the verdict already, and simply throw out and discard and ignore anything that threatens your viewpoint. In either event, further discussion with you will simply result in frustration on my part.

The winning move is not to play.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-12, 06:50 PM
The reason "recent posts in this thread" feel differently is because many people (like myself until that correction) have dropped of arguing because:
1) You are wrong.
2) Titanium Dragon and horseboy where doing a plenty good job of showing that.
Quoted for truth.

Stephen_E
2007-12-12, 07:01 PM
Well, I guess I have to thank you for backbreaking into such a praise...:smallsmile: But to help you with it: you did not snip it out of context, it was exactly what I mean.
Where we differ, likely, is in how to handle it.
You would change the rules, whereas I look for balancing stuff inside the rules. That is the only difference. I like your idea of slowing the casting time, though. This was once part of the Lankhmar campaign to make magic more special. You have to give spellcasters some more strength (skill points or feats or higher hps) to give them a chance when not being able to use magic.

- Giacomo

The problem is that I. and many others, don't see the balancing stuff in the rules and see much of what you claim to be balancing stuff as houserule interpretations or straight out house rules.

It doesn't help that the stuff I'd agree is RAW doesn't balance things, anymore than a cyclic dieter (someone who swings between losing weight down to an "approved" weight, and piling it on to been well overweight) has a "balanced" weight.

Stephen

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-13, 03:33 AM
Well Titanium Dragon...you think I troll because I have different opinion. You think I go into these debates with preset opinions. On the other hand, you zealously defend stuff which appears to be the "common sense" on these boards, even though I repeatedly give examples, builds, and quote rules that point to weaknesses of casters and caster tactics.
So who appears to have a preset opinion, unable to change here?
Last year I actually entered these boards with the full belief that casters are uber powerful vs the non-casters. In particular I applauded the (by now banned) poster Bears with Lasers, who made great summaries of all the caster strengths and combos in - what I realise by now was in true logic ninja guide style. That guide is highly entertaining to read, contains great ideas and tactical hints, but gets to be treated by many as some sort of bible by now - with the same consequences for those who dare oppose its spirit.
What got to change my opinion was that, while I thought casters were uber, I found the notion odd that fighters were considered completely useless by level 20 and would not even be capable of fighting CR 20 monsters (the iconic balor one of them). Since then, I found out more and more what non-casters can do, both in the rules and in actual gameplay.
And this got me to CHANGE my opinion that the rules are balanced.
I do not give up hope yet on all of you.:smallsmile:



Such a horrible misconception of what I said is typical of you. Did I say anything about Wizards not being beaten by non-casters or monsters? No. I said that he can deal with an AMF. Those are entirely separate statements.

However, that said, any Wizard worth his salt is going to beat your intelligently played monsters or non-casters. This is because he is smarter. If you play your monsters as smarter then a Wizard, you are playing them wrong. And since the Wizard is more capable, and more intelligent, he wins. Occasional exceptions for Dragons, and Illithids using the Psionic Illithid variant.

Ach, Kaelik - how can you say I have a horrible misconception and then you write statements in two paragraphs that contradict each other? Either you think that what I said is true - you believe that wizards can beat "my" intelligently played monsters or non-casters. Or you do not.

Then, of course it is no use to believe that wizards always win due to higher INT. INT in game mechanics gives no tactical advantage whatsoever. This is done by feats, spells etc. INT is only the capacity to think, not what you do with it.

- Giacomo

greenknight
2007-12-13, 05:18 AM
What got to change my opinion was that, while I thought casters were uber, I found the notion odd that fighters were considered completely useless by level 20 and would not even be capable of fighting CR 20 monsters (the iconic balor one of them). Since then, I found out more and more what non-casters can do, both in the rules and in actual gameplay.

And this got me to CHANGE my opinion that the rules are balanced.
I do not give up hope yet on all of you.:smallsmile:

The problem is that even if the non-spellcaster can defeat a CR 20 challenge, the character isn't as versatile as a well-planned 20th level full spellcaster. That's because these characters can defeat that Balor and go on to defeat several more challenges the same day without any equipment changes, or even any real warning about what they will face.

Now, it's true that sometimes there are drawbacks to being a spellcaster, the biggest of which is to be denied the use of magic. But those drawbacks are usually not going to play a significant part in the campaign unless the DM deliberately makes it that way. And if the DM really wants to do that, it's easier and fairer to just ban spellcaster characters from the game.

Ultimately, the rules aren't balanced. And the first step towards fixing that is to acknowledge there is a problem.

Stephen_E
2007-12-13, 06:28 AM
Last year I actually entered these boards with the full belief that casters are uber powerful vs the non-casters.
<snipped>
What got to change my opinion was that, while I thought casters were uber, I found the notion odd that fighters were considered completely useless by level 20 and would not even be capable of fighting CR 20 monsters (the iconic balor one of them). Since then, I found out more and more what non-casters can do, both in the rules and in actual gameplay.
And this got me to CHANGE my opinion that the rules are balanced.
I do not give up hope yet on all of you.:smallsmile:


:smallsmile: Giacomo,
I can't comment on your beliefs when you 1st joined the forum, but the 1st time I recall reading posts of yours that caused me to remember your name it was many months ago (probably at least early this year) busy claiming the Druid wasn't uber, but rather balanced. Comments by others indicated that wasn't the 1st time you'd expressed those views. You used views similiar to those you've put here + others specific to Druids. IMHO you got pretty comprehensively shot down, and you sort of conceded some of the points.

I then saw you raise the exact same points in a later thread. Using exactly the same debating techniques. Again IMHO getting comprehensively shotdown. Again sort of conceding pretty much the same points.

I then saw you raise the same points in a later thread.......

This time it's similar points applied to Wizards.......

I'm not calling you a troll because as far as I can see you sincerely beleive your POV and don't argue just to stir. I will say if you showed any sincere ability to change your opinion on this, it was before I started noticing/remembering you as a poster. My opinion on the general uberness of casters has shifted back and forth based on many points raised by posters, but you aren't one of the posters that've moved it, as I generally find your arguments on this topic lacking in RAW support or insight (I don't demand both, but one of these helps a lot). I also find my experiance leaves me finding your concessions to other peoples points lack a certain sincerity, probably due to the seeming failure to save those concessions to your mental hard-drive.

Stephen

PS. My view on the uberness/balance of casters is that Batman Wizards are technically almost as uber as their prime supporters claim. You can design fairly outlandish builds that would have a very good chance of taking them, if they got within sight of them, but these builds are at best mediocre general purpose adventurers and I've never seen them in play (although I wouldn't mind trying my favourite if I could get a GM to allow my race choice). Fortunately in practice most players I've known either aren't capable/aren't interested (as in they consider the concept boring)/aren't willing to put the time/effort required.

greenknight
2007-12-13, 07:51 AM
PS. My view on the uberness/balance of casters is that Batman Wizards are technically almost as uber as their prime supporters claim. You can design fairly outlandish builds that would have a very good chance of taking them, if they got within sight of them, but these builds are at best mediocre general purpose adventurers and I've never seen them in play (although I wouldn't mind trying my favourite if I could get a GM to allow my race choice). Fortunately in practice most players I've known either aren't capable/aren't interested (as in they consider the concept boring)/aren't willing to put the time/effort required.

I think that's the main reason you don't see spellcasters completely dominate the game. Although I have noticed that even without the superpowered techniques often discussed on this forum, high level games tend to need high level spellcasters because of their spell utility, while high level fighters and such aren't as essential since those same spellcasters can defeat most foes. If nothing else, that points to balance issues IMO. The other thing is that most people seem to want to play low to mid level games, where the spellcasters are a bit more balanced due to their more limited resources.

Marius
2007-12-13, 09:44 AM
One thing that no one mentioned is that those 4 encounters per day aren't meant to be only fights, there're other types of encounters where the full casters can also shine while the fighter can't. So the cleric doesn't need 4 divine power spells just one or two.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-13, 10:22 AM
One thing that no one mentioned is that those 4 encounters per day aren't meant to be only fights, there're other types of encounters where the full casters can also shine while the fighter can't. So the cleric doesn't need 4 divine power spells just one or two.

Yup, socail encounters and puzzles/traps/?? stand in for a heck of a lot of CR-appro encounters when I'm using that system in my games. When they do however the skill-monky and caster classes own even more:smallfrown: . you involve travel, negotiation, information gathering or anything else marginally more complicated than Hack-it-in-the-FACE!! and most meleers get overshadowed (rangers and track feat using Barbs not withstanding)

Kaelik
2007-12-13, 01:58 PM
Ach, Kaelik - how can you say I have a horrible misconception and then you write statements in two paragraphs that contradict each other? Either you think that what I said is true - you believe that wizards can beat "my" intelligently played monsters or non-casters. Or you do not.

Let me make this as simple as possible.
1) You claimed that I said X. (Insert pointless semantic argument that is all you ever have to say here.)
2) I did not say X.
Therefore, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what I believe. No matter what I believe, saying that I claimed X when I did not is still wrong.


Then, of course it is no use to believe that wizards always win due to higher INT. INT in game mechanics gives no tactical advantage whatsoever. This is done by feats, spells etc. INT is only the capacity to think, not what you do with it.

Well lets see.
1) If you DM Int 12 Orcs as smarter then the Int 34 Wizard, you are a terrible DM. If you DM Int 8 Orcs as smarter then anything at all, you are wrong. Let me guess, you think that mindless undead ignore all illusions don't you?
2) A competently played Wizard plays better then your "smart monsters" have any right to be. A player may only be Int 12, and the DM Int 14. But by using metagame knowledge a Player can mimic a smarter character. Because of this, a Player can play as an incredibly intelligent Wizard, a DM is limited to making his monsters only as smart as they actually are. If the Orcs are using comparable tactics to the competently played Grey Elf Wizard then you are a terrible DM. Horrible. Most amazingly bad DM ever. If the only way you can balance Wizards is to cheat, why don't you just give everything spell resistance 400. Eventually the Wizard will get tired of only using spells that bypass spell resistance and/or indirectly effect combatants and just start playing another character.

Cheating =/= the game being balanced.

KoDT69
2007-12-14, 10:56 AM
1) If you DM Int 12 Orcs as smarter then the Int 34 Wizard, you are a terrible DM. If you DM Int 8 Orcs as smarter then anything at all, you are wrong. Let me guess, you think that mindless undead ignore all illusions don't you?
2) A competently played Wizard plays better then your "smart monsters" have any right to be. A player may only be Int 12, and the DM Int 14. But by using metagame knowledge a Player can mimic a smarter character. Because of this, a Player can play as an incredibly intelligent Wizard, a DM is limited to making his monsters only as smart as they actually are. If the Orcs are using comparable tactics to the competently played Grey Elf Wizard then you are a terrible DM. Horrible. Most amazingly bad DM ever.

Dude, be fair. Seriously. INT 12 Orcs are phenomenally smart compared to your standard green-skinned humanoid creature. Even at INT 8 they are as smart as commoners. That does not make them lemmings. OK I know they won't be engineering any repeating ballistas but they are intelligent enough to do what it takes to survive. The will to survive can trump a lot of things. It's very common in humans in the real world to get that surge of adrenaline that makes them superhuman, if only for that required moment, to survive.

INT is not the deciding factor in everything. DMing monsters intelligently doesn't make them a bad DM at all. Those "inferior" races are still around because they know how to hunt and survive. It would be bad DMing if every horde of monsters marched in formation, stayed close together even in the face of AoE spells, never retreated when taking heavy losses, and blindly marched on the PCs to their death after the first round would tell them if they're outclassed, all based on an INT score listed. Even a housecat with a 3 INT won't just stand there drooling while you torture it, she'll run away if she can. Never underestimate instinct.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-14, 01:25 PM
Of course, if you played the orcs truly intelligently, they would ditch their kill em' all ways and form a peaceful, productive society. They would trade with friendly nations, use diplomacy and humanitarian aid to improve their reputations with non-friendly nations, and maintain defenses against aggressors without being aggressors themselves. They certainly would not send young, productive members of their society out to kill wizards for no reason at all.:smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2007-12-14, 01:32 PM
Dude, be fair. Seriously. INT 12 Orcs are phenomenally smart compared to your standard green-skinned humanoid creature.

"Phenomenally" only if in your campaign, orcs are brainless brutes by default. Otherwise, int 12 will get you basic strategy down, but hardly anything spectacular. In general, succesful military leaders (not to mention most gamers) have significantly higher int than that.

The guy has a point, though. I had a (rather mediocre) DM once who played zombies as having an intelligent strategy. And before you ask, no, there wasn't any mage or priest or whatnot nearby controlling them.

KoDT69
2007-12-14, 02:30 PM
Well, considering that the average Orc has an 8 INT, 12 is vastly more intelligent. 10 is average human intelligence in the PHB. 12 is high enough to master 2nd level arcane spells, which a lot of humans can't do. Let me say it again, an Orc that could himself become a wizard. When I said phenominally above, it was relative to the standard Orc. If all of them have a 12 INT though, maybe they would be more civilized. Ar at least have the good sense to outsource their weaponmaking jobs to Oriental Adventures regions to save some quick gold :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: I also would not play Zombies with any tactics as a DM, since they are specifically mindless. Orcs are not mindless however. Hey, who DOESN'T love a good old fashined Zombie Apocolypse?

Theli
2007-12-14, 03:53 PM
Incidentally, if INT acts as a guideline for strategy, then perhaps WIS should act as a guideline for tactics. Yeah, choosing WIS as a dump stat could push you to make a mistake that could lose you everything. (Besides the effect of the reduced will save, of course.)

And what about Charisma? If any stat should control ambition, it's that. Yet, it's consistently used as a dump stat by powergamers aching for more power.

This just shows how irrelevant character stats are to player actions. There is no RAW that says that a monster has to be played a certain way, except within that monsters description. If it doesn't say anything, then it's always nothing but DM fiat. Sure, the DM could use common sense. But maybe your version of common sense differs from the DM's version.

There's also nothing by RAW that says a player has to be played a certain way according to stats. (Except, of course, when they hit 0.) This is just player fiat.

Anyway, isn't it a little lazy to say that some character would find the solution to any problem presented to them because they have 20+ INT? Your character isn't finding the solution; you yourself are. And you don't have a 20+ INT.

Kaelik
2007-12-14, 06:11 PM
Well, considering that the average Orc has an 8 INT, 12 is vastly more intelligent. 10 is average human intelligence in the PHB. 12 is high enough to master 2nd level arcane spells, which a lot of humans can't do. Let me say it again, an Orc that could himself become a wizard. When I said phenominally above, it was relative to the standard Orc. If all of them have a 12 INT though, maybe they would be more civilized. Ar at least have the good sense to outsource their weaponmaking jobs to Oriental Adventures regions to save some quick gold :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: I also would not play Zombies with any tactics as a DM, since they are specifically mindless. Orcs are not mindless however. Hey, who DOESN'T love a good old fashined Zombie Apocolypse?

I wasn't referring to int 12 orcs being idiots. I was saying that if you DM and make Int 12 orcs outsmart the Int 34 Wizard then you are doing it wrong. If you are going to play Int 12 Orcs as geniuses with well planned traps, excellently played hit and run tactics, and being prepared for spells cast by the Wizard they have never encountered before (but that you remember from previous encounters with other creatures). Then to be fair, you should just hand the Wizard player all your campaign notes.

Or you could not make the orcs geniuses and instead accept that they aren't that bright, and so the Wizard doesn't need to be godly to make up for it.

You can play Int 12 as Int 20, but what does that mean for Int 34? Better to just play Int 12 as Int 12.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-15, 12:42 AM
I wasn't referring to int 12 orcs being idiots. I was saying that if you DM and make Int 12 orcs outsmart the Int 34 Wizard then you are doing it wrong. If you are going to play Int 12 Orcs as geniuses with well planned traps, excellently played hit and run tactics, and being prepared for spells cast by the Wizard they have never encountered before (but that you remember from previous encounters with other creatures). Then to be fair, you should just hand the Wizard player all your campaign notes.

Thing is, 12 int is MORE than capable of having well-planned traps and hit and run tactics; that's the equivalent of, say, an IQ of 115, which is more than capable of formulating such tactics. Not to mention, they probably have an even smarter leader.

The reality is that 12 int is plenty smart enough to exercise good tactics; if you don't play that correctly, then you aren't really playing it right. Indeed, int 10 is enough to use such tactics if they've seen them before or even just heard about them; Int 12 they could come up with them on their own (they aren't complicated). Many people underplay the intelligence of baddies; look at real-world soldiers. Many of them are BELOW average human intelligence yet they're more than capable of executing advanced tactics, especially under the leadership of a capable leader (or simply in units which include some smart members with initiative). According to some studies the average IQ in parts of Africa, thanks to disease, malnutrition, and lack of education, is in the 50s-60s yet they are more than capable of engaging in guerrilla warfare. That's probably orcish level intelligence, and indeed, orcs behave as some of these guerrilla groups do, which should give you a good baseline for comparison.

Kaelik
2007-12-15, 02:25 AM
Thing is, 12 int is MORE than capable of having well-planned traps and hit and run tactics; that's the equivalent of, say, an IQ of 115, which is more than capable of formulating such tactics. Not to mention, they probably have an even smarter leader.

Int 12 is the leader, or more likely, the leaders assistant. But I'm not saying these tactics are impossible to come up with, just not run well. Sometimes Hit and Run isn't the best tactic, sometimes it is. Intelligent people do a better job of using the right tactic at the right time. And implementing it well. If you play your Orcs as 12 Int you have to use the wrong tactic as often as the right one. 12 Int is someone who knows one clever things and knows it well. 20 Int is someone who knows many Clever things well. 34 Int is someone almost prescient in their intelligence, think Grand Admiral Thrawn if you've ever read any books with him in it. Throw in actual Divination spells and you have someone who is a force to be reckoned with all by themselves, much less if they have other talents to work with (IE people).


According to some studies the average IQ in parts of Africa, thanks to disease, malnutrition, and lack of education, is in the 50s-60s yet they are more than capable of engaging in guerrilla warfare. That's probably orcish level intelligence, and indeed, orcs behave as some of these guerrilla groups do, which should give you a good baseline for comparison.

I wouldn't put much stock in RL IQ tests accurately portraying D&D int. Especially not somewhere like some parts of Africa. IQ tests are culturally biased, and while I doubt it has much effect on someone of any culture raised in the US I think it probably does for someone in Africa. Try taking one and thinking about how often you deal with those sorts of problems in your life, then compare that to someone living in a world of starvation and constant war.

Theli
2007-12-15, 02:44 AM
Gah, but what about experience? What about the INT 12 Orc that's been in a hundred battles? Shouldn't he know better by now?

And what about that Orc TRAINED by the Orc whose been in a hundred battles?

Hey, what if they had some kind of tribal society with a shaman and warlord that trained each successive generation of Orc in the ways of warfare? Wouldn't that be nice?



INT is a foolish thing to base someones character on. It's up to the DM to make the monsters seem believable. That's all there is to it.

Stephen_E
2007-12-15, 05:50 AM
I'd point out that a Wizard with Int34 and Wis 8 can easily be outsmarted by Orcs with 12 Int & 12 Wis. The Wizard with high Int and low Wis represents the chronic "smart idiot". Knows lots of stuff and calculate equations, but ask them to make a practical plan, taking into account RL, and they tend to FU with great regularity.

Int 34 makes you very good at calculating the right action within a finite rules set. In RL, and the game equivalent of RL, the rule set isn't finite and people don't alwasy do what you consider to be the rational action, thus so called "intellegent plans" fall apart with regularity.

In DnD Wis represent "commonsense" and working out what the enemy might do (sense motive ecetre).

Stephen

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 06:00 AM
34 Int is someone almost prescient in their intelligence, think Grand Admiral Thrawn if you've ever read any books with him in it.

I was thinking Benedict of Amber.

General of the multiverse, who has been defeated like once in his thousand-year-life.

Kaelik
2007-12-15, 06:14 AM
Gah, but what about experience? What about the INT 12 Orc that's been in a hundred battles? Shouldn't he know better by now?

And what about that Orc TRAINED by the Orc whose been in a hundred battles?

Hey, what if they had some kind of tribal society with a shaman and warlord that trained each successive generation of Orc in the ways of warfare? Wouldn't that be nice?

It's fine to say that, but think about the real world. We have armies, and Napoleon started as a [insert low rank here]. But so did thousands of other at the same time. Napoleon became an Emperor, they did not.

An Orc in a hundred battles, or even a thousand, has seen plenty of tactics, and seen them work or not work. But that doesn't make him any better at coming up with the best tactic on the fly, or making new connections that he could never have made before (IE a terrain feature local to this battle, or a slight variation of a normal one, two thinks he will not take advantage of.)

And you still have to start with someone up the line with 34 Int to come up with all these tactics, he couldn't have learned it from his grandfather if his grandfather couldn't have done it either.

The bottom line is, there are people who are geniuses, and there are people who copy geniuses, and after a couple attempts at something it becomes readily apparent which is which.

KoDT69
2007-12-15, 07:18 AM
Dude, you're still trying to say that playing an INT 12 monster intelligently is doing it wrong. Again, 12 is above average human intelligence and high enough to BECOME A WIZARD. That's the thing you seem to ignore. Even the most genius people can be outsmarted by something simple. Experience trumps theory, always. If you lack the wisdom and experience your genius will more often just go to waste because you overlooked minor details. And to top that, you are trying to bring in a 34 INT Wizard as your baseline standard, but if he's so smart, why is he eve fighting 1-3HD Orcs to begin with? He's not looking for a non-challenge, he got ambushed, which kinda means he was suprised and/or outsmarted enough to put him in this situation. A level appropriate Wizard might have between 15-19 INT, which is a much bigger difference. But then again, everybody plays different. If your DM (or you DM yourself) and just decide every en****er by comparing INT scores, I feel sad that you miss out on so much of the game. :smallfrown:

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 07:22 AM
Dude, you're still trying to say that playing an INT 12 monster intelligently is doing it wrong. Again, 12 is above average human intelligence and high enough to BECOME A WIZARD.
"Above average" is not the same as "great". Just because in the real world, nobody can become a wizard doesn't mean that those characters that can in D&D (because they have sufficient Int) are that much smarter than people in real life.


Even the most genius people can be outsmarted by something simple.
Really now. Try that at chess some time.


If your DM (or you DM yourself) and just decide every en****er by comparing INT scores, I feel sad that you miss out on so much of the game. :smallfrown:
Nobody suggested doing that. A straw man is not an intelligent argument.

KoDT69
2007-12-15, 07:38 AM
No my point is that just because your character has a 34 INT does not mean he can/will outsmart every encounter. The ones he does not outsmart will most likely be below his INT. And again for the bajillionth time, anybody can overlook details especially when thay lack experience. That is not cheese, that's ineffective execution of a brilliant 34 INT plan that every Wizard lover obviously comes up with every day. INT != experience. And 12 != 34, yah yah yah blah blah blah. But a 34 INT does not make you immune to mistakes. Just accept it. I know you prefer to ignore it.


Nobody suggested doing that. A straw man is not an intelligent argument.

:smallconfused: Really? You didn't read te posts above you?


I wasn't referring to int 12 orcs being idiots. I was saying that if you DM and make Int 12 orcs outsmart the Int 34 Wizard then you are doing it wrong. If you are going to play Int 12 Orcs as geniuses with well planned traps, excellently played hit and run tactics, and being prepared for spells cast by the Wizard they have never encountered before (but that you remember from previous encounters with other creatures). Then to be fair, you should just hand the Wizard player all your campaign notes.

It sure seems that way to me. Saying my character has a 34 INT and because you play a monster or 2 intelligently when *I feel* they should be snivelling idiots, then to be fair I deserve to real all your campaign notes so I can outsmart the monsters. That is far less intelligent arguement that what you claim against me. I'm not the straw DM, this example contained it, and I would not perpetuate this sort of nonsense.

Again, why is there an INT 34 Wizard fighting such lowly creatures?


He's not looking for a non-challenge, he got ambushed, which kinda means he was suprised and/or outsmarted enough to put him in this situation.

Oooops. I already answered that question, which most people will ignore because they have such great loyalty to the INT 34 Wizard that they will try to come up with any excuse or even compare to irrelevant games that do not apply. In chess, both sides have the same options and the same number of pieces. 1 Wizard vs. 30 Orcs is not he same game. The chess pieces can't hde, can't cast spells, or even use rope.

And even in your example I have beaten people way above my skill level in chess when they made mistakes. I don't play much chess because I don't know anybody else who knows how to play. I never learned any strategies or whatever, I go on the fly. I do enjoy it though, and much prefer to play against superior players when I do. What use is it to claim a victory over a noob or "less than skilled" opponent.

Kaelik
2007-12-15, 07:48 AM
Dude, you're still trying to say that playing an INT 12 monster intelligently is doing it wrong. Again, 12 is above average human intelligence and high enough to BECOME A WIZARD. That's the thing you seem to ignore. Even the most genius people can be outsmarted by something simple. Experience trumps theory, always. If you lack the wisdom and experience your genius will more often just go to waste because you overlooked minor details. And to top that, you are trying to bring in a 34 INT Wizard as your baseline standard, but if he's so smart, why is he eve fighting 1-3HD Orcs to begin with? He's not looking for a non-challenge, he got ambushed, which kinda means he was suprised and/or outsmarted enough to put him in this situation. A level appropriate Wizard might have between 15-19 INT, which is a much bigger difference. But then again, everybody plays different. If your DM (or you DM yourself) and just decide every en****er by comparing INT scores, I feel sad that you miss out on so much of the game. :smallfrown:

As a small bonus on Kurald's excellent points:
1) You can become a Wizard with int 3, you just can't cast any spells.
2) The average human IQ is 100, having 120 isn't all that special. Even normal human variance has people with 120IQs feeling out of there league quite often.

Have you ever taken an IQ test? Not to get into a pissing contest, but I scored significantly higher then 100. I would guess that most D&D players would. If you play the orcs up to your (the DMs) intelligence you are probably playing them smarter then they should be.

No one is claiming that Int scores determine who wins an encounter, only that arguing that playing these orcs as capable of outsmarting a gold dragon is a mistake.

And the level appropriate Int for Wizards facing Int 12 orcs ranges from 18-36. Because it is unlikely that a level 20 Orc Barbarian or his tribe of Orc Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers/Shamans (Clerics/Druids/Spirit Shamans and so forth) would put much effort into boosting Int, no matter how many class levels you give them. And Int 12 is a smarter then average orc.

Kaelik
2007-12-15, 07:53 AM
It sure seems that way to me. Saying my character has a 34 INT and because you play a monster or 2 intelligently when *I feel* they should be snivelling idiots, then to be fair I deserve to real all your campaign notes so I can outsmart the monsters. That is far less intelligent arguement that what you claim against me. I'm not the straw DM, this example contained it, and I would not perpetuate this sort of nonsense.

Again, why is there an INT 34 Wizard fighting such lowly creatures?

The idea of handing over the campaign notes was a satire on the idea of playing 12 Int as 16-18, since if you did so it would cause Int inflation to where 34 becomes 50 or so. It doesn't apply if you play Int 12 as Int 12.

KoDT69
2007-12-15, 08:04 AM
And all I'm saying is that no matter how intelligent you are, you can always forget details that lead to a flawed plan. See Tuckers Kobolds for inferior creature tactics eh?

Yes I have taken multiple IQ tests in my time, sadly enough I scored lower after graduating high school than I did in 4th grade. I had consistent 168+ at the age of 10, now it's down 20 points from there :smallfrown: Doesn't say much for the educational system here does it? But I think a 148 is a decently respectable score, and so does my employer that pays me to design electronic stuff that is used on airplanes!

And for my final note, I would not play Orcs that intelligently in a campaign. The best you would get is the African savage tribe example. But there is always a chance they have a Shaman in the tribe with divine guidance for storyline reasons, and that divine help can help a lot. I would never rule out possibilities like that.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 08:44 AM
hi again,

Stephen_E wrote an insightful post that I'd like to comment on.
But first a remark on the strange INT 34 wizard and INT 12 Orc discussion. Somehow Kaelik brought up this strange comparison to make his point.
An INT 34 wizard is what -20th level? Of coure this wizard is superior to the INT 12 Orc!
But of course also the wizard should not win due to higher INT, because there are no rules for that. INT, like the other abilities, influences certain aspects of the game. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Of course, on the roleplaying side it will have an effect if one npc has INT 34 and the other 12. But both can be dangerous opponents.


:smallsmile: Giacomo,
I can't comment on your beliefs when you 1st joined the forum, but the 1st time I recall reading posts of yours that caused me to remember your name it was many months ago (probably at least early this year) busy claiming the Druid wasn't uber, but rather balanced. Comments by others indicated that wasn't the 1st time you'd expressed those views. You used views similiar to those you've put here + others specific to Druids. IMHO you got pretty comprehensively shot down, and you sort of conceded some of the points.

I was "shot down" due to numerical superiority of the other side...:smallbiggrin: Some of the points I condeded was that at high levels, spellcasters are more powerful - in particular due to the versatility. But not in sheer combat (the field of the non-casters like monk or fighter or barbarian).
But true, probably almost from the very beginning of my post (greenknight being one of the first witnesses :smallsmile: ) I started maintaining views that many uber caster believers would find odd. First, I had the view that a level 20 fighter can contribute to a group. From then on I changed my view to positions found more extreme in the eyes of many - i.e. that the classes are broadly balanced everywhere in core, once you use ALL rules at your disposal. Imo I continue backing those views up, with builds, duels, rules clarifications.


I then saw you raise the exact same points in a later thread. Using exactly the same debating techniques. Again IMHO getting comprehensively shotdown. Again sort of conceding pretty much the same points.

Well, I conceded not beyond what I said before. In fact, I have the impression that not my "debating techniques" are the same, but that of many other posters here, including you. It is full of logicninjaspeak -my, that guide really created a profound impact, if anything! (and I greatly enjoyed reading it, too).
I bring up more and more new aspects and angles that can be used to balance the game with existing rules, but I have the impression that many of you revolve around the same old fallacies again and again:
- thou shalt not use cross-class skills
- magic items are not part of the balance, and if used at all, they should never allow non-casters access to spells. Because ALL classes can do that. (Yes, you got it, That's balance).
- casters have no drawbacks - for instance, spells per day is not really a limit since no npc or monster opponent would ever dream of disturbing a caster relearning spells.
- casters challenged mean: DM fiat, DM not doing a job good. Non-casters challenged are normal in DD
- there are no tactics against spellcasting. Once you're inside a force cage, black tentacles, wall of thorns, you are dead.
- leadership gives access to spellcasting for everyone. Bad feat. Bad, bad feat (feats is where fighter shines. Must be houseruled away). Must be called "broken" with odd rules interpretation that take out the npc creating power out of the hands of the DM.
- gate lets you get in infinite wishes and titans (although it is not true) and is 100% riskfree (since the unwilling HD 34 entities will never seek revenge).
- Even so, Candle of invocation gives access to gate for everyone? So: Broken item. Eversmoking bottle levels the playing field for all but feat-intensive non-casters? Stupid item. Destroys party tactics. Caster trying to emulate non-caster abilities, though, instead of focusing on their specialties is liked by everyone? Highly group-friendly.
- npc spellcasting is cheesy.
- polymorph is broken, but druid wildshape is cool (despite the latter lasting longer, and being available earlier, and being a supernatural ability usable without AoO)
- an animal companion is superior to a fighter (ignoring the fact that a 1st level spell stops it, and that most of the strong combat animals are negated by a flying effect - meanwhile, the fighter shoots arrows...)

Well, that's just a first - and not comprehensive list of fallacies which get kept monotonously repeated here.
And you say that I resort to the same arguments time and again?

Let me try one small test on you (since you brought this up in another post in a another thread without every commenting on it again since):
You believe the hide from animal spell effect does not work on the animal companion since it is a magical beast. Do you still maintain this is true?
Would YOU actually change your opinion?


I'm not calling you a troll because as far as I can see you sincerely believe your POV and don't argue just to stir. I will say if you showed any sincere ability to change your opinion on this, it was before I started noticing/remembering you as a poster. My opinion on the general uberness of casters has shifted back and forth based on many points raised by posters, but you aren't one of the posters that've moved it, as I generally find your arguments on this topic lacking in RAW support or insight (I don't demand both, but one of these helps a lot). I also find my experiance leaves me finding your concessions to other peoples points lack a certain sincerity, probably due to the seeming failure to save those concessions to your mental hard-drive.

Stephen

Nicely written! But imo utterly wrong. Read above.




PS. My view on the uberness/balance of casters is that Batman Wizards are technically almost as uber as their prime supporters claim. You can design fairly outlandish builds that would have a very good chance of taking them, if they got within sight of them, but these builds are at best mediocre general purpose adventurers and I've never seen them in play (although I wouldn't mind trying my favourite if I could get a GM to allow my race choice). Fortunately in practice most players I've known either aren't capable/aren't interested (as in they consider the concept boring)/aren't willing to put the time/effort required.

You see, similarly to the lack of devotion to create batman builds, noone will put in the effort to even in core build a truly magebane monk or uber fighter archer build with appropriate gear for almost any (almost...) contingency.

What I would also concede as a NEW point here is that it is apparently easier to play a powerful caster than a powerful non-caster (because the spells jump at you with their power so easily and many DMs have difficulty countering them with enough maxing fu of their own).
That, plus the binary game fun dimension of casters/arcane in particular is what creates such an impression of imbalance in the game.

But once again, that can be fixed within the existing (Core) rules.

- Giacomo

PirateMonk
2007-12-15, 09:47 AM
- gate lets you get in infinite wishes and titans (although it is not true) and is 100% riskfree (since the unwilling HD 34 entities will never seek revenge).
- Even so, Candle of invocation gives access to gate for everyone? So: Broken item.

- polymorph is broken, but druid wildshape is cool (despite the latter lasting longer, and being available earlier, and being a supernatural ability usable without AoO)

No, actually, Gate is broken too, as is Wildshape, at least when combined with full spellcasting, an animal companion, 3/4 BAB, Good Fort and Will Saves, D8 HD...

In fact, last time I checked, that's what we're arguing about.

Armads
2007-12-15, 09:58 AM
No, actually, Gate is broken too, as is Wildshape, at least when combined with full spellcasting, an animal companion, 3/4 BAB, Good Fort and Will Saves, D8 HD...

In fact, last time I checked, that's what we're arguing about.

No, according to him, it's balanced because all classes get access to it.



- thou shalt not use cross-class skills

If you use UMD to emulate a caster (you cite UMD a lot, anyway), why not be a caster instead?



- magic items are not part of the balance, and if used at all, they should never allow non-casters access to spells. Because ALL classes can do that. (Yes, you got it, That's balance).

I can't argue with you on this one, since you think Candles of Invocation are balanced.



- casters have no drawbacks - for instance, spells per day is not really a limit since no npc or monster opponent would ever dream of disturbing a caster relearning spells.

And you say noncasters don't run out of spells because they have enough money to buy 1 million scrolls of everything?



- casters challenged mean: DM fiat, DM not doing a job good. Non-casters challenged are normal in DD

Casters are challenged. But they breeze through encounters or they fail horribly. There is no middle ground. There should be one.



- there are no tactics against spellcasting. Once you're inside a force cage, black tentacles, wall of thorns, you are dead.

Nobody said that. There are tactics against spellcasting, but spellcasters can usually beat those tactics (and using spells to break out of it is rather ironic, isn't it?)



- leadership gives access to spellcasting for everyone. Bad feat. Bad, bad feat (feats is where fighter shines. Must be houseruled away). Must be called "broken" with odd rules interpretation that take out the npc creating power out of the hands of the DM.

Oh, you let the DM create the npc? Then shouldn't he create the same npc for both caster and noncaster?



- gate lets you get in infinite wishes and titans (although it is not true) and is 100% riskfree (since the unwilling HD 34 entities will never seek revenge).
- Even so, Candle of invocation gives access to gate for everyone? So: Broken item. Eversmoking bottle levels the playing field for all but feat-intensive non-casters? Stupid item. Destroys party tactics. Caster trying to emulate non-caster abilities, though, instead of focusing on their specialties is liked by everyone? Highly group-friendly.

Eversmoking bottles level the playing field BY NERFING YOUR OWN, ALLIED CASTERS. WHO LIKES BEING IMPEDED BY AN 'ALLY'. Battlefield control wizards help. They grapple enemies (and thus make them easy targets). Druids can Entangle stuff. Or use Sleet Storm. Or just blast or wade into melee.



- npc spellcasting is cheesy.


It is. Efreeti's are NPCs. Getting them to wish for you is cheesy.



- polymorph is broken, but druid wildshape is cool (despite the latter lasting longer, and being available earlier, and being a supernatural ability usable without AoO)

Polymorph doesn't get you hydras. Animal forms are much weaker than polymorph forms.



- an animal companion is superior to a fighter (ignoring the fact that a 1st level spell stops it, and that most of the strong combat animals are negated by a flying effect - meanwhile, the fighter shoots arrows...)

There are counters to this. Like Wind Wall, and Dispel Magic.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 10:04 AM
I'm not calling you a troll because as far as I can see you sincerely believe your POV and don't argue just to stir.
Nicely written! But imo utterly wrong. Read above.

Well, that was an unexpected response...

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 10:35 AM
Well, that was an unexpected response...

Ah, overlooked that one :smallsmile: - sorry Stephen_E!

- Giacomo

Theli
2007-12-15, 11:11 AM
It's fine to say that, but think about the real world. We have armies, and Napoleon started as a [insert low rank here]. But so did thousands of other at the same time. Napoleon became an Emperor, they did not.

An Orc in a hundred battles, or even a thousand, has seen plenty of tactics, and seen them work or not work. But that doesn't make him any better at coming up with the best tactic on the fly, or making new connections that he could never have made before (IE a terrain feature local to this battle, or a slight variation of a normal one, two thinks he will not take advantage of.)

And you still have to start with someone up the line with 34 Int to come up with all these tactics, he couldn't have learned it from his grandfather if his grandfather couldn't have done it either.

The bottom line is, there are people who are geniuses, and there are people who copy geniuses, and after a couple attempts at something it becomes readily apparent which is which.

Taking advantage of terrain ARE tactics. Sun Tzu did not have a 34 INT. He probably didn't even have an 18 INT. He was someone that took the effort to study warfare and create stratagems for almost every situation.

Strategies, and/or tactics, are not based on a single stat. If you want, they could be INFLUENCED by INT and/or WIS and/or CHA (for leading an army into battle.) But they are also modified by experience and the training resources made available to the individual. Saying otherwise is like saying that a Barbarian should be banned from using height to their advantage because they have an 8 intelligence. It's ridiculous.

There is absolutely NOTHING about taking advantage of a "terrain feature local to this battle, or a slight variation of a normal one" that would benefit someone with 34 INT that someone with 10 INT couldn't take advantage of. And whether they think of it or not is not solely based on INT.

Hell, if you want, you can prove your point very easily. DnD started from a wargame point of view. Show me where in the initial version of DnD that they ever gave such guidelines according to INT within a battle. If a more wargame-based DnD wouldn't have such things by RAW, then it would be somewhat more difficult to prove your point, as we are discussing strategies and tactics which would have a much greater place in such a version of DnD.

And again, it's just lazyness to state that a wizard SHOULD be able to win all encounters because they have the INT necessary to think of every possibility.


Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills.

You apply your character’s Intelligence modifier to:

* The number of languages your character knows at the start of the game.
* The number of skill points gained each level. (But your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.)
* Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Knowledge, Search, and Spellcraft checks. These are the skills that have Intelligence as their key ability.

A wizard gains bonus spells based on her Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell’s level.

An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

Learns and reasons, then they go one to specify actual in-game effects. The single word, "reasons", is obviously the point of contention here. I argue that it would perhaps help someone reason more quickly, or to a greater extent. But not one in which a greater INT is necessarily an absolute indicator of the level of strategic and tactical ability present in any particular individual.

An int 14 Orc Warlord would be able to out maneuver an int 34 human wizard. Perhaps they would not be able to outmaneuver an int 34 DRAGON wizard. But that is because the dragon would have so much more experience and time spent studying the act of war.

In the case of either wizard, if a PLAYER is playing the individual, then they don't automatically get an "I WIN" button. The player determines the strategies and tactics that they wish to follow, separate from their INT.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-15, 11:41 PM
So what's wrong about the core classes is that lower intelligence should trump higher intelligence because even lower intelligence is plenty smart and probably has other things going for it while high intelligence obviously is too focused on being smart to do anything that smart because it isn't enough to be smart, you have to be old and other stuff too.:smallconfused:

greenknight
2007-12-15, 11:44 PM
But first a remark on the strange INT 34 wizard and INT 12 Orc discussion. Somehow Kaelik brought up this strange comparison to make his point.
An INT 34 wizard is what -20th level? Of coure this wizard is superior to the INT 12 Orc!

Well, it could be a Int 12 Orc with 20 levels in Barbarian... Although an intelligently played and powergamed Wizard is still going to be superior.


But of course also the wizard should not win due to higher INT, because there are no rules for that.

Strictly speaking, the DM should play the less intelligent character less intelligently. But personally I'm all in favor of getting rid of the mental stats of characters entirely, so my solution would be to play the character as intelligent/wise/charismatic as I think the character should be, within the limits of my own capabilities (no, I'm not quite as smart as a 34 Int Wizard would be, so I can't play the character that intelligently either).


I was "shot down" due to numerical superiority of the other side...:smallbiggrin:

There's something to be said about being the lone voice of reason, but often the majority is right. In this case I think you're wrong, but at least you do have the courage of your convictions.


Some of the points I condeded was that at high levels, spellcasters are more powerful - in particular due to the versatility. But not in sheer combat (the field of the non-casters like monk or fighter or barbarian).

I tend to agree with you on this, but this point alone shows why high level spellcasters are unbalanced. If a spellcaster can match a non-spellcaster at what the non-spellcaster is supposed to do best and do other things too, then the spellcaster is far too powerful. As it is, pretty much all the non-spellcasters can stay at home past level 11 or so since the spellcasters have their job sewn up and can do a lot of other stuff as well.


First, I had the view that a level 20 fighter can contribute to a group.

Sure, and you produced a very effective Core Rules character. But I had the view that a Core Rules 20th level Cleric could be just as effective in a very similar way and demonstrated how it could be done. The difference is that the Cleric could also do a lot of other things which your Fighter was unable to duplicate effectively.


From then on I changed my view to positions found more extreme in the eyes of many - i.e. that the classes are broadly balanced everywhere in core, once you use ALL rules at your disposal. Imo I continue backing those views up, with builds, duels, rules clarifications.

Spellcasters really only have two major drawbacks. They need to time to prepare their spells (including resting time for Arcane casters), and they are significantly hampered by areas where their magic doesn't work.

The issue of spell preparation can be overcome almost entirely by a 5th level Arcane spellcaster using an Extended Rope Trick, or at lower levels simply by returning to a known safe location (a town etc). So that drawback is largely negated without too much effort.

Areas where magic doesn't work could be encountered at any level. However, if the DM has created a Dead Magic Zone, that can be detected by an item with Continuous Flame on it (even very low level characters can afford that). Unless there's some really good reason to go in that area, it's usually best if the PCs avoid it.The other way magic can be negated is via an Antimagic Field. However, only high level spellcasters can cast that, which really makes it a spellcaster vs spellcaster tactic even if you can find some ways for non-spellcasters to make use of it.


- thou shalt not use cross-class skills

Cross-class skills are ok, but usually you're better off using the class that has it as a class skill.


magic items are not part of the balance, and if used at all, they should never allow non-casters access to spells. Because ALL classes can do that. (Yes, you got it, That's balance).

The real problem with magical items is that many of them are one shots. Yes, you can UMD a scroll to get any spell you like, but then the scroll's used up. Or you could use a Ring of Major Spell Storing for no-risk spellcasting, but again once the spell is used you have to go back to a spellcaster for a refresh. Using items with multiple charges (such as wands) is a bit more acceptable, but even then you're burning your wealth, unless the item is relatively inexpensive in the first place. If you're using an item which renews its charges on a daily basis or has a constant effect, then people are usually ok with it.


casters have no drawbacks - for instance, spells per day is not really a limit since no npc or monster opponent would ever dream of disturbing a caster relearning spells.

I wouldn't go that far, but past a certain point no NPC or Monster opponent would be capable of disturbing the caster, with the possible exception of Gods or other high level spellcasters.


casters challenged mean: DM fiat, DM not doing a job good. Non-casters challenged are normal in DD

Again, the issue is how do you challenge the caster? As they gain levels, spellcasters can have a lot of tricks available to them, and it's hard to shut all of those tricks down in a fair way.


there are no tactics against spellcasting. Once you're inside a force cage, black tentacles, wall of thorns, you are dead.

Honestly, the whole Force Cage idea is overstated. It's a bit like those old tv shows where the bad guy captures the hero and then uses some corny method to do the good guy in (the original Batman TV series is a classic example of this). It's great cinematics but it usually doesn't work if the captive is even moderately resourceful.

On the other hand, what Arcane spellcasters in particular are very good at is disabling a foe, which then allows the other party members to finish that foe off in relative safety. It's hard to dispute the effectiveness of a tactic which has been shown to work extremely well in game.


leadership gives access to spellcasting for everyone. Bad feat. Bad, bad feat (feats is where fighter shines. Must be houseruled away). Must be called "broken" with odd rules interpretation that take out the npc creating power out of the hands of the DM.

Leadership is a bad feat since it gives a character so much extra power. There's no other feat in the game which is more powerful. However, even with that, a 20th level Fighter with a 17th level Wizard cohort is still weaker than a 20th level Wizard with a 17th level Wizard cohort.


gate lets you get in infinite wishes and titans (although it is not true) and is 100% riskfree (since the unwilling HD 34 entities will never seek revenge).

We've discussed this many times. Show me where it says or even implies in the spell description that a single Called creature performing an immediate task is going to seek revenge. Yes, it might be unwilling, but once the task is done it goes away (that is part of the spell description).


Even so, Candle of invocation gives access to gate for everyone? So: Broken item.

Most people agree Gate is horribly broken, therefore it follows that any magical item which can produce a Gate type effect is also broken. But even without that, you can only control a 34HD creature using a Candle of Invocation. A 20th level Cleric with an Orange Ioun Stone and a Bead of Karma (from a Strand of Prayer Beads) can Gate in and control a 50HD creature. Which is better?


Eversmoking bottle levels the playing field for all but feat-intensive non-casters?

Casters could summon creatures with Scent or Blindsight/Blindsense. And the person with the Eversmoking bottle still has problems with seeing and breathing.


npc spellcasting is cheesy.

I don't know who says that, but npc spellcasters can be much more dangerous than non-spellcasters of the same level, especially if they have lots of spellcasting levels.


polymorph is broken, but druid wildshape is cool (despite the latter lasting longer, and being available earlier, and being a supernatural ability usable without AoO)

Alter Self and all things based on it (including Polymorph and Shapechage) is broken. And you've been reading these boards long enough to know that most people consider Druids to be broken too, with Wild Shape being one of the things which breaks the class.


an animal companion is superior to a fighter (ignoring the fact that a 1st level spell stops it, and that most of the strong combat animals are negated by a flying effect - meanwhile, the fighter shoots arrows...)

First of all, you'd need to encounter someone who can cast that 1st level spell, which usually means Druid or Ranger in Core. Second, it allows a Will save, which isn't the animal's strong save but there's still a chance it will work. Finally, all the Druid needs to do is order the animal into the foe's square (or have it wait until the Druid casts Summon Nature's Ally into the square), which will almost certainly result in that foe touching the animal and ending the spell.

Flight can stop an animal companion, but only until the Druid can cast Air Walk or something similar on it.


You see, similarly to the lack of devotion to create batman builds, noone will put in the effort to even in core build a truly magebane monk or uber fighter archer build with appropriate gear for almost any (almost...) contingency.

Without turning them into pseudo-spellcasters, I'm not sure that can really be done, and even if it can, the spellcaster can usually handle a much wider variety of problems.

Theli
2007-12-16, 01:01 AM
So what's wrong about the core classes is that lower intelligence should trump higher intelligence because even lower intelligence is plenty smart and probably has other things going for it while high intelligence obviously is too focused on being smart to do anything that smart because it isn't enough to be smart, you have to be old and other stuff too.:smallconfused:

Yeah, this is getting pretty off-topic.

A discussion of the non-RAW applications of INT shouldn't even be involved in deciding the balance of power between the core classes. Yet, that is the claim that is being made.

Anyway, I've made my point, even if it obviously didn't convince anybody. (Not like I thought it was going to...) So I'm set to drop it.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-16, 06:06 AM
Hi again,

before replying in length to greenknight, a remark to Theli - I guess your post summed up the issue on how you should deal with ability scores quite nicely!
On to the general debate.


Well, it could be a Int 12 Orc with 20 levels in Barbarian... Although an intelligently played and powergamed Wizard is still going to be superior.
(...)
Strictly speaking, the DM should play the less intelligent character less intelligently. But personally I'm all in favor of getting rid of the mental stats of characters entirely, so my solution would be to play the character as intelligent/wise/charismatic as I think the character should be, within the limits of my own capabilities (no, I'm not quite as smart as a 34 Int Wizard would be, so I can't play the character that intelligently either).

See Theli's post. I think that puts it nicely.
Probably different ability scores should be reflected in play, but in combat where so many rules are put in, there is no reason to assume that higher INT should win.


There's something to be said about being the lone voice of reason, but often the majority is right. In this case I think you're wrong, but at least you do have the courage of your convictions.

Thanks! I have not given up hope to convince others yet, in particular you - that maxing contest of cleric and fighter archer really taught me a lot about the game (and I still laugh about the cleric using disguise self over the polymorphed devil form, thus giving no drawback when somebody uses true seeing).


I tend to agree with you on this, but this point alone shows why high level spellcasters are unbalanced. If a spellcaster can match a non-spellcaster at what the non-spellcaster is supposed to do best and do other things too, then the spellcaster is far too powerful. As it is, pretty much all the non-spellcasters can stay at home past level 11 or so since the spellcasters have their job sewn up and can do a lot of other stuff as well.

In my view the presence of the AMF spell alone guarantees a unique role for non-caster classes in high levels. Npc casting, cohorts and party members also play a big role.
Some 9th level spells are considered uber only imo because of wrong interpretations - like time stop and gate (for instance, using gate in time stop is not possible since you cannot affect other creatures in a time stop).


Sure, and you produced a very effective Core Rules character. But I had the view that a Core Rules 20th level Cleric could be just as effective in a very similar way and demonstrated how it could be done. The difference is that the Cleric could also do a lot of other things which your Fighter was unable to duplicate effectively.

You see, while I greatly admired your cleric I had the feeling a lot more maxing fu went into it, and also depended on using very specific domains and the neutral alignment to do his tricks. The only thing I did with the fighter was accumulating archery feats and stacking bonuses from various sources. So my fighter build was easier to achieve.
Then, one must consider the road to level 20, and during all this time a fighter would shine in combat enough to, say, make the game worthwhile for all during levels 1-20 (that is, the fighter can still contribute enough in level 20 and his player will still have fun).


Spellcasters really only have two major drawbacks. They need to time to prepare their spells (including resting time for Arcane casters), and they are significantly hampered by areas where their magic doesn't work.

You forget the dependence on outside sources for your spells (except for the sorcerer, considered by many as the weakest of the four full spellcasting classes).
And the casters are not only significantly hampered by areas where their magic doesn't work (the admittedly rare AMF zones). But numerous tactics and effects obstruct spellcasting.
Take for instance the eversmoking bottle. The true reason why all caster lovers go through the roof with this item is that almost ALL their spellcasting all of a sudden becomes moot. Many react with absurd claims that it impairs group tactics while all non-spontaneous casters in the group easily could adapt their spells to really upset the enemy - but also by giving their non-caster fighting friends more of a role in the strategy.


The issue of spell preparation can be overcome almost entirely by a 5th level Arcane spellcaster using an Extended Rope Trick, or at lower levels simply by returning to a known safe location (a town etc). So that drawback is largely negated without too much effort.

It is fairly easy for an intelligently played opponent to counter that tactics: shadow the pcs after they raided his lair.
Then, set up an ambush around the rope trick area. If the opponent has access to magic, he then even could use dispel magic (by 5th level not too uncommon) to make the pcs drop out of thin air, falling prone.
Imo trying to tell a DM "I do x and you cannot do a thing about it" invites desaster for group, but also objectively speaking the so called "safe retreats" are never safe enough to 100% bet on them. It is also necessary to keep things in suspense.
So no, the relearning drawback is not negated at all.
Somehow, though, years of DMs have let the notion seep into the game that if they do that, the caster players call foul.


Areas where magic doesn't work could be encountered at any level. However, if the DM has created a Dead Magic Zone, that can be detected by an item with Continuous Flame on it (even very low level characters can afford that). Unless there's some really good reason to go in that area, it's usually best if the PCs avoid it.The other way magic can be negated is via an Antimagic Field. However, only high level spellcasters can cast that, which really makes it a spellcaster vs spellcaster tactic even if you can find some ways for non-spellcasters to make use of it.

AMF zones should be rare. But as I said above, that is not the real problem for spellcasters. Ah, and you can bet that an AMF zone will be placed by the DM for a reason, as part of the adventure, and not just at random to be ignored at leisure.


Cross-class skills are ok, but usually you're better off using the class that has it as a class skill.

Yep, true. I must admit for the fighter to stay competitive in the magic-powered high levels, he should have more of the following as class skills: UMD, spellcraft, spot, listen. Maybe in a revision that would be on my wish list: that the fighter's versatility also is reflected by the ability to choose 2 or more skills as class skills.
But truth to tell, due to the sheer combat superiority of the fighter in lvls 1-6, an area where most players play, it is not a fighter's core area to shine in non-caster anti-caster tactics. That is the monk's role.



The real problem with magical items is that many of them are one shots. Yes, you can UMD a scroll to get any spell you like, but then the scroll's used up. Or you could use a Ring of Major Spell Storing for no-risk spellcasting, but again once the spell is used you have to go back to a spellcaster for a refresh. Using items with multiple charges (such as wands) is a bit more acceptable, but even then you're burning your wealth, unless the item is relatively inexpensive in the first place. If you're using an item which renews its charges on a daily basis or has a constant effect, then people are usually ok with it.

Yep, permanent items and wands, and optimally the buffs of your party members should be the source of your magic as non-caster.
For key encounters, scrolls of the potentially decisive AMF can help, though.


I wouldn't go that far, but past a certain point no NPC or Monster opponent would be capable of disturbing the caster, with the possible exception of Gods or other high level spellcasters.

Yes, that IS difficult. But do not underestimate the resources of the existing rules.
For instance, vs the feared MMM as a non-caster you could do the following:
A fellow non-caster pc or cohort with great stealth skills and polymorphed any object into something extremely small (fine size) sneaks into the MMM caster's equipment before he escapes and MMMs. Then you simply scry your friend, and tadaa- MMM caster is open for attack.
Additionally, the spell mind blank used on non-casters (in a scenario of a full caster going against non-casters) means that the caster has to come out to get you when there is a conflict of interest. So, no great MMM use here.


Again, the issue is how do you challenge the caster? As they gain levels, spellcasters can have a lot of tricks available to them, and it's hard to shut all of those tricks down in a fair way.

No. Shutting down all of them with superior DM knowledge would be unfair, like opponents only attacking the non-casters while casters cast safely always.
But casters will at one point or another occasionally run out of the tricks they need (remember, most excepting sorcerer and the bard cannot change their tactics on a fly - and if they leave open spellslots they are vulnerable during the learning time).
At high levels, there are so many countertactics, in particular spells vs spells (and spells are available to everyone to a certain degree).
The cool thing about the above quoted eversmoking bottle is: even at high levels, it is extremely difficult for a caster to overcome the smoke.


Honestly, the whole Force Cage idea is overstated. It's a bit like those old tv shows where the bad guy captures the hero and then uses some corny method to do the good guy in (the original Batman TV series is a classic example of this). It's great cinematics but it usually doesn't work if the captive is even moderately resourceful.

Yep. I remember in a thread somewhere someone negating the tactics with a simple 10 or 20ft pole. Make that invisible and the caster wastes actions without realising why it does not work. (although admittedly many might have access to see invisibility. Still, disguise self can already make life difficult for a caster since he can never see through a glamer even after disbelieving it successfully.)


On the other hand, what Arcane spellcasters in particular are very good at is disabling a foe, which then allows the other party members to finish that foe off in relative safety. It's hard to dispute the effectiveness of a tactic which has been shown to work extremely well in game.

Oh, I do not dispute that tactic or that spellcasting is powerful. I only say that
- there are many countermeasures to it which get consistently ignored by many posters here apparently and
- meanwhile, the non-casters have also tactics at their disposal to disable foes to let then finish them off by other party members (monk stun - rogue sneak; barbarian grapple - rogue sneak; fighter flank- rogue sneak etc)


Leadership is a bad feat since it gives a character so much extra power. There's no other feat in the game which is more powerful. However, even with that, a 20th level Fighter with a 17th level Wizard cohort is still weaker than a 20th level Wizard with a 17th level Wizard cohort.

9th level spells are also considered more powerful than 1st level spells. So why shouldn' there be feats more powerful than other feats which make more sense/are available only at higher levels?
Leadership really shines only at higher levels. If you take leadership early, and then even force your cohort to accompany on your journeys, many of your cohorts will die and thus reduce your leadership score on the way to lvl 20.
Even so, the power of leadership feat is - like high-level spells -often vastly exaggerated. Many, for instance, suggest that to make leadership broken, you should take a cohort with leadership who takes leadership etc. However, this needs DM approval (not the part that you take leadership at all, but that you pc determines what the npc will be like - npcs and gods are the domain of the DM, not the player).


We've discussed this many times. Show me where it says or even implies in the spell description that a single Called creature performing an immediate task is going to seek revenge. Yes, it might be unwilling, but once the task is done it goes away (that is part of the spell description).

How in your view then should the DM let an epically powerful creature react that is "unwilling"ly called to do the pc's petty (in the view of that creature's) bidding?
Even a lawful good angel should react appropriately.
Now what I as a DM WOULD allow is that with the appropriate super-high knowledge the planes skill check, the pc could way before research whether a tpyical entity of that kind called would react unfavorably in general. However, THAT is entirely DM fiat, since you never can know the personality of the creature called beforehand.
The called entity leaves (that is part of the spell, yes), but it can return.


Most people agree Gate is horribly broken, therefore it follows that any magical item which can produce a Gate type effect is also broken. But even without that, you can only control a 34HD creature using a Candle of Invocation. A 20th level Cleric with an Orange Ioun Stone and a Bead of Karma (from a Strand of Prayer Beads) can Gate in and control a 50HD creature. Which is better?

You see, and already at the outset I disagree. Gate is broken if you ignore the rules what actually happens there. Some drawbacks besides the "unwilling" part:
- only ONE service is delivered
- the creature called may be evaded by opponents of that level, while the summoned super creature is only there 1 rnd/level
- the pc will almost NEVER know what exactly the called creatures can do. The knowledge skills are fairly specific on this to avoid the typical player metagaming to know the monster manual by heart and then summon/call creatures with the best SLA or supernatural ability. It is ENTIRELY up to the DM, btw to let a pc caster even remotely know which creatures can grant wishes.
People objecting to these drawbacks in the rules but at the same time whining the spell is broken imo are highly inconsistent.


Casters could summon creatures with Scent or Blindsight/Blindsense. And the person with the Eversmoking bottle still has problems with seeing and breathing.

Necklace of adaptation is the classical combination technics. Even without, usually the fighter or monk using the bottle may have better fortitude save. Then, since the bottle description does not say anything about the smoke effect, it is up to the DM to decide whether the pyrotechnics smoke is created or normal smoke (I once checked with cust serv on that).
Scent does not work in smoke.
And summoning creatures with particular abilities once again is entirely up to the DM to decide whether your caster will be able to know such a thing with an appropriate knowledge check.


I don't know who says that, but npc spellcasters can be much more dangerous than non-spellcasters of the same level, especially if they have lots of spellcasting levels.

Yes, they can. I referred to npc spellcasters casting spells for a fee as per PHB. For instance, permanencie'd enlarge.


Alter Self and all things based on it (including Polymorph and Shapechage) is broken. And you've been reading these boards long enough to know that most people consider Druids to be broken too, with Wild Shape being one of the things which breaks the class.

Yes I know that most people consider this broken. And I truly wonder why. My theory once again: advantages are readily grabbed, while the disadvantages are ignored.
You once evaded the cleric turned devil social drawbacks with the disguise self, but that may not be available to all.
Then, polymorph any object and shapechange are highest level spells. For shapechange, the drawback "familiar with creature" was introduced to stop casters using all creatures in the MM at their whim.
Alter self in core is not broken - at least I did not detect any humanoid able to fly there. And the higher natural AC of a lizardman are nice, but then you appear...as a lizard man. A good 2nd level spell, but mirror image, invisbility etc. are also great!
Polymorph then simply lasts too short to create an impact beyond one encounter and then, the most important thing:
Many forms will no longer allow the use of some magic items, lure you (in particular as a spellcaster) into melee where you should not be, and ontop of all ,you most of the time cannot use your specialised weapons and armour in the new form.
This is the reason why I think the monk is the best recipient of a polymorph spell, but many caster lovers would prefer turning into a war troll themselves rather than "wasting" that key buff on the monk.


First of all, you'd need to encounter someone who can cast that 1st level spell, which usually means Druid or Ranger in Core. Second, it allows a Will save, which isn't the animal's strong save but there's still a chance it will work. Finally, all the Druid needs to do is order the animal into the foe's square (or have it wait until the Druid casts Summon Nature's Ally into the square), which will almost certainly result in that foe touching the animal and ending the spell.

1) you do not need an npc casting the spell. The cheapest potion in the game does the job nicely (and encountering challenging animals is rare enough to carry only a few)
2) Then, the will save in the hide from animal spell refers to an unwilling recipient, not to the animals potentially perceiving the warded creature
3) Finally, you never automatically touch someone if you enter the squre. For touching an unwilling creature, you need to make a touch attack. Or wizards or undead with lethal touch effects or trip fighters or grapples would simply need to move into your square.
4) Having said that, animals touching the warded creature do not end the spell, only the warded creature touching someone. And you cannot summoun creatures into occupied squres. And a druid cannot order his companion that is convinced that noone is there into attacking the warded creature without a push/move action (DC 25 handle animal).


Flight can stop an animal companion, but only until the Druid can cast Air Walk or something similar on it.

Air Walk is inferior to the usual items non-casters have for flight which emulate the fly spell. And it is still then vulnerable to missile attacks.


Without turning them into pseudo-spellcasters, I'm not sure that can really be done, and even if it can, the spellcaster can usually handle a much wider variety of problems.

You see, a cleric using divine power also is a "pseudo-fighter": without the appropriate feats, you become a combatant for a fraction of time during the day, vulnerable to a simple 3rd level spell (dispel magic) and simply opponent delaying tactics that it may work at all.
There are some spells out there better used by the non-casters:
- AMF
- polymorph (monk and barbarian in particular)
- improved invisibility and blinking (rogue)
- enlarge
etc

- Giacomo

Armads
2007-12-16, 06:50 AM
In my view the presence of the AMF spell alone guarantees a unique role for non-caster classes in high levels. Npc casting, cohorts and party members also play a big role.

But why would you always find NPC casters everywhere, yet the casters cannot prepare their spells in peace? Also, NPC spellcasting costs money. You appear to be ignoring that at all points. Party members won't cast spells on you if they can spend a spell doing something more effective - for example, if you're a wizard against some weak mooks, would you rather cast Evard's Black Tentacles and kill them all, or Polymorph your fighter? Your fighter may even take damage from the mooks, so you'll have to expend more resources to heal him (or wait a day, where there's a chance you get ambushed and disrupt healing).



Some 9th level spells are considered uber only imo because of wrong interpretations - like time stop and gate (for instance, using gate in time stop is not possible since you cannot affect other creatures in a time stop).

Time Stop is still uber when you can get 5 free rounds to do stuff - like set up delayed blast fireballs, escape (if necessary), force cage,



You see, while I greatly admired your cleric I had the feeling a lot more maxing fu went into it, and also depended on using very specific domains and the neutral alignment to do his tricks. The only thing I did with the fighter was accumulating archery feats and stacking bonuses from various sources. So my fighter build was easier to achieve.
Then, one must consider the road to level 20, and during all this time a fighter would shine in combat enough to, say, make the game worthwhile for all during levels 1-20 (that is, the fighter can still contribute enough in level 20 and his player will still have fun).

Which fighter build do you speak of?



You forget the dependence on outside sources for your spells (except for the sorcerer, considered by many as the weakest of the four full spellcasting classes).

You forget the existence of big monsters grappling, flying or invisible foes.



And the casters are not only significantly hampered by areas where their magic doesn't work (the admittedly rare AMF zones). But numerous tactics and effects obstruct spellcasting.

And noncasters are significantly hampered by areas where they can't move (E.g. Transmute Rock to Mud and Dispelling Fly)



Take for instance the eversmoking bottle. The true reason why all caster lovers go through the roof with this item is that almost ALL their spellcasting all of a sudden becomes moot. Many react with absurd claims that it impairs group tactics while all non-spontaneous casters in the group easily could adapt their spells to really upset the enemy - but also by giving their non-caster fighting friends more of a role in the strategy.

It's not absurd that it impairs group tactics. Seriously, if you blind your whole team, and the enemy as well, it'll probably hurt you more (since monsters have a wide variety of stuff like Blindsight or Blindsense, or even Tremorsense). You're also only giving the non casters more of a role BECAUSE you are reducing the effectiveness of your own casters. How do you expect your party wizard to constantly buff you when you are reducing his combat effectiveness by blocking his line of sight?



It is fairly easy for an intelligently played opponent to counter that tactics: shadow the pcs after they raided his lair.
Then, set up an ambush around the rope trick area. If the opponent has access to magic, he then even could use dispel magic (by 5th level not too uncommon) to make the pcs drop out of thin air, falling prone.

You get rope trick at level 3, anyway. Also, why would the enemy know anything about rope trick, if it's, say, an ogre. Or a group of orc barbarians, and so on.



Imo trying to tell a DM "I do x and you cannot do a thing about it" invites desaster for group, but also objectively speaking the so called "safe retreats" are never safe enough to 100% bet on them. It is also necessary to keep things in suspense.
So no, the relearning drawback is not negated at all.
Somehow, though, years of DMs have let the notion seep into the game that if they do that, the caster players call foul.




AMF zones should be rare. But as I said above, that is not the real problem for spellcasters. Ah, and you can bet that an AMF zone will be placed by the DM for a reason, as part of the adventure, and not just at random to be ignored at leisure.

yes, but when the AMF doesn't exist, the casters win.



Yep, true. I must admit for the fighter to stay competitive in the magic-powered high levels, he should have more of the following as class skills: UMD, spellcraft, spot, listen. Maybe in a revision that would be on my wish list: that the fighter's versatility also is reflected by the ability to choose 2 or more skills as class skills.

They make no sense to be class skills, when you go to fighter college and learn how to swing a sword.



But truth to tell, due to the sheer combat superiority of the fighter in lvls 1-6, an area where most players play, it is not a fighter's core area to shine in non-caster anti-caster tactics. That is the monk's role.

The monk can't do that, but that's a story for another day.



Yep, permanent items and wands, and optimally the buffs of your party members should be the source of your magic as non-caster.
For key encounters, scrolls of the potentially decisive AMF can help, though.


Permanent items are custom items, and one-shot items bleed gold.



Yes, that IS difficult. But do not underestimate the resources of the existing rules.
For instance, vs the feared MMM as a non-caster you could do the following:
A fellow non-caster pc or cohort with great stealth skills and polymorphed any object into something extremely small (fine size) sneaks into the MMM caster's equipment before he escapes and MMMs. Then you simply scry your friend, and tadaa- MMM caster is open for attack.
Additionally, the spell mind blank used on non-casters (in a scenario of a full caster going against non-casters) means that the caster has to come out to get you when there is a conflict of interest. So, no great MMM use here.

And the caster sees you because of True Seeing, maybe?

[qupte]
Oh, I do not dispute that tactic or that spellcasting is powerful. I only say that
- there are many countermeasures to it which get consistently ignored by many posters here apparently and
- meanwhile, the non-casters have also tactics at their disposal to disable foes to let then finish them off by other party members (monk stun - rogue sneak; barbarian grapple - rogue sneak; fighter flank- rogue sneak etc)[/quote]

But casters do it more efficiently. Why get a monk to close in and stun when you have Stun Ray, which has no save and can be done at range? Why get your barbarian to grapple when you can summon monstrous scorpions to grapple more efficiently? Why get the fighter to flank when you can summon multiple creatures to flank for the rogue, as well as keeping the fighter out of harm's way (you definitely do not want your fighter to be assisting in flanking a big dragon, for example. So you can help everyone by saving money for ressurrection by summoning monsters to help.

9th level spells are also considered more powerful than 1st level spells. So why shouldn' there be feats more powerful than other feats which make more sense/are available only at higher levels?



Leadership really shines only at higher levels. If you take leadership early, and then even force your cohort to accompany on your journeys, many of your cohorts will die and thus reduce your leadership score on the way to lvl 20.
Even so, the power of leadership feat is - like high-level spells -often vastly exaggerated. Many, for instance, suggest that to make leadership broken, you should take a cohort with leadership who takes leadership etc. However, this needs DM approval (not the part that you take leadership at all, but that you pc determines what the npc will be like - npcs and gods are the domain of the DM, not the player).

And since a DM could allow a player to get a buffing cohort, the other players could get other cohorts. It doubles the size of a party if everybody takes a cohort. Also, followers are annoying. 100+ wizard followers casting magic missile wins encounters. Or druids summoning wolves, etc.



How in your view then should the DM let an epically powerful creature react that is "unwilling"ly called to do the pc's petty (in the view of that creature's) bidding?
Even a lawful good angel should react appropriately.

It still works, by the RAW.



Now what I as a DM WOULD allow is that with the appropriate super-high knowledge the planes skill check, the pc could way before research whether a tpyical entity of that kind called would react unfavorably in general. However, THAT is entirely DM fiat, since you never can know the personality of the creature called beforehand.
The called entity leaves (that is part of the spell, yes), but it can return

Yes, it's DM Fiat. Therefore, your point that there is nothing wrong with the core classes is inaccurate. The only way there isn't anything wrong with the core classes is when DM Fiat is present.




You see, and already at the outset I disagree. Gate is broken if you ignore the rules what actually happens there. Some drawbacks besides the "unwilling" part:
- only ONE service is delivered
- the creature called may be evaded by opponents of that level, while the summoned super creature is only there 1 rnd/level
- the pc will almost NEVER know what exactly the called creatures can do. The knowledge skills are fairly specific on this to avoid the typical player metagaming to know the monster manual by heart and then summon/call creatures with the best SLA or supernatural ability. It is ENTIRELY up to the DM, btw to let a pc caster even remotely know which creatures can grant wishes.
People objecting to these drawbacks in the rules but at the same time whining the spell is broken imo are highly inconsistent.

One service is enough: Get me a staff of wish from an Efreeti. Also, if it's metagaming to know the Monster Manual by heart, then why would your fighter pack a Hide from Animals potion, Ring of Blinking, and lots of other highly specific items?



Necklace of adaptation is the classical combination technics. Even without, usually the fighter or monk using the bottle may have better fortitude save. Then, since the bottle description does not say anything about the smoke effect, it is up to the DM to decide whether the pyrotechnics smoke is created or normal smoke (I once checked with cust serv on that).

Custserv is actually quite unreliable, but never mind. Even if the fighter/monk has a good fortitude save, what about the rest of your party members? And if you roll a natural 1 (and you probably will, if you bring out the smoke every encounter), you'll be useless for a round.



Scent does not work in smoke.
And summoning creatures with particular abilities once again is entirely up to the DM to decide whether your caster will be able to know such a thing with an appropriate knowledge check.

Oh noes, a druid doesn't know that cows exist! Or that wolves exist! Or that elementals exist! If you're really going to do the "you don't know that bears exist-even though you have max ranks in Knowledge (nature)" route, it's obviously DM Fiat directly nerfing the caster.



Yes, they can. I referred to npc spellcasters casting spells for a fee as per PHB. For instance, permanencie'd enlarge.

Dispel Magic.



Yes I know that most people consider this broken. And I truly wonder why. My theory once again: advantages are readily grabbed, while the disadvantages are ignored.

You once evaded the cleric turned devil social drawbacks with the disguise self, but that may not be available to all.
Then, polymorph any object and shapechange are highest level spells. For shapechange, the drawback "familiar with creature" was introduced to stop casters using all creatures in the MM at their whim.

Knowledge checks. Also, it's interesting to note that all casters who have Polymorph have Disguise Self, while druids are actually benefiting from wild shaping into, say, a rat or a sparrow to avoid social drawbacks?



Alter self in core is not broken - at least I did not detect any humanoid able to fly there. And the higher natural AC of a lizardman are nice, but then you appear...as a lizard man. A good 2nd level spell, but mirror image, invisbility etc. are also great!

Dwarven Ancestor, for Outsiders (acquired via Otherworldly or being an outsider). You get +18 natural armor (it's 5 HD), and you can impress dwarves with it.



Polymorph then simply lasts too short to create an impact beyond one encounter and then, the most important thing:
Many forms will no longer allow the use of some magic items, lure you (in particular as a spellcaster) into melee where you should not be, and ontop of all ,you most of the time cannot use your specialised weapons and armour in the new form.

In return, you get powerful abilities (like the hydra's huge number of attacks per round, the treants huge strength and natural armor). +13 natural armor is quite impossible to get without Polymorphing.



This is the reason why I think the monk is the best recipient of a polymorph spell, but many caster lovers would prefer turning into a war troll themselves rather than "wasting" that key buff on the monk.

Actually, casters turn into war troll, their familiar/animal companion turns into a war troll, too (or force dragon, at higher levels), and they totally crush everything. Shapechange is personal, too.



1) you do not need an npc casting the spell. The cheapest potion in the game does the job nicely (and encountering challenging animals is rare enough to carry only a few)

And where do you find these potions? As you said, they're rare, so shops probably won't store them.



2) Then, the will save in the hide from animal spell refers to an unwilling recipient, not to the animals potentially perceiving the warded creature

You're right on this one.



3) Finally, you never automatically touch someone if you enter the squre. For touching an unwilling creature, you need to make a touch attack. Or wizards or undead with lethal touch effects or trip fighters or grapples would simply need to move into your square.

Yeah, so just make the touch attack. Touch ACs are low enough, anyway.



4) Having said that, animals touching the warded creature do not end the spell, only the warded creature touching someone. And you cannot summoun creatures into occupied squres. And a druid cannot order his companion that is convinced that noone is there into attacking the warded creature without a push/move action (DC 25 handle animal).

You can summon animals to surround the warded creature.



Air Walk is inferior to the usual items non-casters have for flight which emulate the fly spell. And it is still then vulnerable to missile attacks.

Air Walk lasts much longer, though. With extend spell at CL 12, it lasts for 4 hours.



You see, a cleric using divine power also is a "pseudo-fighter": without the appropriate feats, you become a combatant for a fraction of time during the day, vulnerable to a simple 3rd level spell (dispel magic) and simply opponent delaying tactics that it may work at all.

Except that dispelling isn't 100% effective when your CL is the same as theirs, and that the cleric just spent 1 spell, while the fighter burns cash, and there truly isn't going to be a time where the opponent waits 7 rounds for the cleric to end his Divine Power, and isn't doing that Metagaming?



There are some spells out there better used by the non-casters:
- AMF
- polymorph (monk and barbarian in particular)
- improved invisibility and blinking (rogue)
- enlarge
etc


Notice how these are all spells. Also, notice how summoning a dire bear and then buffing it (e.g. Animal Growth) is better.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-16, 02:07 PM
Armads...seriously, it appears to me in parts of this and previous posts you making stuff up out of thin air to avoid admitting you are wrong.
For you, just another step by step answer.


But why would you always find NPC casters everywhere, yet the casters cannot prepare their spells in peace? Also, NPC spellcasting costs money. You appear to be ignoring that at all points. Party members won't cast spells on you if they can spend a spell doing something more effective - for example, if you're a wizard against some weak mooks, would you rather cast Evard's Black Tentacles and kill them all, or Polymorph your fighter? Your fighter may even take damage from the mooks, so you'll have to expend more resources to heal him (or wait a day, where there's a chance you get ambushed and disrupt healing).

- npc spellcasting is cheaper than the potion of scroll version, so yes. it costs money, but much less
- npc spellcasters COULD be attacked by your opponents to prevent you from raising your friend, getting a permanency enlarge on your monk or foiling that big scrying attempt. Yes. However, if you attack the pcs in their downtime between adventures is vastly different from attacking them while they relearn spells during the night (i,e, preventing the monk from getting the enlarge buff that way is the same as attacking the wizard while he creates a magic item)
- last time I checked the Evard's Black Tentacles spell it is powerful in its effect, but does not kill, but merely grapples and deals damage. Tactics that many non-casters actually have class abilities against.
And against weak mooks, you do nother, but conserve your spellpower. There is a time to use the tentacles, a time to buff the fighter (or better, the monk) with polymorph.
Note: readied actions go a long way to thwart spellcasters for all kinds of opponents.
Easiest is to ready a missile attack vs a spellcaster. If there are many "mooks" part of them ready the action, the others attack the spellcaster.
It could even be argued that you might ready a move action to move out of the area of effect the moment the spell is cast, but I guess that is taking the ready action too far.



Time Stop is still uber when you can get 5 free rounds to do stuff - like set up delayed blast fireballs, escape (if necessary), force cage,

At those levels, many, many will have either high reflex/evasion possibilities or enough hps not to care much. Force cage already was brought down to the realm of the realistic by greenknight and me above.


Which fighter build do you speak of?

It was an archer fight build I once did to show it can kill a balor in 1 round (it could). The link is somewhere further up in this thread (or the "no more fighter" thread, do not know now for sure).


You forget the existence of big monsters grappling, flying or invisible foes.

Yes, that is a problem. But big grappling monsters are more of a problem for those who are bad at grappling, like the caster classes (the druid in his animal form has an advantage here).
Flying foes can be handled with ranged attacks or flying yourself.
Invisible foes can be pinpointed with listen checks (in particular if they cannot move silently well, like...oh, all casters). If all fails, put up conealment from your side as well to level the playing field.
Do I have to keep repeating the same basics again and again?


And noncasters are significantly hampered by areas where they can't move (E.g. Transmute Rock to Mud and Dispelling Fly)

Everyone is significantly hampered in areas where they can't move, and all can get access (some better, some less readily) eventually to freedom of movement or flying effects.


It's not absurd that it impairs group tactics. Seriously, if you blind your whole team, and the enemy as well, it'll probably hurt you more (since monsters have a wide variety of stuff like Blindsight or Blindsense, or even Tremorsense). You're also only giving the non casters more of a role BECAUSE you are reducing the effectiveness of your own casters. How do you expect your party wizard to constantly buff you when you are reducing his combat effectiveness by blocking his line of sight?

First, you can use the bottle so as not to obstruct your own party members - since YOU determine when it is used, not the enemy. Do you really think any player would use a spell, feat or item at the moment it benefits the enemy and not him? How weird.
Then, even in a smoke the casters could cast area effects against foes unable to quickly react with silent/sneaky tactics vs the bottle (vs a bunch of ninjas, for instance, the bottle would not be used- against a group of evil priests? Oh yes!).
The bottle thing always depends on what kind of group you have. If you have only meleers without blindfight and/or targeted spell focused spellusers then, yes, of course the use of the bottle is more limited.


You get rope trick at level 3, anyway. Also, why would the enemy know anything about rope trick, if it's, say, an ogre. Or a group of orc barbarians, and so on.

The ogre would normally not be the one shadowing a group. But let us say 5 sneaky kobolds follow the group. They then see the group vanishing in thin air after climbing a rope. Some remain in the area. Some return to the BBEG who then gets a spellcraft check. If the opponents have no idea about magic then, yes, the rope trick is fairly safe, of course. (increasingly unlikely, the higher the level).


yes, but when the AMF doesn't exist, the casters win.

Not always. Read above (again!), AMF is not the only way to obstruct spellcaster tactics. It only gets to full fruition at high levels.


They make no sense to be class skills, when you go to fighter college and learn how to swing a sword.

Spot and listen would make a lot of sense.


The monk can't do that, but that's a story for another day.

Yep.


Permanent items are custom items, and one-shot items bleed gold.

er...permanent items are sword +1, eversmoking bottle, boots of speed etc., not always custom items.


And the caster sees you because of True Seeing, maybe?

? As I said, the sneaky ally hides in the equipment. True Seeing does not penetrate solid objects, nor does it negate the hide skill. Do you even check what you suggest beforehand? It does not appear like that to me.



But casters do it more efficiently. Why get a monk to close in and stun when you have Stun Ray, which has no save and can be done at range? Why get your barbarian to grapple when you can summon monstrous scorpions to grapple more efficiently? Why get the fighter to flank when you can summon multiple creatures to flank for the rogue, as well as keeping the fighter out of harm's way (you definitely do not want your fighter to be assisting in flanking a big dragon, for example. So you can help everyone by saving money for ressurrection by summoning monsters to help.

sigh.
- stun ray is non-core.
- ¥ou cannot order monstrous scorpions to grapple, they will attack to the best of their ability, but not use specific tactics suggested by you, or you have the ability to somehow communicate with vermin. Plus, the barbarian lasts longer than 1 rnd/level. Are you really suggesting to replace whole pc with a stupid monster summoning spell? That takes 1 full round (an eternity for spellcasters) to cast? Ridiculous.
- the flanking part can also truly better be done by various summoned creatures- flanking can be almost done by anyone, not only by the fighter. Bad example of me. Replace it with spiked chain trip and combat reflexes.



And since a DM could allow a player to get a buffing cohort, the other players could get other cohorts. It doubles the size of a party if everybody takes a cohort. Also, followers are annoying. 100+ wizard followers casting magic missile wins encounters. Or druids summoning wolves, etc.

Ah...double standard alarm getting off. Soo...the fighter getting a cohort to go on adventures with him (which I never suggested btw, I only see the cohort as backup character, to best to provide buff spells or flavour) is a no-no.
But sorcerers, wizards running around with their familiars, druids and rangers with their animal companion, evil clerics with their collected undead etc. are OK, I guess? Incredible.


It still works, by the RAW.

Yep. Cast gate. Win encounter. Get trouble afterwards. Not a great winning strategy in the long run, only with DM fiat ignoring the unwilling part.


Yes, it's DM Fiat. Therefore, your point that there is nothing wrong with the core classes is inaccurate. The only way there isn't anything wrong with the core classes is when DM Fiat is present.

What you call DM fiat is what I call the rules. Whenever an npc is concerned, whenever the rules say, ask your DM, it is all part of the rules. You can say that it is technically difficult as a player to assess what the "ex"-sections truly mean, but this is where the DM will assist you. It is a group game, after all, not a computer game with no leeway of human decision at all.
If a spell says that you run a risk to call unwilling creatures to your aid with it, it must tell you something. If you ignore it and then the spell turns out too powerful, this must tell you something. But you keep ignoring it still. Which baffles me without end.



One service is enough: Get me a staff of wish from an Efreeti. Also, if it's metagaming to know the Monster Manual by heart, then why would your fighter pack a Hide from Animals potion, Ring of Blinking, and lots of other highly specific items?

Hmmm. Good point. How do the characters know what item is what item and what they should get in the first place?
Well, spellcraft helps a bit, plus the info of the spellcaster in the group, plus the opponents you encounter.
Since the abilities of creatures can only be learned through knowledge-the planes or asking someone with that skill, whereas many more know about cheap items, it is safe to assume that the non-casters have easier access to the items they want to get with their wealth, whereas the knowledge about a specific non-prime material staff of wishes is more limited.
Hmmm.
Still, in a campaign usually the pcs do not get the items they wish for automatically, they need to trade them in with what they found.
OK, to be fair: both knowledge about outer beings and magic item properties need to be found out first in play - though I would say that (cheap) item knowledge which can be bought even in small cities is more readily found.


Custserv is actually quite unreliable, but never mind. Even if the fighter/monk has a good fortitude save, what about the rest of your party members? And if you roll a natural 1 (and you probably will, if you bring out the smoke every encounter), you'll be useless for a round.

You. Will. Not. Set. Up. The. Smoke. If. It. Is. On. Balance. Not. Useful. For. Your. Party.


Oh noes, a druid doesn't know that cows exist! Or that wolves exist! Or that elementals exist! If you're really going to do the "you don't know that bears exist-even though you have max ranks in Knowledge (nature)" route, it's obviously DM Fiat directly nerfing the caster.

The class ability description of the druid is clear enough to prevent that (though cows are not listed for animal companions..:smallbiggrin: ).
Plus, to realise something exists you only need probably to make a DC 5 check or some such in the appropriate knowledge skills. To know that cows exist is one thing. To know how old they get, how much milk they give and their mating patterns is an entirely different story.
Let me say a druid not raising knowledge-nature is asking for problems.



Dispel Magic.

Yes. This is the reason why the permanencied stuff is so much cheaper than magic items. Balance, once again.


Knowledge checks. Also, it's interesting to note that all casters who have Polymorph have Disguise Self, while druids are actually benefiting from wild shaping into, say, a rat or a sparrow to avoid social drawbacks?

Er...yes. (?!)


Dwarven Ancestor, for Outsiders (acquired via Otherworldly or being an outsider). You get +18 natural armor (it's 5 HD), and you can impress dwarves with it.

Non-core, yes.


In return, you get powerful abilities (like the hydra's huge number of attacks per round, the treants huge strength and natural armor). +13 natural armor is quite impossible to get without Polymorphing.

Yep, but consider what else happens with you if you normally rely on weapons and armour. Your +x armour melds into you, no more shield use, and your magic weapons are gone. And the DEX is often reduced. So the net gain is much less for AC.
The treant form is highly specific and can even carry more disadvantages in some situations (in most dungeons it will not fit due to its height).
The Hydra's many heads are powerful for attack, but it is slow and can be outrun by almost all opponents (you need another round to overcome that with a fly spell to overcome that, during which a lot of stuff can happen both to the caster and the recipient).
Polymorph is a powerful spell, but not all-powerful. Look at other fourth level spells. Look at what classes can do at 7th level.



Actually, casters turn into war troll, their familiar/animal companion turns into a war troll, too (or force dragon, at higher levels), and they totally crush everything. Shapechange is personal, too.

Yes, nice. But the familiar turned into a war troll for melee with half the wizard's hp is inviting desaster. Best to remain hidden (or you painstakinly need to put a lot of effort to turn your familiar into a good meleer).
At 17th level+ if a wizard and his familiar are stupid enough to turn into dragons with their hps and melee vs the fighter they are quite dead quite quickly.
Ah, and again: force dragon is non-core.


And where do you find these potions? As you said, they're rare, so shops probably won't store them.

50gp potions as among the cheapest magical items are available in villages already, I guess (do not have the DMG near here).


You're right on this one.

Thanks.


Yeah, so just make the touch attack. Touch ACs are low enough, anyway.

Yes, but even if you touch the warded creature the spell does not end. It is as with the invisibility spell. Why is this so difficult to get? Is it so hard to swallow that the completely overrated animal companion is brought down to the realistic levels so easily?


You can summon animals to surround the warded creature.

Probably only from summon nature ally VI onwards to get the 4 necessary large creatures to cover the 8 squares around the warded creature. Best just surround the warded creature with a wall of thorns. But the hide from animal spell is there to delay, and a powerful countertactics to animals at low levels.
The druid needs to waste actions to first notice something is odd, then push his ac to either attack or waste a full-round summon to surround with more animals not realising where the warded creature is (and those cannot be pushed with only a move action to do as you like).
Probably you need to waste another standard action to cast speak with animals for the occasion.
And during all this time the warded creature has time to buff. Or the druid ignores his animal companion's fate and does what he does best anyhow: cast spells directly at the opponent.


Air Walk lasts much longer, though. With extend spell at CL 12, it lasts for 4 hours.

Yes. But then the combat is already over, with flight superiority of the fly-enhanced fighter/rogue/jmonk/whoever.


Except that dispelling isn't 100% effective when your CL is the same as theirs, and that the cleric just spent 1 spell, while the fighter burns cash, and there truly isn't going to be a time where the opponent waits 7 rounds for the cleric to end his Divine Power, and isn't doing that Metagaming?

Fighter burning cash had nothing to do with my point.
No metagaming involved if you realise with spellcraft what spell has been cast (if it is already in effect you cannot use spellcraft since the effect is not visible. Rightous might is a different matter, though).


Notice how these are all spells. Also, notice how summoning a dire bear and then buffing it (e.g. Animal Growth) is better.

Who cares if those are all spells? Feats are also available to all, so what is your point here?
Plus, if you want to summon a dire bear (6th level spell) and animal growth it and your companion (5th level spell) and waste one full round and one standard action to do so (and you need to do it close to combat because those are short-running spells) - do you really think that is so much better than casting stoneskin on a fighter and then mass bear's endurance on the whole party at those levels? Those last longer, take shorter to cast and can hardly be evaded even by a clever enemy.

- Giacomo

dr awesome phd
2007-12-16, 04:04 PM
Ultimately, I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with any of the Core Classes. Each one has an opportunity to shine and while I can make arguments where certain classes are better at X than others. It all depends on the situation and it depends on the DM, to a degree.

Obviously, there will be situations where certain classes are going to have a bit of trouble... but it's going to partially be the DM's job to help with that. I try my best to make sure that (at least) once a session each individual gets a chance to shine. The point of the game is to have fun, and it's sort of the DM's job to make sure of that. I'm not saying that it's solely up to the DM, it will also rest on the Player. The decisions made will greatly effect usefulness (which I'm sure is obvious). I've seen PC Wizards who didn't know what they were doing and completely useless, and actually, in that same party the Monk happened to save the day... I'll never forget the Wizard asking, "I'm going to cast magic missile, I rolled a 15 to hit." I cried a little inside.

Back to the point, any class can be useful/powerful/whatever... just depends on how things work out.

Snooder
2007-12-16, 04:12 PM
- npc spellcasting is cheaper than the potion of scroll version, so yes. it costs money, but much less
- npc spellcasters COULD be attacked by your opponents to prevent you from raising your friend, getting a permanency enlarge on your monk or foiling that big scrying attempt. Yes. However, if you attack the pcs in their downtime between adventures is vastly different from attacking them while they relearn spells during the night (i,e, preventing the monk from getting the enlarge buff that way is the same as attacking the wizard while he creates a magic item)
- last time I checked the Evard's Black Tentacles spell it is powerful in its effect, but does not kill, but merely grapples and deals damage. Tactics that many non-casters actually have class abilities against.
And against weak mooks, you do nother, but conserve your spellpower. There is a time to use the tentacles, a time to buff the fighter (or better, the monk) with polymorph.


Why wouldn't the caster just cast the tentacles? It's only one spell and he should have several others. And when he starts running out of spells, he just goes back to town, sleeps and gets his spells back. You still have not provided a plausible reason for him not to be able to do this other than "ninjas attack every morning".



It was an archer fight build I once did to show it can kill a balor in 1 round (it could). The link is somewhere further up in this thread (or the "no more fighter" thread, do not know now for sure).


I remember that build. IIRC it involved heavy use of bane arrows and disposable magic items. That build was completely useless for anything except killing that one specific Balor, and would be unable to repeat the trick afterward. The build was measured, judged and ultimately found to be interesting but still indicative of how weak the fighter is.



Yes, that is a problem. But big grappling monsters are more of a problem for those who are bad at grappling, like the caster classes (the druid in his animal form has an advantage here).
Flying foes can be handled with ranged attacks or flying yourself.
Invisible foes can be pinpointed with listen checks (in particular if they cannot move silently well, like...oh, all casters). If all fails, put up conealment from your side as well to level the playing field.
Do I have to keep repeating the same basics again and again?


Grappling? Casters have Freedom of Movement and Teleport. Both of which can be placed in wands or rings.
Flying? Casters have better range and flight
Invisible? See Invisibility

Now look at a fighter:
Grappling? Maybe if he has really good strength he might escape, but not as easily as a caster
Flying? Melee fighter stands no chance, Ranged fighter is defeated by a few spells and flight is horribly expensive for a fighter.
Invisible? Good luck making those listen checks in a cross-class skill based off wisdom.



Everyone is significantly hampered in areas where they can't move, and all can get access (some better, some less readily) eventually to freedom of movement or flying effects.


No, not everyone "gets access" to freedom of movement or flying effects. Fighters don't "get access" to them except through really expensive magic items. Which means that they get em several levels after the caster. If the fighter gets it late, by that point the caster has a different tactic he can use that the fighter also won't get till much later.



First, you can use the bottle so as not to obstruct your own party members - since YOU determine when it is used, not the enemy. Do you really think any player would use a spell, feat or item at the moment it benefits the enemy and not him? How weird.
Then, even in a smoke the casters could cast area effects against foes unable to quickly react with silent/sneaky tactics vs the bottle (vs a bunch of ninjas, for instance, the bottle would not be used- against a group of evil priests? Oh yes!).
The bottle thing always depends on what kind of group you have. If you have only meleers without blindfight and/or targeted spell focused spellusers then, yes, of course the use of the bottle is more limited.


The bottle creates a cloud that obscures everyone in the area. Everyone is the area includes your allies. Unless you somehow have no allies, then your allies will be blinded by the cloud. No matter when you use the bottle, you will be blinding your allies. The only to get around this is to run away from your allies and directly into the group of enemies. And even then, if everybody is within melee range of each other, the bottle still hits your allies.



The ogre would normally not be the one shadowing a group. But let us say 5 sneaky kobolds follow the group. They then see the group vanishing in thin air after climbing a rope. Some remain in the area. Some return to the BBEG who then gets a spellcraft check. If the opponents have no idea about magic then, yes, the rope trick is fairly safe, of course. (increasingly unlikely, the higher the level).


Yes, this makes for an interesting encounter. Once. If you do this every single game session it gets old and makes it seem as if you just hate casters. And if you are using this tactic to "balance" the game, then you will be doing it every game session.



Ah...double standard alarm getting off. Soo...the fighter getting a cohort to go on adventures with him (which I never suggested btw, I only see the cohort as backup character, to best to provide buff spells or flavour) is a no-no.
But sorcerers, wizards running around with their familiars, druids and rangers with their animal companion, evil clerics with their collected undead etc. are OK, I guess? Incredible.


Do you see the difference between an Animal Companion, which is a specific class feature of the Druid and labeled as such in the PHB and a feat which is a.) available to all and b.) entirely subject to DM will. If the Cohort was a fighter class ability then nobody would have a problem with your ideas, but it's not and you need to stop treating it that way.



Yep. Cast gate. Win encounter. Get trouble afterwards. Not a great winning strategy in the long run, only with DM fiat ignoring the unwilling part.


Well then he Gates in something else to deal with the first Gate. And so on till infinity. Meanwhile the fighter died in the first encounter. What's your point again?



You. Will. Not. Set. Up. The. Smoke. If. It. Is. On. Balance. Not. Useful. For. Your. Party.


You. Can. Not. Avoid. Hurting. Your. Party. Physics. Just. Works. That. Way.

Yes. This is the reason why the permanencied stuff is so much cheaper than magic items. Balance, once again.



Yep, but consider what else happens with you if you normally rely on weapons and armour. Your +x armour melds into you, no more shield use, and your magic weapons are gone. And the DEX is often reduced. So the net gain is much less for AC.
The treant form is highly specific and can even carry more disadvantages in some situations (in most dungeons it will not fit due to its height).
The Hydra's many heads are powerful for attack, but it is slow and can be outrun by almost all opponents (you need another round to overcome that with a fly spell to overcome that, during which a lot of stuff can happen both to the caster and the recipient).
Polymorph is a powerful spell, but not all-powerful. Look at other fourth level spells. Look at what classes can do at 7th level.


What can other classes do at 7th level?
Fighter - gets nothing at 7, lets look at 6. Ooh, he gets a feat at 6. Lets look at what feats are available. Weapon Spec? Improved Trip? Great Cleave? You really think these are comparable to a spell that allows you to turn into a Babau? You may not have a MM handy but here are a few goodies from the Babau stat block:
- Free sneak attack
- Dispel Magic at Will
- See Invisibility at Will
- Greater Teleport at Will
- Str 21, Dex 12, Con 20. (better stats than that fighter)

And that's just one critter, if you have access to MM1-5 you can really go to town. And since you ARE playing a wizard, it would be entirely in character for you to have indepth knowledge of different types of extraplanar and magical creatures. Maybe even toss a few skill points in Knowledge(The planes)




Yes, nice. But the familiar turned into a war troll for melee with half the wizard's hp is inviting desaster. Best to remain hidden (or you painstakinly need to put a lot of effort to turn your familiar into a good meleer).
At 17th level+ if a wizard and his familiar are stupid enough to turn into dragons with their hps and melee vs the fighter they are quite dead quite quickly.
Ah, and again: force dragon is non-core.


You forget that the familiar gains the con of whatever it polymorphs into. Just turn into something with 30+ Con like a Glaabrezu (12th level!!) and voila, he now gains a good 120hp. Most fighters at that level with at best 18 con will have 10 + (11 * 5.5) + 48 = 10 + 83 + 48 = 141 hp. Unless your familiar has 21 hp at 12th level, he has more hp than the fighter. And at higher level, monsters have even higher con bonuses.

Interesting note btw, PaO is permanent if teh duration factor is 9+, so if you Polymorph into a Creature of the same size and lower intelligence it is automatically permanent.



50gp potions as among the cheapest magical items are available in villages already, I guess (do not have the DMG near here).
-

[QUOTE=Sir Giacomo;3665623]
Yes, but even if you touch the warded creature the spell does not end. It is as with the invisibility spell. Why is this so difficult to get? Is it so hard to swallow that the completely overrated animal companion is brought down to the realistic levels so easily?


Unfortunately for your argument, the text of Invisiblity states that the spell ends if the subject attacks any creature Hide from Animals instead states if the subjects attacks any creature or touches any animal that second part is the key difference. And why the spell doesn't work so well against intelligent foes and not stupid animals.



Probably only from summon nature ally VI onwards to get the 4 necessary large creatures to cover the 8 squares around the warded creature. Best just surround the warded creature with a wall of thorns. But the hide from animal spell is there to delay, and a powerful countertactics to animals at low levels.
The druid needs to waste actions to first notice something is odd, then push his ac to either attack or waste a full-round summon to surround with more animals not realising where the warded creature is (and those cannot be pushed with only a move action to do as you like).
Probably you need to waste another standard action to cast speak with animals for the occasion.
And during all this time the warded creature has time to buff. Or the druid ignores his animal companion's fate and does what he does best anyhow: cast spells directly at the opponent.


Ok, so the fighter just wasted gold (and UMD skill points) to do what exactly? Stand there like an idiot until the Druid can Save or Die him? Not engage in his class role, i.e. combat? Why didn't he just cast the "buffs" that he was planning to instead of Hide from Animals in the first place?



Yes. But then the combat is already over, with flight superiority of the fly-enhanced fighter/rogue/jmonk/whoever.


How is the combat over? So the fighter can fly. He can't fly faster than the druid, and the druid already has a head start, so he's not going to catch up. Fighter just wasted his gold on an item that doesn't even help him, so he's at a combat disadvantage anyway.



Fighter burning cash had nothing to do with my point.
No metagaming involved if you realise with spellcraft what spell has been cast (if it is already in effect you cannot use spellcraft since the effect is not visible. Rightous might is a different matter, though).


Spellcraft is a cross-class skill for fighters. Which, if you've been following teh math so far means that the fighter generally has a poor chance at spellcraft succeeding, unless he wastes feats on it. If he wastes feats on it, then he won't be as good in combat.

What he means by wasting money is that Divine Power also hands the Cleric a +6 bonus to strength and more hitpoints. For the fighter to get these, he'd have to purchase a magic potion, hence burning money.



Who cares if those are all spells? Feats are also available to all, so what is your point here?


Exactly, feats are available to all, spells are available to spellcasters. Using spells to prove fighter balance is just wrong.



Plus, if you want to summon a dire bear (6th level spell) and animal growth it and your companion (5th level spell) and waste one full round and one standard action to do so (and you need to do it close to combat because those are short-running spells) - do you really think that is so much better than casting stoneskin on a fighter and then mass bear's endurance on the whole party at those levels? Those last longer, take shorter to cast and can hardly be evaded even by a clever enemy.


Oh, sure, but the Dire Bear/Animal Growth thing works well enough and people tend to be glory hogs. If you can be awesome and kickass, people tend to go that route rather than passing the buck to someone else when possible. Heck, they'll generally even do it when its a detriment. If the only reason to include the fighter in the combat is charity, there's a problem with the game's balance.

Lets me put it this way, we have a fighter named Bob. Bob is an ok fighter, hasn't been to the CharOp boards, doesn't have an uber build, just a greatsword and Power Attack sorta guy. We also have cleric Dave. Dave is also an ok cleric. No DMM cheese, no crazy Domains or PrCs, just simple core.

They run into a problem, there's a band of Orcs around the bend that's too tough for them to handle. The scenario could go two ways. One, Dave can buff Bob and Bob can kill the Orcs. Two, Dave can buff himself and go kill the Orcs. Either scenario works just fine, which do you think Dave is gonna pick? Trust me, most of teh time, Dave will pick scenario two because then he has n awesome story about "how he totally took down 3 Orcs (oh and Bob helped too)".

This is fine until Bob realizes that as time goes on, Dave doesn't really need him around. Bob needs Dave for buffs, but Dave doesn't need Bob. Bob gets frustrated. Bob stops having as much fun.

horseboy
2007-12-16, 06:48 PM
Again, why is there an INT 34 Wizard fighting such lowly creatures?

Uh, they're attacking the village where he gets his fresh eggs from and he wants his breakfast! CURSES for all!

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-16, 07:17 PM
Hi Snooder,

well, I must say you do not raise any new points, and make (like so many uber caster believers) again quite blatant rules mistakes. Those I correct, plus pull your Bob story back to gaming reality. But that suffices (I do not need to repeat myself again and again replying to oddities like ninjas every morning and stupidly played fighters who will smoke their allies without any gain).




I remember that build. IIRC it involved heavy use of bane arrows and disposable magic items. That build was completely useless for anything except killing that one specific Balor, and would be unable to repeat the trick afterward. The build was measured, judged and ultimately found to be interesting but still indicative of how weak the fighter is.

Ah, that needs clarifying. The bears with lasers challenge was to show that a lvl 20 fighter can still contribute by at least being able to defeat a balor.
This that fighter did in 1 round.
The material in particular devoted to do that were some bane arrows. Those constituted less than 5% of the total wealth. The rest of the character was quite good to go against other lvl 20 challenges.
It was not found "indicative of how weak the fighter is". The only thing greenknight showed was that a highly specialised cleric archer was able to do the same (but unable to defeat the balor in 1 round) and then go on defeating a tarrasque (which he was able to do) and the said fighter (which I still doubt he was able to do reliably -among other stuff he relied heavily on polymorph any object with which he turned into an outsider, and realise on repeated reading of the spell that it should not be possible. But I have to admit that that cleric archer was better than the fighter archer I built. However, no general indication of a "weak" fighter class was found after that build was able to do what it did.)


Do you see the difference between an Animal Companion, which is a specific class feature of the Druid and labeled as such in the PHB and a feat which is a.) available to all and b.) entirely subject to DM will. If the Cohort was a fighter class ability then nobody would have a problem with your ideas, but it's not and you need to stop treating it that way.

Fighters get feats. Leadership is a feat. So it is a class ability. Others have already companions. They receive a leadership score penalty due to this. The fighter not.
Admittedly, this class ability is more indirect, but it is still something which sets apart the fighter from other classes.


Well then he Gates in something else to deal with the first Gate. And so on till infinity. Meanwhile the fighter died in the first encounter. What's your point again?

Wrong. First gated creature comes to seek vengeance. Is way superior to caster who gated at first. Before caster can cast gate again, first gated creature attacks.
Even if caster is able to cast gate, it is a 50% chance of that new gated creature will be able to defeat 1st gated creature to protect caster. And only for x rounds. And that 2nd creature may be unwilling, as well. And so on till, not till infinity, but until certain caster death. What's your point again?


You. Can. Not. Avoid. Hurting. Your. Party. Physics. Just. Works. That. Way.

Ah, very funny. So in your view everytime a caster casts black tentacles, he will also affect the party? Or wait...he will wait for the right moment? YES! Casters would do that. But not non-casters with items. Those must be played stupid in your view (likely you are among those as well who expect a non-caster activating AMF when a caster opponent is flying safely 100ft away).


What can other classes do at 7th level?
Fighter - gets nothing at 7, lets look at 6. Ooh, he gets a feat at 6. Lets look at what feats are available. Weapon Spec? Improved Trip? Great Cleave? You really think these are comparable to a spell that allows you to turn into a Babau? You may not have a MM handy but here are a few goodies from the Babau stat block:
- Free sneak attack
- Dispel Magic at Will
- See Invisibility at Will
- Greater Teleport at Will
- Str 21, Dex 12, Con 20. (better stats than that fighter)

Wow, lots of wrongness ensues. A simple rule clarification will help you: you cannot turn into an outsider with polymorph. Wait for 15th level to do that with polymorph any object (and even that is not worded clearly enough, so to be safe with the DM wait for shapechange at lvl 17th). And you definitely have to wait for shapechange to use any supernatural abilities (never, though, the spell-like abilities).Likewise no spell powers are gained (like the cleric spells of a solar).
Ah, and btw, while the wizard gains some natural armour bonus in polymorph treant form or whatever, rogues do 3 attacks at 4d6 sneak each and fighters may be able to shoot 4 arrows per round (you know, the kind of stuff ridiculuous feats do). Never underestimate the power of the non-caster classes.


And that's just one critter, if you have access to MM1-5 you can really go to town. And since you ARE playing a wizard, it would be entirely in character for you to have indepth knowledge of different types of extraplanar and magical creatures. Maybe even toss a few skill points in Knowledge(The planes)

More wrongness.
We are talking core here (see OP and title of the thread). So no MM 2-5.
Then, as a caster you do not know all of the MM creature abilities out there. Read the knowledge skill and it will give you quite a bit of revelation for your intended cheese.:smallwink:
Yes, it WOULD be appropriate to know stuff about magic. But not without
raising the appropriate skills. No freebee here.
Ahhh. The power of rules and balance...enjoy very much rules inferiority of uber caster believers....:smallbiggrin:


You forget that the familiar gains the con of whatever it polymorphs into. Just turn into something with 30+ Con like a Glaabrezu (12th level!!) and voila, he now gains a good 120hp. Most fighters at that level with at best 18 con will have 10 + (11 * 5.5) + 48 = 10 + 83 + 48 = 141 hp. Unless your familiar has 21 hp at 12th level, he has more hp than the fighter. And at higher level, monsters have even higher con bonuses.

Oh please continue, you make me laugh so much.
But to help you out: hp do not change with polymorph. Read alter self on which the whole polymorph tree is based. Only the other stuff CON affects like saves and skills are modified.
Ah, and btw, a minor drawback: you lose your own racial abilities (like the human extra feat and skill points) when you morph. Cool, eh?


Interesting note btw, PaO is permanent if teh duration factor is 9+, so if you Polymorph into a Creature of the same size and lower intelligence it is automatically permanent.

Yeah, great idea, turn into something more stupid. Permanently.:smallcool:



Lets me put it this way, we have a fighter named Bob. Bob is an ok fighter, hasn't been to the CharOp boards, doesn't have an uber build, just a greatsword and Power Attack sorta guy.

Which in lvls 1-4 at the very least happens to completely dominate melee and probably also overall combat.


We also have cleric Dave. Dave is also an ok cleric. No DMM cheese, no crazy Domains or PrCs, just simple core.

Yes, like what this thread is about.


They run into a problem, there's a band of Orcs around the bend that's too tough for them to handle.

Band of orcs sounds like we are still in the 1-4 level range scenario. Let us see what you believe happens in combat.


The scenario could go two ways. One, Dave can buff Bob and Bob can kill the Orcs.

Yep, a nice buff would be Bull's strength. This with power attack and greatsword means an additional +7 damage per hit. Not bad, eh?


Two, Dave can buff himself and go kill the Orcs.

Yep, he could cast bull's strength on himself, melee the orcs with less hp, with less initial STR likely, with likely no power attack and no greatsword.


Either scenario works just fine, which do you think Dave is gonna pick? Trust me, most of teh time, Dave will pick scenario two because then he has n awesome story about "how he totally took down 3 Orcs (oh and Bob helped too)".

So you are saying that the rules advocate some players behaving like stupid egoists? Even though the rules encourage otherwise?
Yes, if you do a lot of houseruling and assuming stupid fighter players you may come to that conclusion, yes.


This is fine until Bob realizes that as time goes on, Dave doesn't really need him around. Bob needs Dave for buffs, but Dave doesn't need Bob. Bob gets frustrated. Bob stops having as much fun.

And this is also a major misperception around here. Even IF the casters become incredibly more powerful than non-casters or fighters at high levels (which I do not believe), those non-casters will still be able to contribute greatly with caster buffs. In a group game, you remember that the fighter and non-casters saved your butt in the early levels and do the same for them at higher levels.

- Giacomo

Armads
2007-12-16, 08:37 PM
Ah, that needs clarifying. The bears with lasers challenge was to show that a lvl 20 fighter can still contribute by at least being able to defeat a balor.
This that fighter did in 1 round.
The material in particular devoted to do that were some bane arrows. Those constituted less than 5% of the total wealth. The rest of the character was quite good to go against other lvl 20 challenges.
It was not found "indicative of how weak the fighter is". The only thing greenknight showed was that a highly specialised cleric archer was able to do the same (but unable to defeat the balor in 1 round) and then go on defeating a tarrasque (which he was able to do) and the said fighter (which I still doubt he was able to do reliably -among other stuff he relied heavily on polymorph any object with which he turned into an outsider, and realise on repeated reading of the spell that it should not be possible. But I have to admit that that cleric archer was better than the fighter archer I built. However, no general indication of a "weak" fighter class was found after that build was able to do what it did.)

So a specific build refutes claims that a class is a weak one?



Fighters get feats. Leadership is a feat. So it is a class ability. Others have already companions. They receive a leadership score penalty due to this. The fighter not.
Admittedly, this class ability is more indirect, but it is still something which sets apart the fighter from other classes.

Leadership is not a fighter bonus feat. Also, following your logic, Leadership is a wizard class ability because they get feats too. So does every single player character in the game. Leadership is a commoner class ability!



Wrong. First gated creature comes to seek vengeance. Is way superior to caster who gated at first. Before caster can cast gate again, first gated creature attacks.

Why would the gated creature be angry at the caster? The caster can diplomacy it to friendly/helpful and beyond.



Ah, very funny. So in your view everytime a caster casts black tentacles, he will also affect the party? Or wait...he will wait for the right moment? YES! Casters would do that. But not non-casters with items. Those must be played stupid in your view (likely you are among those as well who expect a non-caster activating AMF when a caster opponent is flying safely 100ft away).

And what is the right moment to activate an eversmoking bottle? Obscuring mist is better, anyway.



Wow, lots of wrongness ensues. A simple rule clarification will help you: you cannot turn into an outsider with polymorph. Wait for 15th level to do that with polymorph any object (and even that is not worded clearly enough, so to be safe with the DM wait for shapechange at lvl 17th). And you definitely have to wait for shapechange to use any supernatural abilities (never, though, the spell-like abilities).Likewise no spell powers are gained (like the cleric spells of a solar).

Yeah, this is correct.



Ah, and btw, while the wizard gains some natural armour bonus in polymorph treant form or whatever, rogues do 3 attacks at 4d6 sneak each and fighters may be able to shoot 4 arrows per round (you know, the kind of stuff ridiculuous feats do). Never underestimate the power of the non-caster classes.

Never underestimate the power of the caster classes. The rogue gets 3 attacks at 4d6 SA each, the fighter can shoot arrows, blah, while the caster can still CAST HIS SPELLS AT FULL EFFICIENCY, WITH ADDITIONAL NATURAL ARMOR TO BOOT?



More wrongness.
We are talking core here (see OP and title of the thread). So no MM 2-5.
Then, as a caster you do not know all of the MM creature abilities out there. Read the knowledge skill and it will give you quite a bit of revelation for your intended cheese.:smallwink:

Why so? Why would a fighter know about the existence of Power Attack, or of the Polymorph spell himself?



Yes, it WOULD be appropriate to know stuff about magic. But not without
raising the appropriate skills. No freebee here.
Ahhh. The power of rules and balance...enjoy very much rules inferiority of uber caster believers....:smallbiggrin:

So the wizard raises his Knowledge (arcana) skill. And his Knowledge (whatever) skill. Because, you know, he has a lot of skill points to toss around, being a Wizard.



Oh please continue, you make me laugh so much.
But to help you out: hp do not change with polymorph. Read alter self on which the whole polymorph tree is based. Only the other stuff CON affects like saves and skills are modified.
Ah, and btw, a minor drawback: you lose your own racial abilities (like the human extra feat and skill points) when you morph. Cool, eh?

Correct here.




<Stuff about comparison between Fighter and Cleric at low levels>


Yes, Fighters dominate at levels 1-4. So? After the Bull's Strength, Dave will probably have to heal Bob. And Bob will probably have taken more damage than Dave, because Dave has Shield of Faith, and other buffs. Also, Divine Favor makes up for the BAB loss (but not for power attack, but power attack is weak at lower levels).



So you are saying that the rules advocate some players behaving like stupid egoists? Even though the rules encourage otherwise?
Yes, if you do a lot of houseruling and assuming stupid fighter players you may come to that conclusion, yes.

Why would the cleric buff the fighter when the cleric has better things to buff (like a druid's summons or the druid's dog).



And this is also a major misperception around here. Even IF the casters become incredibly more powerful than non-casters or fighters at high levels (which I do not believe), those non-casters will still be able to contribute greatly with caster buffs. In a group game, you remember that the fighter and non-casters saved your butt in the early levels and do the same for them at higher levels.

But the casters WILL save the butts of the non-casters many more times (resurrection, teleport, MMM, plane shift, etc) and after a while, a melee fighter isn't going to be able to take on a dragon, while the casters can.

Azukius
2007-12-16, 09:55 PM
Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong posts!

Snooder
2007-12-17, 01:12 AM
Fighters get feats. Leadership is a feat. So it is a class ability. Others have already companions. They receive a leadership score penalty due to this. The fighter not.
Admittedly, this class ability is more indirect, but it is still something which sets apart the fighter from other classes.


Everyone gets feats. A class ability is something that is distinct to the class and separate from what other classes get. Sneak Attack is a class ability because not every class has Sneak Attack. Spellcasting is a class ability because not every class has Spellcasting. Rage is a class ability. See where this goes? Leadership is available to every class, hence it is not a class ability.

The problem with the 3.5 fighter is and always has been that all of it's power comes from feats. Not that it has more feats than everyone else, but that it ONLY has feats. Technically, the fighter only feats are supposed to qualify, but as we have seen the Weapon Focus tree is just not up to the job.



Wrong. First gated creature comes to seek vengeance. Is way superior to caster who gated at first. Before caster can cast gate again, first gated creature attacks.
Even if caster is able to cast gate, it is a 50% chance of that new gated creature will be able to defeat 1st gated creature to protect caster. And only for x rounds. And that 2nd creature may be unwilling, as well. And so on till, not till infinity, but until certain caster death. What's your point again?


My point is that while the caster and the DM are fighting back and forth with chained Gates and Outsider vs Outsider battles, the fighter died to the original encounter. Even if the caster eventually succumbed, he STILL gets to live longer.



Ah, very funny. So in your view everytime a caster casts black tentacles, he will also affect the party? Or wait...he will wait for the right moment? YES! Casters would do that. But not non-casters with items. Those must be played stupid in your view (likely you are among those as well who expect a non-caster activating AMF when a caster opponent is flying safely 100ft away).


Yes, the caster will indeed hurt the party if he casts Evard's Black Tentacles. So what? It doesn't make the Eversmoking Bottle not hurt the party either.

And btw, I don't expect a fighter to activate AMF when the caster is flying safely far away. I expect him not to have it at all. Why? Because its a spell and it's far more reasonable to expect a fighter not have a spell. Remember how UMD is a cross-class skill for a class with few skill points?



Wow, lots of wrongness ensues. A simple rule clarification will help you: you cannot turn into an outsider with polymorph. Wait for 15th level to do that with polymorph any object (and even that is not worded clearly enough, so to be safe with the DM wait for shapechange at lvl 17th). And you definitely have to wait for shapechange to use any supernatural abilities (never, though, the spell-like abilities).Likewise no spell powers are gained (like the cleric spells of a solar).
Ah, and btw, while the wizard gains some natural armour bonus in polymorph treant form or whatever, rogues do 3 attacks at 4d6 sneak each and fighters may be able to shoot 4 arrows per round (you know, the kind of stuff ridiculuous feats do). Never underestimate the power of the non-caster classes.


Sorry, don't play casters often enough to know the rules on Polymorph off the top of my head. Didn't notice that outsiders require PaO. However, the rules in the PHB specifically state that you get all special attacks of the critter you turn into. Special Attacks include spell-like abilities.

Yes, the fighter can do 4 arrows per round. The fighter also does this at a -4 to hit for each. Which means that his second 2 shots are at an effective -2 BAB. Like that's gonna hit.



More wrongness.
We are talking core here (see OP and title of the thread). So no MM 2-5.
Then, as a caster you do not know all of the MM creature abilities out there. Read the knowledge skill and it will give you quite a bit of revelation for your intended cheese.:smallwink:
Yes, it WOULD be appropriate to know stuff about magic. But not without
raising the appropriate skills. No freebee here.
Ahhh. The power of rules and balance...enjoy very much rules inferiority of uber caster believers....:smallbiggrin:


Here's the thing though, nothing in the rules for Polymorph states that the caster has to make a knowledge check to know about the creature. The Player simply says what he turns into. Now the DM can (and should) require a knowledge check for outlandish critters, but doing so is a, say it with me, houserule. One specifically designed to curb that sort of excessiveness.



Oh please continue, you make me laugh so much.
But to help you out: hp do not change with polymorph. Read alter self on which the whole polymorph tree is based. Only the other stuff CON affects like saves and skills are modified.
Ah, and btw, a minor drawback: you lose your own racial abilities (like the human extra feat and skill points) when you morph. Cool, eh?


Con does not change in Alter Self, it does for Polymorph. Unless there has been an errata I'm not aware of, it would make sense that when Con changes, so does HP.



Yeah, great idea, turn into something more stupid. Permanently.:smallcool:


Polymorph Any Object does not change mental stats.



Which in lvls 1-4 at the very least happens to completely dominate melee and probably also overall combat.

Yes, like what this thread is about.

Band of orcs sounds like we are still in the 1-4 level range scenario. Let us see what you believe happens in combat.

Yep, a nice buff would be Bull's strength. This with power attack and greatsword means an additional +7 damage per hit. Not bad, eh?

Yep, he could cast bull's strength on himself, melee the orcs with less hp, with less initial STR likely, with likely no power attack and no greatsword.


Maybe I was wrong in making certain assumptions. I shall rectify them now. Everybody knows that Fighters are just fine at low levels (i.e. from about 3-8). I was assuming that you knew the scenario, and indeed any discussion of fighter weakness is at levels above 8. The orcs are simply an iconic name for D&D baddies. If you wanna be more specific to higher level play, lets call em Giants or Golems.

The simple truth that you have avoided is that Dave is capable of fighting off the [insert name here] by himself, while Bob is not. Why? Because Dave can buff himself while Bob can't. Your solution is to simply say that Dave should buff Bob, but you keep ignoring the fact that he doesn't have to. If he doesn't have to, why should he? That's the question that needs to be answered.



So you are saying that the rules advocate some players behaving like stupid egoists? Even though the rules encourage otherwise?


The point is the rules do not "encourage" otherwise. If they did, there wouldn't be a general trend toward "Fighters suck" threads. Ever see a "Clerics suck", 'Rogues are too weak" or "Here's how to fix the Sorcerer" thread? No. That should tell you something about what the rules "encourage".



And this is also a major misperception around here. Even IF the casters become incredibly more powerful than non-casters or fighters at high levels (which I do not believe), those non-casters will still be able to contribute greatly with caster buffs. In a group game, you remember that the fighter and non-casters saved your butt in the early levels and do the same for them at higher levels.


Unfortunately, there are a couple of things wrong with your statement.

Let me put the first problem in the context of Dave and Bob. Sure Dave and Bob were rolling along just fine for the first few months, but now Bob is feeling useless. Should Dave stop enjoying himself just to throw Bob a few charity buffs? Will Bob appreciate being a charity case? The answer to both of those is no.

The second is that in 3.5 casters aren't as badly off at low levels as they were in 2nd ed. A caster is still a meaningful contributor to the group even at first level. Sleep, grease and magic missile have saved many a low level party. So try to concede, just for the instance, that casters do make fighters useless at high levels. Since casters and fighters are both useful at low levels, it would make sense that fighters are mechanically worse off.

Maybe it seems to you Giacomo that I'm supporting casters or saying that they should be more powerful than fighters. I am not. I'm saying that the core rules are broken, or rather poorly designed, to give them an unnecessary and undeserved advantage. I'm saying this because I'm Bob, and I know several people who are Bob. I'm also saying this because I've DMed and when I did I noticed how integral spellcasting was to the party at high levels, and how not so integral was sword-swinging. Of course as a DM you try to fix the imbalances, but those are houserules.

I'll end with this. Open Tome of Battle. Take out the Warblade. Compare it to a core fighter. The Warblade is far more powerful, no? Now compare the Warblade to a core caster. The Warblade is about equal to the core caster isn't he? Certainly not more powerful. By simple logic this should indicate that the core fighter is far less powerful than the core caster.

Talic
2007-12-17, 02:12 AM
Why is it that when someone asks "What's wrong with fighter", the first thing everyone says is, "Because cleric is..."

Doesn't that point to a problem with cleric, and not fighter?

My personal opinion? Too many spells. It's too easy to add a dash of this, and a dash of that, and get the perfect recipe for a delicious cheese. Every major arguement that argues against the effectiveness of fighter starts with "A cleric with Divine Power..."

So nix it. No divine power. It's an example of a cleric spell that practically clones the fighter, and takes away from his/her goodness. Poof! Gone.

Perhaps instead, you'd say that such a spell wouldn't be so powerful, as it's got a short duration, if it weren't so easily extended to a 24 hour buff. Fine. Either nix persistent spell, or nix DMM.

There are ways to tone things down to let the melee classes shine. But nobody wants to LOWER the power curve. Everyone wants to raise it.

Snooder
2007-12-17, 02:35 AM
There are ways to tone things down to let the melee classes shine. But nobody wants to LOWER the power curve. Everyone wants to raise it.

Well, lots of people want to lower the power curve too, but generally people don't enjoy nerfing stuff.

The people playing clerics, wizards, e.t.c. are having tons of fun. It's just the poor fighter guys who aren't. Lowering the caster power may not guarantee that the fighter ends up having fun, but it sure will ruin the caster's fun. And besides, lots of high level encounters require the power of the casters. Nerfing their power would put ECL behind CR and then DMs won't be able to toss out cool monsters and players would feel shafted. Imagine if players were facing regular goblins at level 10 and only got to face dragons at level 30. (not accurate I know, but the exaggeration illustrates the point more clearly) Doesn't really matter since level is an abstract number anyway, but when you've come to expect a certain amount of power, anything less is a disappointment.

On the other hand, if you pump the fighter up to caster level, then the fighter can contribute, everyone gets to have fun, and maybe they fight CRs above their ECL. Now instead of disappointment you get pride as people talk about taking out a a dragon at "only" level 10.

Wordmiser
2007-12-17, 02:44 AM
Yes, the caster will indeed hurt the party if he casts Evard's Black Tentacles. This is less likely for the Tentacles (with a variable range) than it is for the Bottle (whose effect is centered around the Bottle itself) unless the Bottle-user is for some reason seperated from the rest of the party.
___

Con does not change in Alter Self, it does for Polymorph. Unless there has been an errata I'm not aware of, it would make sense that when Con changes, so does HP.
You apparently have missed an errata. Polymorph doesn't modify hit points at all.
___

Polymorph Any Object does not change mental stats.


Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form. If the original form didn’t have a Wisdom or Charisma score, it gains those scores as appropriate for the new form.
___
And in general, to improve the balance between Casters and Non-Casters, break out of Core (where there will be maybe four feats that actually help a non-caster build) and kill the spellcasting advancement of the first level of every prestige class.

If the class has an 8/10 or 5/10 spellcasting progression, rearrange the non-casting levels to PrC level 1, but keep the overall casting advancement the same (Spellsword, for instance, would start spellcasting advancement at level 2 rather than level 1, but keep 5 caster levels overall. This would probably mean shifting all the levels around to keep the class interesting in more than 2-level segments).

This would not make the classes equal, but it would discourage some of the "something-for-nothing" tradeoffs that show up so often.

Jack Zander
2007-12-17, 02:55 AM
This topic wins the longest posts ever world record.

Seriously, contact Guinness and put your names in the book.

Talic
2007-12-17, 03:00 AM
Well, lots of people want to lower the power curve too, but generally people don't enjoy nerfing stuff.

The people playing clerics, wizards, e.t.c. are having tons of fun. It's just the poor fighter guys who aren't. Lowering the caster power may not guarantee that the fighter ends up having fun, but it sure will ruin the caster's fun. And besides, lots of high level encounters require the power of the casters. Nerfing their power would put ECL behind CR and then DMs won't be able to toss out cool monsters and players would feel shafted. Imagine if players were facing regular goblins at level 10 and only got to face dragons at level 30. (not accurate I know, but the exaggeration illustrates the point more clearly) Doesn't really matter since level is an abstract number anyway, but when you've come to expect a certain amount of power, anything less is a disappointment.

On the other hand, if you pump the fighter up to caster level, then the fighter can contribute, everyone gets to have fun, and maybe they fight CRs above their ECL. Now instead of disappointment you get pride as people talk about taking out a a dragon at "only" level 10.

I'm reminded of the line from the Incredibles... "And then, when everyone's special... No one will be." Things such as dragons should be put into perspective in the high end of the CR system. For those ancients, you SHOULD be looking at a minimum level of 17.

Removing the spells which allow a cleric to copy a fighter, or at least limiting it (Tenser's Transformation, for example, makes arcanes unable to cast... that drawback alone would make it unfeasable to persist), will not nerf or break the CR system. Clerics and other casters will still be able to make a powerful contribution. They'll just have their fingers out of the fighter's cheerios.

Kaelik
2007-12-17, 03:50 AM
I'm reminded of the line from the Incredibles... "And then, when everyone's special... No one will be." Things such as dragons should be put into perspective in the high end of the CR system. For those ancients, you SHOULD be looking at a minimum level of 17.

Well first of all, no one is going to be taking on CR 20 Dragons at level 10 even if the fighter is made as powerful as casters.

Secondly, this isn't about everyone being special. This is about the PCs being special.

Watch the movie over again, this time remove all the superpowers, or take away the powers from just one of them. Then see how much fun the movie/that one character is.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-17, 03:54 AM
Why would the gated creature be angry at the caster? The caster can diplomacy it to friendly/helpful and beyond.


Now THAT is actually a great idea. However, the only one capable to cast gate with diplomacy as a class skill to even get a chance at doing that is the cleric.
Plus, a lvl 20 cleric with good CHR (so, say, around +28 diplomacy skill) still faces a DC of 45 or 60 to turn a hostile creature into friendly or even helpful in 1 round.
Even getting the creature to indifferent still has a DC of 35, plus you have to spend in lvl 20 combat 1 full round to do so uninterrupted.
A good idea, but likewise no 100% safe way to cast gate.

@Snooder - sorry, I came across a bit too harsh in the last post, I guess. The problem is that from time to time I get worn out by uber caster arguments.
If you are indeed usually the player of Bob the fighter and even as a DM have no idea how to rein in caster power, here is some first advice as a DM or for your DM:
- spellcasters have drawbacks. As soon as you no longer ignore them, your game already gets more balanced quickly.
- you have to make clear to caster players that this is not spoiling fun or "nerfing", or otherwise it would be nerfing fighter characters that they do not get back their hit points overnight automatically, that they have a miss chance in combat or that due to their class specialisation (i.e. "fight") they have less to do outside adventures then book nerds coming up with new spells.
- there are many, many tactics vs spells, be it via spell (available to all) or non-spell means
- make use of magic items as intended by the DMG
- play the npcs and in particular the BBEG intelligently. They live in a world full of magic, not European middle ages which happens to have some pc spellcasters in it.

But I'll try to post a fighter build soon to replace these long discussion posts devoted to abstract concepts.

- Giacomo

Kompera
2007-12-17, 07:55 AM
Here's what's wrong with the core classes:

The iconic Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Paladin (i.e. all of the melee focused classes) are completely overpowered by the iconic Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, and Priest (i.e. full casting classes).

Equip the iconic melee type with +X armor, +Y shield, +Z weapons, the iconic magical items for melee characters, and they simply can not keep up with full casting types in groups at high levels.

It requires very careful builds and an awful lot of arguing about what is cheese and what is fair game under RAW to craft a melee type who is capable of holding her own in a group with full casters.

All of the builds which manage to look like a convincing equal to a full caster require maximizing one or more cross-class skills and spending WBL on esoteric magic items, and usually resources such as NPC casting and a brace of limited use items. These builds are quite atypical, and thus while possible will not be seen in most games.

The full caster, in stark contrast, needs only select spells and possibly some metamagic Feats to hold the upper hand in contributing a vast array of utility and combat potency to his group. You could even eliminate the metamagic Feats and the balance of power would not significantly change. These builds are quite typical and thus will be seen in most games.

And that is what is wrong with the core classes.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-17, 08:01 AM
Here's what's wrong with the core classes:

Excellent post, Kompera. A clear-cut answer to the murky fog of befuddlement in this thread.

Armads
2007-12-17, 08:02 AM
Now THAT is actually a great idea. However, the only one capable to cast gate with diplomacy as a class skill to even get a chance at doing that is the cleric.
Plus, a lvl 20 cleric with good CHR (so, say, around +28 diplomacy skill) still faces a DC of 45 or 60 to turn a hostile creature into friendly or even helpful in 1 round.
Even getting the creature to indifferent still has a DC of 35, plus you have to spend in lvl 20 combat 1 full round to do so uninterrupted.
A good idea, but likewise no 100% safe way to cast gate.


I was asking why the gated creature would be hostile to the caster in the first place. For example, if a cleric gated in a Solar to defend a city like Azure City (and requested a staff of wishes to defend it), would the Solar seek vengeance?

Also, Diplomacy has tons of synergy bonuses. With 5 ranks in Knowledge, Bluff and Sense Motive, the cleric gets a +6 synergy bonus, which is huge.

KoDT69
2007-12-17, 08:41 AM
OK I think this is a fair question... Can somebody please show me the optimal CZilla build that can out-fight the Fighter? Sure, I see where the wildshape Druid can really cheese it up on natural attacks, but the Cleric needs to be what level to outshine the Fighter in melee? Seriously, and how many rounds do you need? I am DMing a pretty high-powered FR style campaign where the characters are all 8th level. The Fighter is doing just fine between his bastard sword (normally 2-hands it) and his composite longbow. The Cleric does great with magic, but not in melee.

At 8th level in my current group Divine Power merely catches the Cleric up to the Fighter in STR and BAB, still grants nothing in the way of competing with the 2-h damage. Divine Favor puts him at +2/+2 over the Fighter compared only to a 1-handed weapon, which the Fighter is still 2-handing his sword and has a much improved critical threat range. And Power Attack, nuff said. So how long until the Fighter player is showed up? Even if the Cleric were to (stupidly) give up the metamagic feats and take up combat ones... :smallconfused:

greenknight
2007-12-17, 09:12 AM
Thanks! I have not given up hope to convince others yet, in particular you - that maxing contest of cleric and fighter archer really taught me a lot about the game (and I still laugh about the cleric using disguise self over the polymorphed devil form, thus giving no drawback when somebody uses true seeing).

On that point, here's the link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333&page=13) to the Fighter and Cleric we've been discussing (yes, I bookmarked it). Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see them both.


In my view the presence of the AMF spell alone guarantees a unique role for non-caster classes in high levels. Npc casting, cohorts and party members also play a big role.

Yeah, but as I and many others have been saying, how does a non-spellcaster get hold of that AMF?. Basically you're just proposing a spellcaster vs spellcaster combat with the non-spellcaster as the delivery system.


Some 9th level spells are considered uber only imo because of wrong interpretations - like time stop and gate (for instance, using gate in time stop is not possible since you cannot affect other creatures in a time stop).

Re-read Time Stop's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm) description. Summoning allies is an example of one of the things which can be done.


You see, while I greatly admired your cleric I had the feeling a lot more maxing fu went into it, and also depended on using very specific domains and the neutral alignment to do his tricks. The only thing I did with the fighter was accumulating archery feats and stacking bonuses from various sources. So my fighter build was easier to achieve.

It was a very specific build which could work for a wide range situations. But don't forget, your own build was very different to the typical Fighter. There aren't too many Fighters out there whose highest stat (tied with Dexterity) is Wisdom, for example.


Then, one must consider the road to level 20, and during all this time a fighter would shine in combat enough to, say, make the game worthwhile for all during levels 1-20 (that is, the fighter can still contribute enough in level 20 and his player will still have fun).

At level 1 - 6 (or so) in Core Rules, the Fighter and Barbarian are kings of the battlefield. They're closely followed by the Ranger, Paladin and Druid (with a combat worthy animal companion). After that, the Druid matches the Fighter and Barbarian in combat power, and has other very useful abilities outside of combat. And at level 11 or so, a Cleric who has a mind to joins that top tier of physical combatants, and the Cleric also has a big bag of other tricks. At that point the Fighter and Barbarian may as well go home because their combat role is filled and they just don't have enough other stuff they're particularly good at.


You forget the dependence on outside sources for your spells (except for the sorcerer, considered by many as the weakest of the four full spellcasting classes).

Because that's not a major drawback. Ok, so maybe the Wizard's spellbook can be destroyed or stolen, which is pretty bad for that character, but it's a very unwise Wizard who doesn't have backups with the most important spells in them. And a Divine caster's divine focus could also be stolen or destroyed, but they're very easy to replace. The only thing left is a divine caster violating their faith, but as long as the caster is in control of his or her actions (ie, not failed a will save vs dominate type effects), that's extremely unlikely to happen.


It is fairly easy for an intelligently played opponent to counter that tactics: shadow the pcs after they raided his lair.

That's why you have someone in the party with good spot/listen skills. Like a Druid....


Then, set up an ambush around the rope trick area. If the opponent has access to magic, he then even could use dispel magic (by 5th level not too uncommon) to make the pcs drop out of thin air, falling prone.

Rope Trick does leave a window which the inhabitants can see through (but it's a one way window only), so those trying to set up an ambush had better stay out of the line of view.


AMF zones should be rare. But as I said above, that is not the real problem for spellcasters. Ah, and you can bet that an AMF zone will be placed by the DM for a reason, as part of the adventure, and not just at random to be ignored at leisure.

If they aren't caused by the spell, I call these dead magic areas (or zones). And generally PCs are better off staying out of them because they will be without their magical buffs. I know that sometimes DMs set up important clues in areas like that, but even so the danger for the PCs as a whole is greatly increased in areas like that.


Yep, true. I must admit for the fighter to stay competitive in the magic-powered high levels, he should have more of the following as class skills: UMD, spellcraft, spot, listen.

There's no valid reason why Fighters should have UMD and Spellcraft as class skills. Spot and Listen I'll agree with because Fighters often serve as guards.


But truth to tell, due to the sheer combat superiority of the fighter in lvls 1-6, an area where most players play, it is not a fighter's core area to shine in non-caster anti-caster tactics. That is the monk's role.

The Fighter and Barbarian are the best, but they aren't all that superior in levels 1 - 6.


For key encounters, scrolls of the potentially decisive AMF can help, though.

The problem is that as your character gets into the high levels, several encounters per day are going to be situations where AMF etc can help. You'll be burning gold.


For instance, vs the feared MMM as a non-caster you could do the following:
A fellow non-caster pc or cohort with great stealth skills and polymorphed any object into something extremely small (fine size) sneaks into the MMM caster's equipment before he escapes and MMMs. Then you simply scry your friend, and tadaa- MMM caster is open for attack.

This might work, although getting into the equipment in the first place might pose some difficulty.


Additionally, the spell mind blank used on non-casters (in a scenario of a full caster going against non-casters) means that the caster has to come out to get you when there is a conflict of interest. So, no great MMM use here.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If it's the needle in a haystack scenario (where one character has to find another), Mind Blank means even a 1st level commoner can get away with little chance of detection.


No. Shutting down all of them with superior DM knowledge would be unfair, like opponents only attacking the non-casters while casters cast safely always.

It's often deliberately set up that way, with the non-casters effectively serving as a shield wall for the casters.


But casters will at one point or another occasionally run out of the tricks they need (remember, most excepting sorcerer and the bard cannot change their tactics on a fly - and if they leave open spellslots they are vulnerable during the learning time).

But a wand of Rope Trick will allow them to take the time they need for that. Divine casters can't do that particular trick though, so they need to give a bit more thought to having a flexible set of spells prepared.
9th level spells are also considered more powerful than 1st level spells.


So why shouldn' there be feats more powerful than other feats which make more sense/are available only at higher levels?

By that logic, Feats which are harder to qualify for than leadership (like Whirlwind Attack and Greater Weapon Specialization) should be much better than leadership is. They aren't.


How in your view then should the DM let an epically powerful creature react that is "unwilling"ly called to do the pc's petty (in the view of that creature's) bidding?

If you want the RAW interpretation, exactly as written - it goes away at the end of the spell. If you want to actually balance Gate, then having it return to get revenge for being used that way sounds reasonable.


the creature called may be evaded by opponents of that level, while the summoned super creature is only there 1 rnd/level

That would depend on whether the opponent has already been Dimension Locked. If so, getting away might be difficult.


the pc will almost NEVER know what exactly the called creatures can do. The knowledge skills are fairly specific on this to avoid the typical player metagaming to know the monster manual by heart and then summon/call creatures with the best SLA or supernatural ability. It is ENTIRELY up to the DM, btw to let a pc caster even remotely know which creatures can grant wishes.

It seems to me that high level PCs are going to know of at least some very powerful creatures, even if they don't have the best SL or supernatural abilities. And it wouldn't be beyond their capablities to find out which creatures can grant wishes, either.


Necklace of adaptation is the classical combination technics. Even without, usually the fighter or monk using the bottle may have better fortitude save. Then, since the bottle description does not say anything about the smoke effect, it is up to the DM to decide whether the pyrotechnics smoke is created or normal smoke (I once checked with cust serv on that).

But it does say it's smoke (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#smokeEffects), which is a defined environmental condition with specified effects.


Scent does not work in smoke.

Where does it say that?


And summoning creatures with particular abilities once again is entirely up to the DM to decide whether your caster will be able to know such a thing with an appropriate knowledge check.

Why? Once you're able to summon creatures, you could just spend an off day doing so and learning what the different creatures are good at.


You once evaded the cleric turned devil social drawbacks with the disguise self, but that may not be available to all.

You're right, but anyone with a spare hat slot could use a Hat of Disguise, and if there's a ring slot available a Ring of Chameleon Power would also do nicely. And a Robe of Blending would also work. Provided the DM allows such items to be made or obtained, it's not unrealistic to assume that a character who wants a disguise self type ability can obtain it.


Alter self in core is not broken - at least I did not detect any humanoid able to fly there. And the higher natural AC of a lizardman are nice, but then you appear...as a lizard man. A good 2nd level spell, but mirror image, invisbility etc. are also great!

In Core it's not so bad, but outside Core it gets much worse. And looking like a lizard man isn't usually going to be an issue if you're travelling through a dungeon.


Many forms will no longer allow the use of some magic items, lure you (in particular as a spellcaster) into melee where you should not be

As I've mentioned before, Divine spellcasters are still spellcasters, and mostly they're fine in melee.


you most of the time cannot use your specialised weapons and armour in the new form.

You would need to select your new form carefully, but it can be done.


This is the reason why I think the monk is the best recipient of a polymorph spell, but many caster lovers would prefer turning into a war troll themselves rather than "wasting" that key buff on the monk.

Wasn't this about Core Only stuff? :smalltongue: But you're right, the Monk is one of the best recipients for a Polymorph or Polymorph any Object spell, provided the character hasn't wasted gold or level up opportunities boosting Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence (for PaO).


1) you do not need an npc casting the spell. The cheapest potion in the game does the job nicely (and encountering challenging animals is rare enough to carry only a few)

Ok, I tend to overlook potions.


2) Then, the will save in the hide from animal spell refers to an unwilling recipient, not to the animals potentially perceiving the warded creature

Got me again on this one.


3) Finally, you never automatically touch someone if you enter the squre. For touching an unwilling creature, you need to make a touch attack. Or wizards or undead with lethal touch effects or trip fighters or grapples would simply need to move into your square.

It's more a situation where the person already in the square touches the animal. And while it could be, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in the form of an attack.


And you cannot summoun creatures into occupied squres.

Where's that rule?


And a druid cannot order his companion that is convinced that noone is there into attacking the warded creature without a push/move action (DC 25 handle animal).

Again, I haven't suggested doing that.


Air Walk is inferior to the usual items non-casters have for flight which emulate the fly spell. And it is still then vulnerable to missile attacks.

Air Walk still allows the animal to take on flying creatures though. And it can be used to bypass obstacles (such as holes) which may otherwise prevent the animal from attacking archers. But sure, that alone wouldn't save the animal from missile attacks (for that the Druid can cast Wind Wall).


You see, a cleric using divine power also is a "pseudo-fighter": without the appropriate feats, you become a combatant for a fraction of time during the day, vulnerable to a simple 3rd level spell (dispel magic) and simply opponent delaying tactics that it may work at all.

As I've shown elsewhere, Divine Power alone isn't sufficient for the Cleric to match the Figher, but in combination with other spells it can overcome the Feat difference when it comes to simply injuring the enemy. As for the vulnerabily, in Core Divine Power is really only a viable tactic at 11th level+, so Dispel Magic isn't likely to make the caster level check. Likewise, delaying tactics aren't going to do much good, since that allows the Cleric and other casters in the party more time to prepare something really nasty.


There are some spells out there better used by the non-casters:
- AMF

Yes, but not being able to actually cast it, or have it directly cast on them is a big hinderance (yes I know, they could UMD or Ring of Major Spell Storing it).


polymorph (monk and barbarian in particular)

A Divine Powered Cleric might be just as good. And casting it on a familiar/animal companion might also be worth considering.


improved invisibility and blinking (rogue)

A solo rogue, definately. But one working with a group could be better off if the caster summoned some allies.


enlarge

Yeah, but the Druid already gets that in Wild Shape, and the Cleric does even better with Righteous Might.


Plus, if you want to summon a dire bear (6th level spell) and animal growth it and your companion (5th level spell) and waste one full round and one standard action to do so (and you need to do it close to combat because those are short-running spells) - do you really think that is so much better than casting stoneskin on a fighter and then mass bear's endurance on the whole party at those levels? Those last longer, take shorter to cast and can hardly be evaded even by a clever enemy.

No doubt about it! Stoneskin costs money, animal growth and the summon nature's ally spells don't. And the Druid would be crazy to use summon nature's ally to summon just one animal with this idea, he'd use the 1d4+1 version of the spell and then buff the animals which result (animal growth cast by a Druid of that level should work on at least 4 animals). Then if the summoned animals take the brunt of the attacks, the Druid might not even need to cast a healing spell after the battle.

EDIT:

OK I think this is a fair question... Can somebody please show me the optimal CZilla build that can out-fight the Fighter?

Look at the Cleric build above for a Core Rules Cleric, or here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2826740&postcount=76) for a non-Core build. In the case of the non-Core build, I've learned of a few additional tricks which can make the character even more powerful, but there's already enough cheese in the build to make it smell rotten. From 11th level onwards the Cleric can match (or maybe even outperform) the Fighter in combat (even earlier, if DMM:Persistant Spell cheese is used) by casting Divine Power and a quickened Divine Favor. For especially tough foes, add Righteous Might.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-17, 10:12 AM
Wasn't this about Core Only stuff? :smalltongue: But you're right, the Monk is one of the best recipients for a Polymorph or Polymorph any Object spell, provided the character hasn't wasted gold or level up opportunities boosting Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence (for PaO).

Well, the best after the rogue (for poly sneak attack), and after any class with full BAB and power attack, and after the casters themselves (roper = 2 spells per round). So probably the 11th best from the core classes.

Wordmiser
2007-12-17, 12:22 PM
Seriously, and how many rounds do you need?None, thanks to Divine Persistant Spell.

The feats a Cleric needs to do this at first level? Extend Spell (available through the Planning domain), Persistant Spell, Divine Metamagic (Persist). At third level he takes Power Attack and the rest is just gravy.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-19, 03:37 PM
Hi again,

was off a while from the internet - sorry for the delay.
Before answering in more detail to greenknight's long response which brought up various good new points, first a couple of words on Kompera's post.

I feel that the discussion with that post (and also some of greenknight's words) has subtly shifted. No longer is it questioned it IS possible to build a fighter able to compete with casters throughout all levels in the core rules. Still, the core rules are portrayed as lacking in balance since it is so much easier to play a caster than a non-caster, in particular at the high levels.

Well, I am glad about this development since
1) more posters are starting to see sense in my arguments and
2) it is actually a very good insight to think about the PERCEIVED problems of balance this way.

So far, my main point why so many believe the core rules are imbalanced is that somehow the disadvantages of casters get ignored while the possibilities of non-casters are neglected.

This may be linked to Kompera's suggestion.

However, I believe it is linked in a different way. It is not that it is objectively (as in "iconic" classes) easier to play casters than non-casters. It is rather that, imo, in a fantasy game people are much more interested in playing characters who can do magic. Hence also the many, many more posts about spell tactics, spell prestige classes and, above all, the many more rules expansions on spells and magic classes. WoTC certainly fills a demand here.

What it leads to, though, is that much more maxing fu goes into building wizard/spellcaster characters. Seriously.
Look at the thread that greenknight provided and what combinations he came up with to do what he did with his archer cleric and the (in parts equally effective) fighter archer I built with much less rules involved.
Look at the many threads on pun-pun cheese, logic ninja, uber druids etc. and then see how few actually go and post lvl 1-20 non-caster builds. You may say that is simply because the caster builds are more powerful - but I think this is not the case.

In the core rules at least there is plenty of stuff for non-casters which often is overlooked.
Additionally, the players of non-casters somehow get the notion that by choosing a non-casting class, they should be not wielding any magic at all (except for weapons and armour and hardly any wondrous item stuff able to cast spells - and maybe a rogue occasionally uses a scroll).
This is likely also because many non-caster players actually BASE their roleplaying ideas and builds on true historic or non-magic fictional characters. If you want to play a rogue like Captain Jack, it is highly unlikely that you will give him magical item stuff which would make his survival in a world full of magic and casters harassing him with black tentacles more likely. If you wish to play a Lancelot character, you would rarely think about equipping him with a wand to be able to make him larger so that he has a better chance to avoid trip attacks or escape with his enlarged longspear a force cage capture attempt. And so on and so on.

THIS is what also causes the notion of imbalance in the game. The designers, with the big list of magic items, basically put ALL spells of spellcasters within the reach of non-spellcasters. Thus, the core classes ARE balanced (btw, I do not maintain there are no problems anywhere in the game in general, but imo the classes are OK).
The problem is that as soon as a DM and his players and the campaign deviate from that atmosphere (say, because they want to make magic items rarer or more "special", or, say, because noone would want to have any shapechanging ability in the game except for druids), then imbalanced results jump up like mushroom. No system is ever foolproof vs the side effects of houserules.

Of course, to this you need to add the problems I already outlined: DMs not challenging players of casters enough due to some strange double standard about what spoils fun for them and what spoils it for players of non-casters. Saying that because it is not 100% clear-cut what is meant by "ex-xxx"-sections, "unwilling" part of gate, spell recovering procedures etc. and then just living with a completely unbalanced result is still the most astonishing part of this whole debate for me.

- Giacomo

PS: @Armads directly answering his question: Yes, a solar gated in to defeat an evil enemy CAN have been called there "unwilling". Say, because at that time it had a vital mission to fulfill which may have had advanced the good cause much more (but beyond mortal understanding). It may be forgiving, and never seek revenge (it is a good and wise being, after all), but a divine punishment is definitely in order! (Remember, most of the whole Krynn/Dragonlance story is built around this notion of good gods reacting unfavourably to mortals calling down their power to defeat evil).
That, plus the odd chance that it may not be able to fulfill its service in the rounds/level time it is present is what imo makes gate sufficiently risky to balance its power.
But of course, you may simply play it the way you read it and continue criticising how it is unbalanced. Which I think is unnecessary since the solution is so closely at hand.

ErrantX
2007-12-19, 04:02 PM
8 pages later, my oh my what have I created here :D

-X

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-19, 05:07 PM
Now, on to greenknight's long post...



Yeah, but as I and many others have been saying, how does a non-spellcaster get hold of that AMF?. Basically you're just proposing a spellcaster vs spellcaster combat with the non-spellcaster as the delivery system.

At highest levels (18+) a major ring of spell storing and a npc caster cohort (or a diplomacie'd helpful npc caster) can do the trick without burning cash.
Of course, also simply casting AMF from a scroll at the right moment (needs UMD +30 for safely casting, not completely outside the possibilities at high levels even for classes needing to raise it cross-class). But this way is more expensive over the long run (i.e. when the fighter has to fight too many casters).


Re-read Time Stop's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm) description. Summoning allies is an example of one of the things which can be done.

Actually the spell is fairly specific about it. It does not say anything about summoning spells, only that you can summon help (which can be done in various ways even without affecting them during the time stop). And a calling effect definitely is not listed as an exception to the rule that you cannot affect other creatures.


It was a very specific build which could work for a wide range situations. But don't forget, your own build was very different to the typical Fighter. There aren't too many Fighters out there whose highest stat (tied with Dexterity) is Wisdom, for example.

Well, part of it I already hinted at in the post above.
When characters get into the level areas 11-20, I think there are no more "non-specific" or "iconic" builds - they are all very different from each other. Building both non-casters and casters for those levels is both very challenging.
Imo at highest levels, DEX and in part WIS are the most important stats, simply because
- DEX determines to a large part initiative. Whoever wins initiative has a HUGE advantate at those levels since you can do so much in 1 round already (caster or non-caster). That, plus the ability to surprise someone with hide and move silently (against which not even true seeing helps). A surprise round likewise contains a huge advantage.
- WIS determines....spot and listen! And these are key for avoiding being surprised.

In general, do not think that "iconic" fighter as intended by the designers means a fighter just swinging his greatsword with power attack and some feat trees from lvl 1-20 without thinking about countertactics vs magical attacks. Not in the average DD core campaign, at least.


At level 1 - 6 (or so) in Core Rules, the Fighter and Barbarian are kings of the battlefield. They're closely followed by the Ranger, Paladin and Druid (with a combat worthy animal companion). After that, the Druid matches the Fighter and Barbarian in combat power, and has other very useful abilities outside of combat. And at level 11 or so, a Cleric who has a mind to joins that top tier of physical combatants, and the Cleric also has a big bag of other tricks. At that point the Fighter and Barbarian may as well go home because their combat role is filled and they just don't have enough other stuff they're particularly good at.

Well, that could even out for fighter and barbarian vs the lower levels where they truly are "kings of the battlefield". Outside combat, they lack at low levels and at high levels - but could still find their niche somewhere in a four-member group (not even two rogues beside them would be able to fill all skill niches, for instance).
For social skills, they are left with intimidate- mind you, it is not ALL that bad, in particular at low levels, and can make a basis for nice roleplaying situations.
Overall, I consider it is balanced due to the drawbacks the casters have which are still there at high levels.


Because that's not a major drawback. Ok, so maybe the Wizard's spellbook can be destroyed or stolen, which is pretty bad for that character, but it's a very unwise Wizard who doesn't have backups with the most important spells in them. And a Divine caster's divine focus could also be stolen or destroyed, but they're very easy to replace. The only thing left is a divine caster violating their faith, but as long as the caster is in control of his or her actions (ie, not failed a will save vs dominate type effects), that's extremely unlikely to happen.

Well, once a wizard has backups and precautions for his spellbook, this is already a drawback, isn't it? Because he has devoted some of his treasure to do so. How big that is depends on the campaign and how safe the player wants to be about having constant access to spells (he should also take the spell mastery to have his best spells still available in worst case scenario).
Then, concerning divine casters: why would at high levels where the BBEGs get more and more powerful and more and more intelligent not resort to some evil scheme to destroy the belief of a pc or sever the tie to his church/deity? That would be in their utmost interest! They need not succeed, it merely means that a cleric and a druid have weaknesses/responsibilities which the non-casters do not have and which should be exploited by intelligent/devious opponents.
Balancing that all so it remains fun for everyone is the true art of DMing (and the higher the level, the more difficult it is!). But simply ignoring the possiblities of caster drawbacks while hitting full force the non-caster payers is not advisable imo.


That's why you have someone in the party with good spot/listen skills. Like a Druid....

Yep, the druid is powerful in that respect.


Rope Trick does leave a window which the inhabitants can see through (but it's a one way window only), so those trying to set up an ambush had better stay out of the line of view.

Yes, but the pcs even IF they see the ambush, they still have trouble. It's not a TPK in the making, but still something which could upset the "automatic spell recovery" fallacy.


If they aren't caused by the spell, I call these dead magic areas (or zones). And generally PCs are better off staying out of them because they will be without their magical buffs. I know that sometimes DMs set up important clues in areas like that, but even so the danger for the PCs as a whole is greatly increased in areas like that.

Yep.


There's no valid reason why Fighters should have UMD and Spellcraft as class skills. Spot and Listen I'll agree with because Fighters often serve as guards.

Yep.


The Fighter and Barbarian are the best, but they aren't all that superior in levels 1 - 6.

Well, it's difficult to say how big their superiority is. For instance, a 1st level fighter with power attack and cleave and improved initiative and a greatsword will mow down a druid and his wolf in 1 round.
Without cleave, he could just mow down the druid and the wolf (turned normal animal) will simply flee.
At 6th level, that same fighter has already 3 composite longbow attacks (4 with an ally haste helping him).
And until freedom of movement becomes available at lvl 7, there is almost no way to escape a fighter or barbarian grapple.


The problem is that as your character gets into the high levels, several encounters per day are going to be situations where AMF etc can help. You'll be burning gold.

Yep, see also above.


This might work, although getting into the equipment in the first place might pose some difficulty.

Likely not for a high-level rogue.


Not sure what you're getting at here. If it's the needle in a haystack scenario (where one character has to find another), Mind Blank means even a 1st level commoner can get away with little chance of detection.

Yes, such is the power of mind blank. Even an insect is then fairly safe from an archmage scrying. What I meant to say was that a wizard retreating in to a safe abode at one point or another needs to get out again to adventure. If he goes against a fighter he wishes to spy on before, mind blank takes care of that.
But even without a mind blank, you can make it hard for casters to find out enough about you to, say, teleport next to the non-caster and attack him.
Similarly, enchantment spells throughout all levels are not as powerful as often potrayed. Hold person allows a new save every round, charm person has severe limitations, and dominate person allows a new save all the times that you push the dominating character into something dangerous to him.


It's often deliberately set up that way, with the non-casters effectively serving as a shield wall for the casters.

But that does not mean the casters are out of danger completely, does it? And the fact that they need to rely on on-caster protection once more cries balance.


But a wand of Rope Trick will allow them to take the time they need for that. Divine casters can't do that particular trick though, so they need to give a bit more thought to having a flexible set of spells prepared.
9th level spells are also considered more powerful than 1st level spells.

Yes.


By that logic, Feats which are harder to qualify for than leadership (like Whirlwind Attack and Greater Weapon Specialization) should be much better than leadership is. They aren't.

Technically, you can get whirlwind attack earlier than leadership, that is at 4th level. More prerequisites, yes, but on the other hand all of these prerequisites in turn are useful. Greater Weapon specialisation is the only feat you can only get later than 6th level and is simultaneously weaker in most circumstances than leadership (stunning fist and improved critical are, I would say, under the right circumstances equal to leadership).


If you want the RAW interpretation, exactly as written - it goes away at the end of the spell. If you want to actually balance Gate, then having it return to get revenge for being used that way sounds reasonable.

Yes, it goes away, but this does not mean "will never return" or it would say so. That powerful npc is not neutralised for the rest of the campaign with a gate spell.
Having it return for revenge or retribution/punishment depends on the npc or monster that was summoned. It is entirely up to the DM, with the rules guidelines given by the spell. But even a fireball is entirely up to the DM to rule how the appearance of magic fire with so much damage is affecting the game world. Nothing is written in the spell that anything starts to burn afterwards beyond the area of effect, but it certainly appears a logical conclusion when the fireball is cast at a barn.


That would depend on whether the opponent has already been Dimension Locked. If so, getting away might be difficult.

A phantom steed spell effect or a pegasus mount with some speed effect could do the trick at those levels, even with a dimension lock on (and that one is quite tricky to cast).


It seems to me that high level PCs are going to know of at least some very powerful creatures, even if they don't have the best SL or supernatural abilities. And it wouldn't be beyond their capablities to find out which creatures can grant wishes, either.

Yes, it would not be beyond their capabilities. But that depends entirely on the DM. If that DM sees the possibility of a creature being called to provide a much cheaper wish then intended by the same level wish spell, then he will likely put emphasis on the hindrances in the rules, i.e.
- the unwilling part of the gate spell, making this tactics risky and
- big enough efforts of research (maybe involving another adventures, asking other powerful entities for a cost etc.) all to equal the casting of a normal wish spell.


But it does say it's smoke (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#smokeEffects), which is a defined environmental condition with specified effects.

Yes, that is the entry for non-magical smoke. However, since the bottle is a magical item which bases its magic on the pyrotechnics magical smoke effect, it is not entirely clear what properties the smoke has. I once had a fighter vs wizard duel with the fighter using eversmoking bottle and a necklace of adaptation and the wizard player was not very happy with your interpretatioin of the eversmonking bottle smoke effect (which at that time I also thought would be based on the enviromental rules). CustServ said it's no clear rule, so up to the DM.
I as a DM would now also lean toward the pyrotechnics interpretation because otherwise the bottle would be too powerful for its price.


Where does it say that?

Ah, you seem to be right. The scent ability only says that smoke is a powerful odor, but not whether it would be powerful enough to mask a weaker scent (I would think this a logical conclusion, with real world examples, but yes, there are no rules for it - so scent always works).


Why? Once you're able to summon creatures, you could just spend an off day doing so and learning what the different creatures are good at.

Yes, if you can communicate with them, they will tell you what they know about their abilities. Yep, that's a good idea. For gate, a bit risky, but monsters all the way up to lvl IX are OK (i.e. the monsters mentioned in monster summoning spells, not the others!).


You're right, but anyone with a spare hat slot could use a Hat of Disguise, and if there's a ring slot available a Ring of Chameleon Power would also do nicely. And a Robe of Blending would also work. Provided the DM allows such items to be made or obtained, it's not unrealistic to assume that a character who wants a disguise self type ability can obtain it.

Yes, you are right.


In Core it's not so bad, but outside Core it gets much worse. And looking like a lizard man isn't usually going to be an issue if you're travelling through a dungeon.

Yes.


As I've mentioned before, Divine spellcasters are still spellcasters, and mostly they're fine in melee.

No, I do not think that they are fine in melee with less hp, less feats and less weapons available than the full BAB classes.


You would need to select your new form carefully, but it can be done.

Well, yes, but then that form whould be humanoid and medium-sized, like the PAO barbed devil cleric archer case. (btw, I now think that PAO does not allow you to turn into an outsider, since the spell is based on polymorph and only introduces plants and objects as new forms to turn into, not other creature types).


Wasn't this about Core Only stuff? :smalltongue: But you're right, the Monk is one of the best recipients for a Polymorph or Polymorph any Object spell, provided the character hasn't wasted gold or level up opportunities boosting Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence (for PaO).

YES!!! At long last, someone sees my point on monk synergies. Thanks a lot. A monk can get by in lvls 1-6 (equally weak as the casters in that time, while more powerful than the fighter or barbarian at later levels in the ability to stand up to casters) with lowish STR and DEX (say, 12 in each) and hope for good polymorph abilities (maybe also making use of alter self before). Maybe enlarge (+2 STR) and a good STR boost item can get him to STR 16-18 this way until he gets hold on morph buffs.


Ok, I tend to overlook potions.

OK. Actually later wands of hide from animals (in particular with less charges) is even cheaper.


Got me again on this one.

OK.


It's more a situation where the person already in the square touches the animal. And while it could be, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in the form of an attack.

Hmmm. The touching part is truly touchy about the hide from animal spell. What constitues touching here? Actively touching or touching each other? I would still go with the first, since ALL touching attempts in the game come with an attack roll and many touch effects to not get triggered when an opponent touches you (like shocking grasp).


Where's that rule?

Hmm- not on summoning specifically, but check the "moving through squares" rules of the combat rules. In there it is quite obvious to me that you cannot summon something into a square occupied by someone who is not helpless.


Again, I haven't suggested doing that.

Ah, sorry. Many others have and ignore the handle animal effort necessary to tell their companion to do something which it believes is completely strange. Actually, the spell is worded in a way to make all handle animal attempts impossible (it is magic, after all) - but as a DM I would allow the druid or ranger a handle animal check to push the animal into doing the impossible.


Air Walk still allows the animal to take on flying creatures though. And it can be used to bypass obstacles (such as holes) which may otherwise prevent the animal from attacking archers. But sure, that alone wouldn't save the animal from missile attacks (for that the Druid can cast Wind Wall).

Air Walk is also a means of magical flight which is inferior in movement maneuverability than fly spell effects.


As I've shown elsewhere, Divine Power alone isn't sufficient for the Cleric to match the Figher, but in combination with other spells it can overcome the Feat difference when it comes to simply injuring the enemy. As for the vulnerabily, in Core Divine Power is really only a viable tactic at 11th level+, so Dispel Magic isn't likely to make the caster level check. Likewise, delaying tactics aren't going to do much good, since that allows the Cleric and other casters in the party more time to prepare something really nasty.

Really nasty? Hmmm. What could that be? Most spells are only of a limited duration, and if a cleric has cast the 3-4 spells to make him a good melee combatant, he would still have wasted resources vs an opponent who simply used evading tactics (and did not consume any resources in the process possibly).
Why not directly doing the "really nasty" stuff and admitting that zilla tactics are not really that great for high level spellcasters? Imo even at the high levels the system encourages casters to actually cast spells instead of meleeing and the non-casters to protect them while they do that.


Yes, but not being able to actually cast it, or have it directly cast on them is a big hinderance (yes I know, they could UMD or Ring of Major Spell Storing it).

Yep, see above.


A Divine Powered Cleric might be just as good. And casting it on a familiar/animal companion might also be worth considering.

Beware of melee though with these quasi-npcs that are weaker than pcs and thus more vulnerable to the challenges of the party at their levels.
Cast the buffs to make them survive, not fight always for you.


A solo rogue, definately. But one working with a group could be better off if the caster summoned some allies.

Yes, if he can afford the 1 round full casting.


Yeah, but the Druid already gets that in Wild Shape, and the Cleric does even better with Righteous Might.

But Wild Shape does not always give you reach (the dire tigers etc.), does not give you the ability to use missile or (then even longer) reach weapons, and rightous might lasts less and cannot be permanencie'd.


No doubt about it! Stoneskin costs money, animal growth and the summon nature's ally spells don't. And the Druid would be crazy to use summon nature's ally to summon just one animal with this idea, he'd use the 1d4+1 version of the spell and then buff the animals which result (animal growth cast by a Druid of that level should work on at least 4 animals). Then if the summoned animals take the brunt of the attacks, the Druid might not even need to cast a healing spell after the battle.

Ah, you are right here. Animal growth is too cool (even if also huge animals are stopped by the stupid simple hide from animals potion)- and the druid truly lacks good bufff spells in those levels. Antilife sphere maybe is better than the whole two-spell summoning combo put togethter (and also lasts way longer), but again it depends on the situation.


EDIT:
Look at the Cleric build above for a Core Rules Cleric, or here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2826740&postcount=76) for a non-Core build. In the case of the non-Core build, I've learned of a few additional tricks which can make the character even more powerful, but there's already enough cheese in the build to make it smell rotten. From 11th level onwards the Cleric can match (or maybe even outperform) the Fighter in combat (even earlier, if DMM:Persistant Spell cheese is used) by casting Divine Power and a quickened Divine Favor. For especially tough foes, add Righteous Might.

Notes on the poweful melee cleric at high levels with all the above
- at high levels, feats can give you great melee combat control abilities which the sheer damage output of a melee cleric does not reflect
- a greater dispel magic can ruin the day of a melee cleric
- do not forget the cleric gets this from a religion, the fighter from training. This points once again to my favourite theme: drawbacks of spellcasting...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

mostlyharmful
2007-12-19, 06:42 PM
It is not that it is objectively (as in "iconic" classes) easier to play casters than non-casters. It is rather that, imo, in a fantasy game people are much more interested in playing characters who can do magic. Hence also the many, many more posts about spell tactics, spell prestige classes and, above all, the many more rules expansions on spells and magic classes. WoTC certainly fills a demand here.

I feel impelled to point out that what we are discussing falls into three main catagories of flexibility, the first being completely inflexible (these being feats and domain choices and race), the second being choices that require significant in game work to rebuild, and even that at the disgression of the DM (such as Magic Items) and finally those that require no work or consultation to alter (spell choices during the corse of a particular day). of the three spellcasters have the most flexibility, especially when you take into account that noncasters have to burn both nonflexible resources in the form of skill points and negotiable resources in the form of gp to stay level with some of the preplanned tactics of the casters which are squarely within the renewable day by day choices. add to this that casters are able to use the same level of resources as the noncasters to cover eventuallities (scrolls of whatever, wands, ???) without giving up skill points or as significant a fraction of their WBL (casters having access to GMW, Vestment spells, mage armour, resistance and all the other buffs for free).

Wordmiser
2007-12-19, 09:11 PM
What I don't understand is these constant arguments with Giacomo. Everyone is basically in agreement, they just have different opinions of the importance of who exactly delivers the spells.

Yes, spellcasters have more raw power, they really are the ones who do everything important with in-class abilities. They are the ones who are fighting each other whenever Giacomo designs a arena fighter to fight a druid (though I fail to see the correlation between arena combat and class usefulness... a Rogue might be slaughtered in an arena setting by a Samurai, but the Rogue still may have the skill points to actually help his party more out of combat and the ability to out-do the Samurai once flanking partners are introduced to battles).

And yes, non-magic melee classes (more specifically Monks and Paladins) have high survivability. This means that they can, in fact, deliver the spells even more effectively than the spells' original casters (if they can succeed in the UMD checks). The problem is that this was clearly not intended by the developers so it is an incredibly labor-intensive strategy (boosting UMD high enough as a cross-class skill to use relevant-leveled spells while maintaining the basic class abilities). This also requires either an absolute hemorraging of cash to buy one-use scrolls and potions (based on Giacomo's prior builds and the archer that he's cited, this requires far beyond wealth-by-level if it's expected to last an entire campaign) or some incredibly benevolent group members (who are willing to reduce their own play-time [in the form of their daily resources] to let the Fighter contribute).

I can't advocate the Eversmoking Bottle approach, though. It's fine for an arena strategy or for a scout character who will be isolated from their group most of the time anyway, but in normal play (where the other players tend to enjoy participating) this is implausible. And it won't usually benefit a group more to be nauseated than it will for the casters to deliver their spells without being interrupted by their own party-members. Also, this approach will tend to discourage the benevolent spellcasting that actually keeps Fighters contributing at higher levels.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-21, 03:12 AM
What I don't understand is these constant arguments with Giacomo. Everyone is basically in agreement, they just have different opinions of the importance of who exactly delivers the spells.

Well, that's a highly unusual interpretation of the debate raging on already for months in various threads, but I like it!:smallbiggrin:


Yes, spellcasters have more raw power, they really are the ones who do everything important with in-class abilities. They are the ones who are fighting each other whenever Giacomo designs a arena fighter to fight a druid (though I fail to see the correlation between arena combat and class usefulness... a Rogue might be slaughtered in an arena setting by a Samurai, but the Rogue still may have the skill points to actually help his party more out of combat and the ability to out-do the Samurai once flanking partners are introduced to battles).

Yep, duels are somewhat lacking to show good class synergy effects. It showcases nicely, though, how a class in combat (under stress) fares.
As for "more raw power" of spellcasters, it depends. Outside of combat, definitely! The travel and divinatioin/research capabilities are immensely powerful and hard to copy with non-magic classes (items only get you so far, and also bardic knowledge and gather information/diplomacy has limitations).
Inside combat? This is where I feel the classes ARE balanced roughly over level 1-20.


And yes, non-magic melee classes (more specifically Monks and Paladins) have high survivability. This means that they can, in fact, deliver the spells even more effectively than the spells' original casters (if they can succeed in the UMD checks). The problem is that this was clearly not intended by the developers so it is an incredibly labor-intensive strategy (boosting UMD high enough as a cross-class skill to use relevant-leveled spells while maintaining the basic class abilities).

It's difficult to tell what the designers intended. They improved access to UMD in the 3.5 version and stressed repeatedly the necessity of each pc having items broadly equivalent to the wbl guidelines.
WHAT the designers very likely intended imo (given the nature of the game) is that the casters buff their non-caster friends, which already greatly reduces the necessity of non-casters to get spells themselves.
And the creation of a "personal range" only AMF strongly hints that the non-caster classes should use it - with the only way being UMD. In this respect, it was likely a mistake why they made the medium ring of spell storing only capable of holding up to 5th level spells. But maybe they intentionally capped the ring at 5th level so as not to make the caster classes completely unnecessary for combat from lvls 11.


This also requires either an absolute hemorraging of cash to buy one-use scrolls and potions (based on Giacomo's prior builds and the archer that he's cited, this requires far beyond wealth-by-level if it's expected to last an entire campaign) or some incredibly benevolent group members (who are willing to reduce their own play-time [in the form of their daily resources] to let the Fighter contribute).

Well, you can save a lot of cash by npc casting and wands instead of potions and scrolls. UMD lets you repeat your wand activation as often as you like (provided you roll no "1", which means you have to wait for a day). This is enough for the longer-term buffs or something outside of combat like cure light wounds.
But I strongly oppose the notion that it is "incredibly benevolent" from caster players to buff their non-caster comrades. Denying a monk or fighter or babarian that enlarge spell and instead learning a mage armour for yourself twice is not what I would call a great group spirit.
That, plus the insight that the non-caster classes, at least until the higher levels, protect the casters. The fighter, for instance, could also say that it is highly benevolent for him to shield the caster rather then charge into melee for his great combos.


I can't advocate the Eversmoking Bottle approach, though. It's fine for an arena strategy or for a scout character who will be isolated from their group most of the time anyway, but in normal play (where the other players tend to enjoy participating) this is implausible. And it won't usually benefit a group more to be nauseated than it will for the casters to deliver their spells without being interrupted by their own party-members. Also, this approach will tend to discourage the benevolent spellcasting that actually keeps Fighters contributing at higher levels.

How does the eversmoking bottle prevent benevolent spellcasting from a spellcaster prepared for that tactics?
- Area of effect spells
- buffs spells beforehand
- buff spells vs the smoke choking effect beforehand
- summoning creatures with blindsense (and I can tell you, your summoners who are otherwise lame ducks with full-round casting are going to LOVE you for that almost non-dispellable concealment!)
- allowing in-combat buffs and escape spells against greater odds
- heck, you could even give your rogue a ring of X-ray vision at higher levels, so that he could sneak while your enemy cannot.

Once again, similar to a wizard with fireball, you WAIT with the use of the bottle until it is on balance a benefit to the party!

Just one scenario: heavily protected enemy temple. Party sneaks in, opens bottle of smoke, and the whole complex is shrouded in smoke. Enemy communication breaks down completely, panic, choking. The party (prepared for this) wins. What is so problematic about this?

The ONLY thing I would admit is that the eversmoking bottle, in particular wth the interpretation of the normal (choking) smoke effect is too powerful for its price. But not that is not a great tactics or that it would somehow spoil the fun for the rest of the group.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-21, 03:27 AM
I feel impelled to point out that what we are discussing falls into three main catagories of flexibility, the first being completely inflexible (these being feats and domain choices and race), the second being choices that require significant in game work to rebuild, and even that at the disgression of the DM (such as Magic Items) and finally those that require no work or consultation to alter (spell choices during the corse of a particular day). of the three spellcasters have the most flexibility, especially when you take into account that noncasters have to burn both nonflexible resources in the form of skill points and negotiable resources in the form of gp to stay level with some of the preplanned tactics of the casters which are squarely within the renewable day by day choices. add to this that casters are able to use the same level of resources as the noncasters to cover eventuallities (scrolls of whatever, wands, ???) without giving up skill points or as significant a fraction of their WBL (casters having access to GMW, Vestment spells, mage armour, resistance and all the other buffs for free).

Hmmm. Good point.
Some thoughts:
Flexibility area 1: feats vs spells
Yes, spells are more versatile, but they also mostly last much shorter and can be dispelled.
Flexibility area 2: magic items for non-caster flexibility vs caster flexibility with spells
Yes, spells are again more versatile. But again, the items are permanent (mostly, or they simulate spells for limited use), and can be dispelled much harder. The prices in the DMG for items (plus the availability rules in the DMG campaign section) may not be to everyone's fluff liking since they convey thus there is a market for magic items.
Once there is a market, there is not really a DM handing the items out, but handing out treasure which then the characters take to buy the items they need or like.
Similarly, everything beyond the 2 spells/level for wizards needs to be bought this way.
Flexibility area 3: daily spell choice.
Yes, but all casters except the spontaneous caster may err completely with the spells they prepare, making them quite weak for that encounter day.
Basically, non-casters with their non-reducing class abilities (with rare exception like the monk's abundant step etc) have it much easier this way, while ALL casters (including the spontaneous casters) in all combat rounds and between will have to weigh "do I cast or not". Stressful and not necessarily to everyone's liking.

- Giacomo

Talic
2007-12-21, 03:42 AM
Focusing on DMM persist for a moment...

Spells now, can be rechosen every day, and provide day long benefits.

Feats are chosen once, and provide permanent benefits.

So, now, the caster has, essentially, a feat that can be rechosen every day, vs the fighter who cannot. The only real danger is against AMF/Dispel, which are specific encounters and unlikely to impact the campaign often.

Without DMM Persist, many of the buffs casters have are balanced. Then casters CAN mimic fighters, but it takes time to do so, and time is a commodity not always in supply in combat.

Wordmiser
2007-12-21, 04:53 AM
Denying a monk or fighter or babarian that enlarge spell and instead learning a mage armour for yourself twice is not what I would call a great group spirit.Every buff that a caster gives the Fighter is a turn subtracted from the Wizard/Cleric's limited actions per day. Yes, it's often a good move, but the Fighter shouldn't expect his Caster buddies to donate their turns to making him better at the job that he should be capable of doing anyway. It's not fun to play a character whose one purpose is to be the battery. Especially when flashy and equally effective options are always available (Web vs. Bull's Strength? Black Tentacles vs. Greater Invisibility?)


How does the eversmoking bottle prevent benevolent spellcasting from a spellcaster prepared for that tactics?Choking your friends usually isn't the best way to convince them to do favors for you.

[edit:] Actually, I'm not certain I understand the reason for using the Eversmoking Bottle in the first place. You're creating a cloud where you and your party (presumably PHB races) have to make increasingly difficult Fortitude saves to stop yourselves from choking, while your enemies make the same saves (though monsters generally have more hit dice and higher Constitution than player characters, meaning higher Fortitude modifiers), all just to get Concealment (a mere 20% miss chance)? Couldn't you just stand behind something? Even Displacement grants Total Concealment without hurting your allies (as do Tower Shields, for that matter, at 1/180 the price of the Bottle... and Tower Shields can't be Dispelled).

Talic
2007-12-21, 05:47 AM
I think he refers to the fact that smoke blocks line of sight, and thus, prevents many spells from functioning...

In essence, he's saying that if everyone were blindfolded, fighter wins.

Wordmiser
2007-12-21, 01:33 PM
Smoke Effects say nothing about blocking line of sight. They grant Concealment, nothing more.

Other effects that "obscure" vision (Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud) explicitly grant Total Concealment to characters seperated by 5 feet or more of the cloud. Smoke doesn't. Those spells block line of sight, Smoke Effects don't.

PirateMonk
2007-12-22, 09:54 AM
Inside combat? This is where I feel the classes ARE balanced roughly over level 1-20.

First of all:

Even if all classes are balanced in combat (they are not), if both classes make equal contributions in combat and one can do all sorts of useful things elsewhere while the other sits around, bored and useless, how is that balance?

Secondly:

Once again, assuming that you are correct that all classes are balanced over all levels (which I don't think you are), this does not make them balanced, as I have stated before. If you are useless half the time and nigh omnipotent the rest, then the game is not balanced, or at least not fun, because there will always be someone bored and frustrated. Also, as you have brought up whenever it suits your argument, most games are not played 1-20, so does this mean that the game doesn't actually balance in practice?