Why the hate for Balance? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

dman11235

2008-04-27, 11:19 PM

Balance is an attempt to make every aspect of the game usable, but not abusable. It failed. Big time. But as long as you're having fun, it shouldn't matter, right? Well, some people have fun by being powerful, some by not caring and just roleplaying (not comiting Stormwind Fallacy, just pointing out that some purposely sacrifice power). And how do you make sure every one contributes enough to have fun, while still allowing those who want to be powerful their glory? Balance. If things are fairly balanced, then there is a noticeable but not harmful gap in power between those who don't want to optimize to their fullest and those who do. If, for instance, you have a batman wizard running around in a party with a CW samurai, that samurai is going to feel fairly left out because he can't really do anything compared to the wizard. It's even worse when you compare a samurai to a cleric, or even a fighter (ironic how I went down in power there...)

Anyways, yes, it is a game, and the point is to have fun. But a lot of people have fun by rollplaying rather than roleplaying. And that is why balance exists (or doesn't, your call). If things are balanced, they can both have their fun, and no one gets hurt.

Disclaimer: I'm tired, so if I didn't make sense, tough.

Rutee

2008-04-27, 11:21 PM

Because, Rutee, the company is called Wizards of the Coast, not Fighters of the Coast.

I like the answer "Because Nerds are Wizards" better, frankly :smallannoyed:

drengnikrafe

2008-04-27, 11:21 PM

@Crow
Sure, if that makes sense.

@Rutee
You're right, it's now powerful enough the way I say it. Lemme try again.
In more of a "Altering the very fabric of reality, including life force, and the existance of everything, and even stuff that doesn't fall under the category of 'everything' in any way they, or any other person in or out of existance can think of"
Better?

Rutee

2008-04-27, 11:31 PM

Not really, because it's a blatant misrepresentation. Fighters suck because they're only allowed to swing swords, Wizards get to rewrite basic game assumptions.

drengnikrafe

2008-04-27, 11:34 PM

Not really, because it's a blatant misrepresentation. Fighters suck because they're only allowed to swing swords, Wizards get to rewrite basic game assumptions.

Are you kidding? they're allowed to do more?
I hear this one quite a lot... "I make a tumble check". See, they're allowed to roll! That counts for something...
Not to mention the fact that swords can be magical (I.E. magic weapons), so now they're using a wizards power with every attack. Reminds me of Steiner's Magic Sword ability, from FF IX, only... not quite the same.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-27, 11:45 PM

Reel On, Love

2008-04-27, 11:47 PM

Are you kidding? they're allowed to do more?
I hear this one quite a lot... "I make a tumble check". See, they're allowed to roll! That counts for something...
Not to mention the fact that swords can be magical (I.E. magic weapons), so now they're using a wizards power with every attack. Reminds me of Steiner's Magic Sword ability, from FF IX, only... not quite the same.

WOOO TUMBLING

THAT IS TOTALLY AS GOOD AS DAZING ALL YOUR ENEMIES FOR THE REST OF THE FIGHT WHILE DAMAGING THEM, AT LONG RANGE

WOOOOOOOOO

drengnikrafe

2008-04-27, 11:48 PM

WOOO TUMBLING

THAT IS TOTALLY AS GOOD AS DAZING ALL YOUR ENEMIES FOR THE REST OF THE FIGHT WHILE DAMAGING THEM, AT LONG RANGE

WOOOOOOOOO

I take your point, and I stop trying to come up with lame excuses... (Even though most wizards can't tumble very well)

Rutee

2008-04-27, 11:49 PM

-Non-spellcasters don't use magic, and thus can't do impossible things.

Wait, what?

Reel On, Love

2008-04-27, 11:53 PM

Well, here's your problem:
-Non-spellcasters don't use magic, and thus can't do impossible things.

Oh, come the @#$! on, yes they can, in fiction. Cultures the world over have managed to accept this without cognitive dissonance, and I'm sure gamers could manage, too. "Just That Good" is a potent justification for everything from wuxia feats (balancing on tree branches, leaping for miles, shattering skulls with the wind from your blow), to the deeds of myth (throwing an island).

And setting that aside, D&D explicitly allows non-magical impossible things. We call them (Ex) abilities, like Evasion.

You can also give warriors (Su) abilities just fine.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-27, 11:58 PM

Not evyerbody has to go for maximized damage output, D&D is a team experiance and you need one of each peice if you think your going to go anywhere>

Except in D&D, that's not true, thus the discussion.

Past level X, (depending on the Wizard and Fighter build) the Fighter becomes a handicap to the Wizard instead of an actual partner. And that's not good.

Samakain

2008-04-28, 12:07 AM

I remember playing in a game with a lvl 25 Half Ogre Fighter

I dunno about anybody else

but FFS

He rewrote some very personal facts of existance to nearly everything we came across. Two of those facts being "hard ogre is hard" and "Big sword is Big", especially when he started dualing bastard swords, i swear he put out more damage per round than our wizard did just by being neigh unstoppable.

Your all free to your own opinon, but i find the idea the "Fighters suck because they can't do a maximized quickened empowered twin-spelled energy admixtured wank-a-troned meteor swarm" kinda offensive :P sure wizards have massive damage output, there also soft and chewy. Sure you can make a decent gish with 9th level spells, and at least 3 attacks but meh, your still a gish and not doing either of those things as well as you could solo.

but even without TOB, the humble fighter be can any form, shape size, whatever and still kick a fair bit of arse, even at higher level they really are master at every combact trick in the book, and i find it so much more rewarding to get in there swinging my sad little sword and get my hands dirty rather than sit 100ft back dealing 10d6.

And all in all, where talking about a party based game in balance

a lvl 20 wizard might be hurling the doom

but his punk arse better not forget who he hid behind when his whole 3 lvl 1 spells for the day where used up.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-28, 12:13 AM

Direct Damage sucks. When the wizard is a hundred feet away hurling Maximized, Empowered, Chained, Twinned, Heightened, Fell Ennervations to deal a massive number of negative levels from a 4th level slot, the Fighter becomes worse than useless.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-28, 12:17 AM

Your all free to your own opinon, but i find the idea the "Fighters suck because they can't do a maximized quickened empowered twin-spelled energy admixtured wank-a-troned meteor swarm" kinda offensive :P sure wizards have massive damage output, there also soft and chewy. Sure you can make a decent gish with 9th level spells, and at least 3 attacks but meh, your still a gish and not doing either of those things as well as you could solo.
That's not why fighters suck.
Wizards don't have massive damage output. A wizard that spends his time doing damage is a bad wizard.

Wizards don't wank-a-tron Meteor Swarms. They slap the Balor with an arcane-reached (rod-extended?) Irresistible Dance and the fight is over.

Fighters suck because they have to try to full attack the monster, who is either flying and teleporting at will (good luck trading full attacks) or will survive and destroy the fighter with its own full attack (like a dragon).

but even without TOB, the humble fighter be can any form, shape size, whatever and still kick a fair bit of arse, even at higher level they really are master at every combact trick in the book, and i find it so much more rewarding to get in there swinging my sad little sword and get my hands dirty rather than sit 100ft back dealing 10d6.
How about sitting 100 feet back and blinding all the enemies, turning them from threats into easy mop-up?
How about the Druid, who can eat things as a buffed bear (long-term buffs, too) better than you can cut them as a fighter, and then has more spells left?

And all in all, where talking about a party based game in balance

a lvl 20 wizard might be hurling the doom

but his punk arse better not forget who he hid behind when his whole 3 lvl 1 spells for the day where used up.
Who? How did you PREVENT enemies from walking around you and attacking him, exactly? And how many fights/day did you have at level 1 (and what did you do when the cleric's three spells were used up)?
The wizard had to keep himself safe by putting distance between himself and enemies.
"Suck at level 1 and rule at level 15/13/9+" isn't game balance, anyway.

And, oh, yeah--Wizards have much better defenses than Fighters. All Fighters have is HP. How's your Will save? Fail one and you're dead. The wizard can be hundreds of feet away, he can fly long before the fighter, he can produce mirror images, be invisible, have Spell Turning, teleport... A level 10 wizard has Overland Flight up all day. That alone keeps him mostly safe from like half the monsters he'll be facing.

And finally? Dual-wielding bastard swords is a horrible idea. You must have not have been fighting Epic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/abomination.htm#anaxim) monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/brachyurus.htm) of any (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/dragonEpic.htm) kind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/haNaga.htm).

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-28, 12:18 AM

I remember playing in a game with a lvl 25 Half Ogre Fighter

I dunno about anybody else

but FFS

He rewrote some very personal facts of existance to nearly everything we came across. Two of those facts being "hard ogre is hard" and "Big sword is Big", especially when he started dualing bastard swords, i swear he put out more damage per round than our wizard did just by being neigh unstoppable.

Your all free to your own opinon, but i find the idea the "Fighters suck because they can't do a maximized quickened empowered twin-spelled energy admixtured wank-a-troned meteor swarm" kinda offensive :P sure wizards have massive damage output, there also soft and chewy. Sure you can make a decent gish with 9th level spells, and at least 3 attacks but meh, your still a gish and not doing either of those things as well as you could solo.

If you aren't in the same discussion everyone else is, your comments aren't going to be taken to mean much.

1) Epic Level? Hahaha! Epic Spellcasting. Seriously, you can instantly kill everything on the planet at level 21 with a Wizard.

2) Damage dealing Wizard's aren't that great. That's kind of the point. You die now is better then you take 300 damage now.

3) Wizards soft and chewy? Not at all. Wizards are certainly a lot more resilient then Fighters, that's for sure.

4) A Gish is a far better fighter then a Fighter can ever be, he'll have more attacks then your Fighter.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 12:24 AM

Oh, come the @#$! on, yes they can, in fiction. Cultures the world over have managed to accept this without cognitive dissonance, and I'm sure gamers could manage, too. "Just That Good" is a potent justification for everything from wuxia feats (balancing on tree branches, leaping for miles, shattering skulls with the wind from your blow), to the deeds of myth (throwing an island).

And setting that aside, D&D explicitly allows non-magical impossible things. We call them (Ex) abilities, like Evasion.

You can also give warriors (Su) abilities just fine.

I believe you misunderstood. I was merely stating the common perception of what non-spellcasters are supposed to be able to do. I don't have balance problems with magic in my games, because I spend a lot of time developing the nature of magic, and adjust the power level of everything accordingly. In a gritty, low-powered setting, I have no problem nerfing the spellcasting capabilities of mages (although I give them some extra skills, better HD, etc, to make them not suck). In a high-powered, magic heavy game, I add feats to let fighters perform phenomal feats of prowess. It is a system that works for me, but I think only because I enjoy tinkering with game mechanics.

Frosty

2008-04-28, 12:30 AM

Except in D&D, that's not true, thus the discussion.

Past level X, (depending on the Wizard and Fighter build) the Fighter becomes a handicap to the Wizard instead of an actual partner. And that's not good.

1) Do you believe this no matter how well-built the fighter is and how tactical/smart the player is?

2) Does this only apply to the Fighter class or to all melee-centric builds?

Rutee

2008-04-28, 12:34 AM

3) Wizards soft and chewy? Not at all. Wizards are certainly a lot more resilient then Fighters, that's for sure.

As a note, this is true. Maxed out WBL on AC, which is stupid, will get you what, nearly to 50% evasion chance on primary attacks? Blink, Blur; 25% Evasion chance on primary attacks, base, and no WBL (though two spell slots).

Samakain

2008-04-28, 12:34 AM

i stand corrected :)

For the most part

Yes epic level, yes dual bastard sword, yes horrible idea, but the horrible idea started with the "half-ogre" as a PC race choice. Nothing in the particular campagin took itself to seriously. Yes the wizard was getting into epic spell casting, didn't mean the stupid mess of the half-ogre wasn't any less impressive.

i'll bow out thou, melee hate runs strong here : \

And for all the talk of broken and over balance, any decent DM is going to level the playing feild as much as possible between the caster and the melee characters. keeping the balance of enjoyment between all members of the group is the larger challenge.

but hey

knock yourself out.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-28, 12:36 AM

1) Do you believe this no matter how well-built the fighter is and how tactical/smart the player is?

2) Does this only apply to the Fighter class or to all melee-centric builds?It depends on how well-built the Wizard is. A good fighter can remain effective for longer, but past a certain point a Wizard becomes immortal, so no matter how good the Fighter is, he ends up a liability that the Wizard must protect.

2)All melee builds, though the Fighter becomes useless earlier than a ToBer, he still is useless without spellcasting past a certain point if he has no or gimped spellcasting.

Frosty

2008-04-28, 12:44 AM

For the investment of a few spells, I think melee types can take care of themselves. If they have an item of fly or can fly naturally, and they receive Deathward, Freedom of Movement, and Mindblank (offer some pearls of power?), they can probably last quite a while on the battle-field.

I'd wager that high level lockdown Crusader with those buffs will most likely be able to last the entire battle. He provides their own healing, is almost immune to deaht by hit-point damage, and is now immune to death effects and negative levels, and is also imune to mind-affecting effects and I don't know of any Reflex Save-or-Dies.

I obviously agree that Wizards are more powerful. That was never in contention. But melee-types don't just suddenly die in the battlefield if built well. What would you do in campaign where full-casters are not allowed?

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-28, 12:48 AM

1) Do you believe this no matter how well-built the fighter is and how tactical/smart the player is?

Well it depends on the level and the Wizard, but at level 21 it becomes true no matter how good the fighter if the Wizard is of a certain level of well played.

Obviously if both players are equal, McFighter isn't an actual liability for a long time. But if both are playing at high power level, after level 15 he really might be just that. He certainly doesn't contribute as much past level 10, or even before.

2) Does this only apply to the Fighter class or to all melee-centric builds?

Well, all past level 21, most long before that. Still depends a lot on the Wizard and meleer build.

Rutee

2008-04-28, 12:50 AM

i'll bow out thou, melee hate runs strong here : \
Nobody here hates melee, I think. It sounds like we all /want/ to buff it and balance it.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 12:52 AM

I personally prefer to take more away from the spellcaster, and thus add less to the non-spellcaster, myself. But then, I don't tend to use monsters so much as I use NPCs with levels, so I don't have to worry about "but, you need to be able to defeat monster of CR X by level X".

Frosty

2008-04-28, 12:52 AM

I have no experience in Epic play, so I am not commenting on that. I am talking about well-planned and thought-out builds for the levels 11 thru 20 range.

And I am personally not talking about a game where Cindy is in the party, since, in most games, the Dm would ask the Wizard player to tone it down.

Tren

2008-04-28, 12:52 AM

i'll bow out thou, melee hate runs strong here : \

Quite the contrary, most of the people here are big fans of melee characters and melee archetypes and that is exactly why they want to see a balanced system.

any decent DM is going to level the playing feild as much as possible between the caster and the melee characters.

The fact that the DM has to level the playing field shows right there that the system isn't balanced. It has nothing to do with melee hate.

Norsesmithy

2008-04-28, 01:11 AM

Samakain

2008-04-28, 01:13 AM

Quite the contrary, most of the people here are big fans of melee characters and melee archetypes and that is exactly why they want to see a balanced system.

The fact that the DM has to level the playing field shows right there that the system isn't balanced. It has nothing to do with melee hate.

very true, i apologise for my misconceptions, in my rather limited group where've come accross minimal balancing problems. I was not aware of the large issue :P

tyckspoon

2008-04-28, 01:14 AM

Now give a Fighter the ability to rend magical barriers like they were tapestries, hold his breath for hours (like Beowulf), and overcome any other impediments to his movement (like Fog Cloud, Stinking Cloud, and Cloud kill), and walk so hard he can climb the air as if it had stairs leading to where he wants to go, then he would be balanced with the Wizard.

I don't find anything wrong with the fluff of a non magical fighter that can accomplish deeds like this, does anyone else?

Obviously people do, or we wouldn't have had so many threads on the theme of 'Tome of Battle is overpowered/too anime!'

Also, this seems apropos...

Walk bold
Hard
Though they say
You're not the one

Even if you've been told time and time again
That you're always gonna lose and you're never gonna win
Gotta keep that vision in your mind's eye
When you're standing on top of a mountain high

Thoughtbot360

2008-04-28, 01:17 AM

There is an easy counter to this argument. Why should it be just as easy to reshape reality as it is to swing a sword?

Yeah!

I know where you're coming from. The ultimate conclusion that counter argument points to is that magic is hard to control (not necessarily random, but it might take longer to caster, or be exhausting, or be a risky all-or-nothing attack that automatically backfires on the wizard in the event that the target figures out how to deflect it!) Either that, or talks about limiting what magic can do (which isn't a bad idea.)

The basic idea behind a D&D Wizard (a the typical fantasy Wizard in most mediums today) is that he studied magical theory, a list of spells and practiced until something finally happened, and he could use 0 and 1st-level (but not 9th level, ohohoho no, gotta wait for that..) effects. And don't get me started on the Sorcerer (he freaking gets his powers for free!) While the Fighter goes through a lifetime of training, braving death in melee, and taking hits for the wizard, just him to suddenly become completely outclassed by the snooty bookworm somewhere in the 10-13th level range, and it only gets worse from there on.

What I'm saying is, doesn't the wizard's rather academic initiation into his class powers seem awfully...cushy...compared to the fighter's rigorous training? Actually, this observation explains why the fighter-types have so many more HPs than the spellcasters in most systems. Only, the Hit dice don't matter because the Wizard has 1,000 defensive spells and contengencies cast on himself. Wizards have access to effects the shore up their weaknesses and make them into a God. And on top of that, they have Save-or-Lose spells. Minus the Save.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 01:19 AM

I don't find anything wrong with the fluff of a non magical fighter that can accomplish deeds like this, does anyone else?

I have some, yes.
-The ability to hold one's breath for hours doesn't really help much.
-The fighter that can flat out negate the penalties from a wizard's spells is just as bad as the wizard that can negate the fighter with his spells. At least, if it can be done all the time. X/day I have no problem with, as long as it fits the setting. By which I mean, I have a huge problem with it in most settings, but none from a general flavor or balance perspective. I would call a duck a duck, and make them (su.), but that's not a huge issue for me.
-Fighters getting airwalk because they are just that good makes no sense to me. That being said, my fix for monk uses that. I just don't think it fits fighter, specifically.

Thoughtbot360

2008-04-28, 01:19 AM

Because, Rutee, the company is called Wizards of the Coast, not Fighters of the Coast.

Hmmm..."Fighters of the Coast"...that'd a great name for an action movie...or a beat 'em arcade game. Whichever.

Frosty

2008-04-28, 01:25 AM

I find that removing most of the no-save-and-suck spells, celerity, polymorph and its cousins, contingency, Superior Invisibility, Persistent Spell, and the ability to boost your Caster Level too high (so buffs can be dispelled) solves a lot of the problems.

Of course, the fact that so many houserules must be employed only showcases the problem.

random11

2008-04-28, 01:27 AM

Well, here's your problem:

-Spellcasters use magic, and so can do impossible things.
-Non-spellcasters don't use magic, and thus can't do impossible things.
-Since impossible things are more powerful than possible things, spellcasters are more powerful than non-spellcasters.

How do we fix this problem? Well, we limit the spellcasters, so they are squishy, and pretty much useless without their spells, and then we give them a limited number of spells per day. Of course, it sucks to be useless and squishy, so we'll give them enough spells/day that they can use them in almosty every encounter (thus negating the balancing factor of spells/day).

OK, that didn't work.

So try something else :smallsmile:
The intention of limiting the number of spells was to balance things by making the spell caster stronger, but with limited number of attacks, while the fighter is weaker, but has unlimited number of uses for his attacks (more or less).

The problem is, that the number of spells limitation just isn't enough for the purpose of balance. At medium-high levels, you need special stories that prevent the spell caster from recharging their spells, otherwise, you get stronger attacks with no practical limitations.

But what if magic has a cost?
What if every time the spell caster will actually have to consider if it is worth paying the price to end the fight quickly?
The mythologies are full of potential ideas: Spells can make you age faster, weaken you (XP cost), pull you to the "dark side", cause loss of self control, cause mental problems like phobias, draw attention to yourself from some kind of a monster type, etc.

And what about risks? You can make critical failures MUCH worse with magic compared to an attack with a weapon.
This is also exactly the type of thing that will make a culture want to restrict or outlaw magic. How strong will a spell caster be if he is forbidden to use magic near civilians, fearing being a criminal?

Frosty

2008-04-28, 01:33 AM

I think the solution is to give spellcasters some at-will spells, some per-encounter spells, and some spells that are only X/day.

Then give fighters the same, except we call them Powers.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 01:40 AM

What if every time the spell caster will actually have to consider if it is worth paying the price to end the fight quickly?

I actually addressed this. If you make wizards physically useless, and then proceed to make magic dangerous to use, you create a character that can either be useless, or be dangerous. If you can't do anything reliably, you are a reliability, just as much as a fighter can be in a high level party now.

Also, just as a note, critical failures for attack roles are not RAW, and are also a bad idea (why punish high level fighters?).

I think the solution is to give spellcasters some at-will spells, some per-encounter spells, and some spells that are only X/day.

Then give fighters the same, except we call them Powers.

Yes, lets make fighters and wizards the same. The above is only a good idea if you like 4E. I don't like the idea of balance by homogeny, personally.

How strong will a spell caster be if he is forbidden to use magic near civilians, fearing being a criminal?

I've played in a game like this. It was awesome. While it lasted, as it was a PbP game, and those have issues.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-28, 01:40 AM

See, I find something such as, I don't know, maybe playing ANY OTHER GAME, is much better balanced than something called D&D, but with 50 houserules. But maybe that's just me.

random11

2008-04-28, 01:49 AM

I actually addressed this. If you make wizards physically useless, and then proceed to make magic dangerous to use, you create a character that can either be useless, or be dangerous. If you can't do anything reliably, you are a reliability, just as much as a fighter can be in a high level party now.

Balance is the key.
Don't make the spell caster useless, just make the cost hight enough to avoid spells as an easy solution for everything. Make the caster say "I CAN cast a spell, but we can also achieve it in another way and save the spell for when we really need it".

When spell casters feel it is perfectly fine to use a fly spell to clean the top shelf, you KNOW something is wrong.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-28, 01:52 AM

Balance is the key.
Don't make the spell caster useless, just make the cost hight enough to avoid spells as an easy solution for everything. Make the caster say "I CAN cast a spell, but we can also achieve it in another way and save the spell for when we really need it".However, half the time the wizard is an "I Win" button, and the other half, he's useless, is not balanced.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 01:53 AM

I have found that most people that play spellcasters in my games want to be doing stuff that is significant in every significant encounter, and at least doing better than crossbow duty in encounters that aren't.

Frosty

2008-04-28, 01:55 AM

Yes, lets make fighters and wizards the same. The above is only a good idea if you like 4E. I don't like the idea of balance by homogeny, personally.

I do like the idea. As long as the powers and spells didn't all o the same things but only with different names, I'm cool with it.

random11

2008-04-28, 01:59 AM

However, half the time the wizard is an "I Win" button, and the other half, he's useless, is not balanced.

Balance doesn't mean equality in everything, balance is about giving all characters an equal opportunities to shine.
A thief isn't as good as a fighter in combat (or at least, he isn't supposed to be), but he shines when his skills are needed.
In the same way, A spell caster will not be as good as others in some situations, but will shine when he is needed, as long as he will be willing to pay the price the magic requires.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-28, 02:02 AM

Yes, lets make fighters and wizards the same. The above is only a good idea if you like 4E. I don't like the idea of balance by homogeny, personally.

The same? Gosh, I guess then Barbarians are the same as Wizards, because they have per-day abilities. And, hey, Duskblades play the same as Fighter/Wizard/EK/Abj. Champ gishes, since they're both gishes.

Oh, wait.

Balancing fighter and wizard powers against each other doesn't make them the same.

Crow

2008-04-28, 02:03 AM

Screw it. Just make all spells with a duration of more than "Instantaneous" require the caster to concentrate on maintaining the spell. That'll knock 'em down a peg.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 02:06 AM

I do like the idea. As long as the powers and spells didn't all o the same things but only with different names, I'm cool with it.

My personal preference is for magic to be different. (TM)

The difficulty lies in making magic-users different, but still balanced.

The same? Gosh, I guess then Barbarians are the same as Wizards, because they have per-day abilities. And, hey, Duskblades play the same as Fighter/Wizard/EK/Abj. Champ gishes, since they're both gishes.

Oh, wait.

Balancing fighter and wizard powers against each other doesn't make them the same.

No, but giving them all powers that work the same way does. That being one of many reasons I dislike 4E. It is uninspired from a game mechanics point of view.

Rutee

2008-04-28, 02:22 AM

Balance doesn't mean equality in everything, balance is about giving all characters an equal opportunities to shine.
A thief isn't as good as a fighter in combat (or at least, he isn't supposed to be), but he shines when his skills are needed.
In the same way, A spell caster will not be as good as others in some situations, but will shine when he is needed, as long as he will be willing to pay the price the magic requires.
This i the problem with that standard argument;

You're arguing for the Wizard to be /useless/ in some situations. Not "Less useful". The two are very different...

Also there's a "Fun balance" to be had too.

No, but giving them all powers that work the same way does. That being one of many reasons I dislike 4E. It is uninspired from a game mechanics point of view.
...No, it isn't. Putting everyone on the same power structure does not mean their powers all work the same. Ask Any City of Heroes player; All powers work from the same basic setup (Click it, you enter animation time, power goes on CD, power drains X End, you leave animation time, you can click a power that's not on CD.), but the actual execution is so different that you can't remotely claim that all classes work the same.

sonofzeal

2008-04-28, 02:27 AM

No, but giving them all powers that work the same way does. That being one of many reasons I dislike 4E. It is uninspired from a game mechanics point of view.
Personally, I want to try the game before passing judgement either way. But really, mechanical consistancy is never a bad thing. It makes things easier to understand, easier to remember, and speeds gameplay. Magic shouldn't be different simply for the sake of being different - it can be different to better capture the nature of what's going on, but that's a matter of implementation and the expressive power of the mechanics in question. We're just peple, trying to keep track of dozens of variables at any given moment of combat, and throwing in unnecessary complications under the banner of "well it's magic so let's throw all our old mechanics out the window" seems... silly. Capturing the essential details of all combat forms under a single cohesive set of mechanics is hardly uninspired; I'd call it the epitome of elegant game design. Unless I'm misinterpretting something here?

Reel On, Love

2008-04-28, 02:29 AM

No, but giving them all powers that work the same way does. That being one of many reasons I dislike 4E. It is uninspired from a game mechanics point of view.

What? No, it doesn't. That's like saying wizard rays work like fighter attacks, currently.

Wizard spells can and will do things fighter powers don't and can't. But they're "all the same" because... both have at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities? Hell, I can build a fighter type that has all three of those in 3.5!

How many powers have you seen, exactly? You must have seen the previews from DDXP. Are you really suggesting that the wizard's Sleep daily power and the fighter's daily power are the same?

You might as well say all Exalted characters all the same, since all use a pool of Essence to fuel Charms .

random11

2008-04-28, 02:29 AM

This i the problem with that standard argument;

You're arguing for the Wizard to be /useless/ in some situations. Not "Less useful". The two are very different...

Also there's a "Fun balance" to be had too.

Well, it's about time a Wizard uses an actual weapon, isn't it?
And as long as he doesn't have dump stats in the relevant fields, he will be useful, although not as much as the fighter types.

Anyway, I think than in fun balance terms, it's better than the alternative of the Wizard doing everything twice as good as others.

Nebo_

2008-04-28, 02:34 AM

Screw it. Just make all spells with a duration of more than "Instantaneous" require the caster to concentrate on maintaining the spell. That'll knock 'em down a peg.

Augh, I hate random fixes like this. They create more problems than they fix and make playing wizards no fun at all.

Rutee

2008-04-28, 02:35 AM

Well, it's about time a Wizard uses an actual weapon, isn't it?
And as long as he doesn't have dump stats in the relevant fields, he will be useful, although not as much as the fighter types.

Anyway, I think than in fun balance terms, it's better than the alternative of the Wizard doing everything twice as good as others.

Yeah, but that's like being taller then a leprechaun. We can't pick a slightly more balanced version then the current system just because it's better then the current :smalltongue:

(I think Wizards would be balanced if they only had access to /one/ school, personally, but that doesn't mean I want them to have to melee half the time)

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-28, 02:37 AM

Are you really suggesting that the wizard's Sleep daily power and the fighter's daily power are the same?

Yes and no. I would elaborate further, but in the interests of not turning this into a 4E thread, lets just pretend we've already had a 16 page de-railing arument about the things I don't like about 4E, and how you think those things are awesome, and get back to discussing game balance.

Saying "let's play 4E" in response to this is kinda like saying "just play a swordsage" in a monk thread. Except that I would generally agree with the second sentiment, but not with the 1st.

Rutee

2008-04-28, 02:40 AM

"I don't wanna turn this into a 4e thread, so I'll just backhand it instead".

MeTheGameGuy

2008-04-28, 02:50 AM

Would decreasing the wizard's spells per day make things more balanced, or less fun???

Maybe the solution is a balanced DM? If the DM can provide challenges that the fighter would be good at overcoming, fighters can get some time in the spotlight. Trouble is, fighters were designed to be good at, believe it or not, fighting. Because wizards are better at fighting, thanks to their magic spells, it's hard to make challenges for the fighter, and not the wizard, to do.

Ascension

2008-04-28, 05:32 AM

Starbuck_II

2008-04-28, 06:31 AM

But what if magic has a cost?
What if every time the spell caster will actually have to consider if it is worth paying the price to end the fight quickly?
The mythologies are full of potential ideas: Spells can make you age faster, weaken you (XP cost), pull you to the "dark side", cause loss of self control, cause mental problems like phobias, draw attention to yourself from some kind of a monster type, etc.

And what about risks? You can make critical failures MUCH worse with magic compared to an attack with a weapon.
This is also exactly the type of thing that will make a culture want to restrict or outlaw magic. How strong will a spell caster be if he is forbidden to use magic near civilians, fearing being a criminal?

But does it affect enemies as much as PCs. Do Balors lose levels or self control? Do they become afraid?

Can't just put it on Pcs. That is not balance.

Project_Mayhem

2008-04-28, 07:08 AM

But does it affect enemies as much as PCs. Do Balors lose levels or self control? Do they become afraid?

Can't just put it on Pcs. That is not balance.

WFRP does that. Spells are just about equal to a good melee-er in damage - their main shining point is utility and control. However, blasting out a high powered spell has a chance of a miscast, and the stronger the spell, the worse the **** up. eg the worst that can happen when you balls up casting the equivilant of 'light', is that you temporaly weaken yourself (or that you soil yourself), while messing up, say 'fate of doom', which alters fate and time to vastly increase the odds that a given target dies, has a worst possible result of everyone in a 10 yard radius being sucked into hell.

This works suprisingly well - as a player, you never overuse magic - the really powerful spells are last resort, and even high level wizards mostly only sling low/medium level spells around.

And yes, the enemy wizards have the same chanc of messing up - however miscasting isn't that likely, and you have to be very unlucky to get the worst results.

Pronounceable

2008-04-28, 07:22 AM

My issue with balancing arguments isn't fighter/wizard. It's more fighter/rogue or fighter/bard.

See, the thing is, a lot of these kind of arguments have the "We want them to be able to do as much as anyone else in and out of combat" caveat thrown in there. The thing is, I like skill monkeys. I like them a whole lot. My worry with 4E is that with reducing the number of skills and evening out the number of skill points people get a bit more (at least I think I remember they're doing that), it'll get to the point where you can't really play an extraordinarily skillful character.

I don't really care about combat effectiveness, I'm willing to sacrifice that, but I want to be better than the fighter (and, indeed, some mages) out of combat. It's still balanced because I'm still giving something up in order to gain out-of-combat effectiveness.

The way I see it, true balance isn't achieved by hammering everyone until they fit in the same holes, contributing the exact same amount to combat and non-combat situations as anyone and everyone else. It's achieved by making sure that they all have clearly differentiated roles and that in their intended role, they're king. Balance is about making sure that the round pegs can only fit in round holes, not about making sure that the square peg and the triangular peg and all the other pegs can fit in one universal hole.

Make the fighter, barbarian, and the like the undisputed kings of melee. Make the rouge, bard, etc. unparalleled in sheer skillfulness. Reduce the mages' capability to cross over into the other classes' domains. Don't use magic to hit something... that's what the fighters are for. Don't use magic to unlock the door... that's what the rogue is for.

While I don't think anyone should be completely useless in any situation, I think they should all deal with them in their own unique ways. Let's say the fighter, the rouge, and the mage each come across a locked wooden door. The fighter busts it down. The rogue picks the lock. The mage burns it away. The fighter doesn't burn it, the mage doesn't pick the lock, the rogue doesn't bust it down. They all deal with the problem, but they do so in their own unique manner. They don't tread on the other classes' roles.

This post is better than anything I'd say on balance.

Problem of DnD is it's class and level based. So classes must be balanced against each other on even levels, then system must be somehow scaled between different levels. A closed system with 3 classes and 5 levels can be balanced with some effort. A system with 20 classes and 50 levels, plus the infinity minus one other classes that are sure to be released, will NOT achieve "balance" by any humanly effort (not to mention the 12 races available).

So efforts toward balance in mechanics is fine, but will ultimately fail. Objectively, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be worked on, but no one can expect the end result to be wholly "balanced". Homebrewing and such can improve the game, plus it's much more fun to tweak the system till it purrs.

Subjectively, I couldn't care less if DnD balanced, I don't play DnD. I don't feel unhappy to play/run a mechanically unbalanced game. I can have fun without it so don't bother me with balance, and screw those that can't... (honesty is an offensive trait, no?)

If I were inclined to have a balanced system, I'd go with a point based one. The system will be hell to balance but once that happened, then characters/critters will be balanced as well. When skill costs are balanced a 300p PC is balanced against a 300p monster.

Indon

2008-04-28, 07:43 AM

Every once in a while, I see someone who equates game balance with uniformity.

Game balance is not the same as uniformity - balance is only strongly associated with uniformity.

There are, theoretically, ways that Wizards could make a balanced game with all the facets that make previous versions of D&D both balanced and interesting - but it would be much easier just to get rid of them, and that appears to be Wizards' approach at least in some cases, judging from them completely scrapping certain problematic mechanics (such as the Wish spell). In other cases (such as with traps) we see Wizards take the high road, however, so the jury's still out.

But the trepidation is unavoidable, because the simple fact is that it's easier to balance a board game than it is to balance an RPG.

random11

2008-04-28, 07:54 AM

But does it affect enemies as much as PCs. Do Balors lose levels or self control? Do they become afraid?

Can't just put it on Pcs. That is not balance.

There are two different issues here: consistency, and balance.

In terms of consistency, if a monster uses the same spell type as the PCs, then unless there is a very good reason not to, they should pay the same price.
However, if a monster uses magic that comes from a different source, of used in a different way, there shouldn't necessarily be a balance.

In balance terms, monsters are not supposed to be balanced with the PCs. It is the DM's job to understand what the party can handle, and if he sees that the restrictions on magic weakens the party, then the enemy's power should also decrease.

Morty

2008-04-28, 09:42 AM

WFRP does that. Spells are just about equal to a good melee-er in damage - their main shining point is utility and control. However, blasting out a high powered spell has a chance of a miscast, and the stronger the spell, the worse the **** up. eg the worst that can happen when you balls up casting the equivilant of 'light', is that you temporaly weaken yourself (or that you soil yourself), while messing up, say 'fate of doom', which alters fate and time to vastly increase the odds that a given target dies, has a worst possible result of everyone in a 10 yard radius being sucked into hell.

This works suprisingly well - as a player, you never overuse magic - the really powerful spells are last resort, and even high level wizards mostly only sling low/medium level spells around.

And yes, the enemy wizards have the same chanc of messing up - however miscasting isn't that likely, and you have to be very unlucky to get the worst results.

QFT. I don't really understand people claiming that the only way to make non-casters equal to casters is to turn warriors and thieves into superheroes. That's one way to do it, and better fitting for heroic game like D&D, but not the only one by far.

The Sandman

2008-04-28, 09:53 AM

Here's a crazy idea for a balancing mechanism: make the Wizard drain their own HP to cast a spell. Small effects are relatively low drain, with level 0 spells draining nothing unless you abuse them so much the DM has to step in. Level 9 spells, on the other hand, drain enough energy that you're seriously weakened afterwards. To achieve truly epic effects, meanwhile, would require enough HP drain to kill an ordinary wizard. Theoretically, in this setup, you can cast any level spell at any time, as long as you know it; practically, however, you have to wait until you have enough HP to not be one hit away from death after using your magic.

This would also allow for things like magical batteries to store HP for this purpose, blood sacrifice to use other people's HP, and so on.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-28, 10:13 AM

The Sandman

2008-04-28, 10:37 AM

I think false life just became the best second level spell ever.

Alternatively, temporary hit points can't be used to power spells, in which instance False Life is just a way of keeping yourself alive long enough to get some healing or rest.

LibraryOgre

2008-04-28, 10:53 AM

The problem is that the game is set up for balance, then utterly fails to achieve it. According to the XP RAW, your party facing a 20th level fighter (with any reasonable array of feats) is facing a CR 20 challenge. Your party facing a 20th level Sorcerer is also facing a CR 20 challenge. Mind you, the contention on this board is that the sorcerer (even core-only) could have taken nothing but Skill Focuses and still wipe the floor with a competently-built party that could handle a 20th level fighter... even, frequently, if that fighter had Leadership, and an array of followers with him (assuming, of course, none of those followers were a spellcaster of significant merit).

I think Skjaldbakka's question on the first page is a good one: why should reordering the universe be as easy as swinging a sword?

Bear in mind for a moment, the difference in ages. It takes twice as long to learn to be a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard as it does a Fighter or Ranger; three times as long for a Rogue or Barbarian*. If you go strictly by the book, it's not inconceivable that your 1st level wizard will be 27, while your fighters and thieves will be 16. I've been in that position. It was when I was teaching history to high schoolers. That's the extreme, but it is just as likely as you rolling an 18 on any one of your stats. Even the average age of a Wizard, Cleric or Druid (22) puts them ahead of the maximum rolled age of Fighters and Rangers by 1 (21), and Barbarians and Rogues by 3 (19).

A 27-year-old fighter, on the other hand, is rarely going to be 1st level. If he's 1st level, most people will want to know what he's been doing to gain almost no experience in the ten years since he took up the mantle of fighter.** At best, he's had 6 years of doing very little, but even that doesn't explain why he hasn't developed in any way, shape, or form. He apparently hasn't practiced enough to learn anything (even a level of Warrior), nor taken up a trade to feed himself (a level of expert), nor been pampered enough to become part of the ruling nobility (a level of aristocrat). He hasn't even had to grub for a living (a level of commoner). He's just stood around for 6-11 years, gathering dust... something that makes little sense.

So, you're in a pickle. You either have artificially created groups ("You're all together for reason X"), where the near-generational gap is dealt with as best as you are able. You have wizard, druid, and clerical prodigies who managed to do everything in half the time***, thus keeping them somewhat on par with their age-contemporaries. Or you've got a spell-caster who's also a Scoutmaster, keeping an eye on his violent, larcenous, youthful charges.

If you keep the current set-up of D&D, those are your options. Other options include limiting the scope of starting magical powers, or putting more limits on spells. What if the 1st level version of CLW had a 1-minute casting time? Or Shield took you 2 rounds to enact? Suddenly, spellcasters get a lot more vulnerable, simply because they have to rely on people to protect them while spellcasting... a job that frequently fell to warriors in previous editions, but was left by the wayside when spells became just as fast as swinging a sword, and when age considerations are glossed over.

*When we're talking humans and half-orcs, at least. Other races play with the ratios a bit, and get a little finicky because of their expanded ages, but it's also easier for most of us to think in human ages, so I'll stick to talking about them. I also don't talk about Monks and Sorcerers, who are the weird bits in this; monks because they are underpowered for their ages, sorcerers because they are overpowered.
**Incidentally, this is why I hate people playing middle aged and older characters in a 1st level game for stat bonuses. You would have a level in SOMETHING... expert, commoner, aristocrat... for your X number of years of life... in the case of people playing extremely ancient gold/high elves, we're talking people who apparently lived 350+ years without gaining any significant experience whatsoever. These characters aren't wizened. They have learning disabilities.
***Yes, yes, Raistlin. Raistlin was also destined to become a demigod, was helped along to power by an extremely high level undead wizard, who may or may not have been himself, and every third sentence about him in the beginning is "He was so young to have taken the Test." The other sentences would be some variant on "He's a colossal evil jerk" and Caramon defending him. Raistlin is not an example of the norm.

Rutee

2008-04-28, 11:05 PM

See, the thing is, a lot of these kind of arguments have the "We want them to be able to do as much as anyone else in and out of combat" caveat thrown in there. The thing is, I like skill monkeys. I like them a whole lot. My worry with 4E is that with reducing the number of skills and evening out the number of skill points people get a bit more (at least I think I remember they're doing that), it'll get to the point where you can't really play an extraordinarily skillful character.
That's what I don't get. If you /like/ skill monkeys, why would it be bad that everyone is skillful?

I don't really care about combat effectiveness, I'm willing to sacrifice that, but I want to be better than the fighter (and, indeed, some mages) out of combat. It's still balanced because I'm still giving something up in order to gain out-of-combat effectiveness.
Honestly? That's fine. But it shouldn't be a default system choice, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Turcano

2008-04-28, 11:20 PM

Nebo_

2008-04-28, 11:24 PM

I had a similar idea, but mine would have spellcasting do nonlethal damage (tentatively) equal to the relevant spell level, which would (hopefully) make a spellcaster risk passing out if he or she casts too many spells too quickly.

That's how Necromancy spells work in the Iron Kingdoms, but it's really more of a flavour thing.

Talya

2008-04-28, 11:36 PM

Every once in a while, I see someone who equates game balance with uniformity. We have all heard the Fighter vs. Wizard topics, but whats interesting is that in every one of those forums, I hear things like:

-Duh! Wizards can remake reality and Fighters can just swing a sword really, really hard. Of course Wizards should be stronger.
-Balance=Uniformity. Every character would be just like every other character if we had balance.
-Since when was Balance such a big deal?
-D&D isn't Anime! (In response to any mention of the possibility of buffing fighters.

My view can best be summed up in this quote from the Zodiac FFRPG Forums (http://zodiacffrpg.proboards74.com/index.cgi?board=gaming&action=display&thread=112):

Thoughts?

I hate this sort of outlook. It's a game, people. It's supposed to be fun for everyone.

False dillemmas. Differences in power do not necessarily make it less fun for some, or make some classes less valuable.

Think of it like a hockey game. The most valuable member of a team by far is the goaltender...a strong goaltender weilds far more influence over deciding the winner than any other position in hockey.

How well do you think a team would be that dressed 20 goaltenders for a game?

Spellcasters are supposed to represent the supernatural in D&D...beyond the abilities of mere mortals (everyone else.) If you move them down to melee level, magic is pointless, you've removed all the fantasy from the game. If you move melee up to they're level, they're no longer melee. They're mages. Whether they do it with a sword or a wand is irrelevant. If you want to put Merlin/Gandalf in the same party as Tristan/Boromir, it's inevitable there will be some power imbalances. That doesn't mean they are not all useful.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 12:00 AM

Spellcasters are supposed to represent the supernatural in D&D...beyond the abilities of mere mortals (everyone else.)

No. No they aren't. Nobody says that expect apologist players. WotC thought they balanced it, remember? They thought Wizards and Clerics were as useful as Fighters. They were really freaking wrong, but nobody involved in the game set out to intentionally make Fighters irrevocably bad compared to Wizards, and make them represent things the rest of the party could.

If you wanna be nerfed, go for it. I don't give a damn. But your assumption is less inclusive then making them all roughly equivalent in ability; If you make everyone roughly equivalent in ability, all /you/ have to do is tank optimization compared to someone else. If you build DnD as.. well what it is /now/, and *I* want to play a game where everyone gets to be useful, not only do *I* have to optimize heavily, but the *Wizard* has to nerf themselves.

Turcano

2008-04-29, 12:00 AM

That's how Necromancy spells work in the Iron Kingdoms, but it's really more of a flavour thing.

I don't have a working knowledge of Iron Kingdoms, so you'll have to chalk that one up to coincidence.

Would it have a chance of working, though? As I said, I'm not committed to the given value. Twice the spell level seems a bit overkill, though, so anything in between has a chance of becoming really ugly crunchwise.

Talya

2008-04-29, 12:14 AM

well what it is /now/, and *I* want to play a game where everyone gets to be useful, not only do *I* have to optimize heavily, but the *Wizard* has to nerf themselves.

No, this is not correct. First of all, this forum has this obsession with TLN's "Batman" wizard. In reality, such a wizard does only one thing well:

He dies.

Quickly.

The massive imbalance these forums suggest does not exist in the reality of solid gaming. TLN's faithful would have you believe that nobody ever makes a saving throw, that nothing is ever immune to the spell you just cast, that divination can somehow help you know what to prepare, and that you'll always know exactly what the DM's going to throw at youl. In reality, even most level 20 wizards end up cowering most fights behind the big strong melee types.

All the talk of wizards making everyone else redundant in 3.5 is just that...hot-air, blow-hard talk. It is simply not true. Yes, wizards have immense magical power, and they pay for it. They rely on their parties.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 12:26 AM

All the talk of wizards making everyone else redundant in 3.5 is just that...hot-air, blow-hard talk. It is simply not true.

You have never demonstrated anything remotely resembling this. You keep saying it, and saying it. Most of the Wizard pwns supporting arguments I've seen however, produce actual substance. "Save or Suckl A will disable X% of the MM encounters at CR Y on a reliable basis, because <X%> has <Z> as its low save, which A targets." Actual reasons why the Wizard wins, rather then simply saying it does, in many words, and extra comparisons.

I should have you and CoV fight to the death.

Now, that aside? You didn't even come close to addressing the rest of what I said. You want Fighters to be worse? Fine. You force your fighters to optimize worse. What you want is easier to accomplish by nerfing then it is to accomplish what I want by optimization. Especially since an equal amount of optimization in a better class will produce.. gasp, a better result. If me and my friend are equal optimizers, and I want a melee to be as good as him, even if we assume you're correct that the gap is surmountable, he my friend /still/ has to nerf themselves.

Turcano

2008-04-29, 12:30 AM

No, this is not correct. First of all, this forum has this obsession with TLN's "Batman" wizard. In reality, such a wizard does only one thing well:

He dies.

Quickly.

The massive imbalance these forums suggest does not exist in the reality of solid gaming. TLN's faithful would have you believe that nobody ever makes a saving throw, that nothing is ever immune to the spell you just cast, that divination can somehow help you know what to prepare, and that you'll always know exactly what the DM's going to throw at youl. In reality, even most level 20 wizards end up cowering most fights behind the big strong melee types.

All the talk of wizards making everyone else redundant in 3.5 is just that...hot-air, blow-hard talk. It is simply not true. Yes, wizards have immense magical power, and they pay for it. They rely on their parties.

Exaggeration aside, the Batman Wizard requires the context of the rest of the party. TLN knows this, and he'll probably tell you so.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 12:34 AM

No, this is not correct. First of all, this forum has this obsession with TLN's "Batman" wizard. In reality, such a wizard does only one thing well:

He dies.

Quickly.

Except that the wizard is vastly more survivable than the fighter. His lower HP is made up for by a host of defensive spells, miss chance, etc--as well as the ability to stay well out of full-attack range.

The massive imbalance these forums suggest does not exist in the reality of solid gaming. TLN's faithful would have you believe that nobody ever makes a saving throw, that nothing is ever immune to the spell you just cast, that divination can somehow help you know what to prepare, and that you'll always know exactly what the DM's going to throw at youl. In reality, even most level 20 wizards end up cowering most fights behind the big strong melee types.
The massive imbalance sure as heck does. I was just in a game where someone stopped playing a Warblade and started playing a Druid, for example. The difference was enormous. I went from a Dragonfire Adept to a Wizard. Same. The Warblade and DFA are solid, well-balanced classes that are useful... but they don't compare to the druid/wizard.

I have no idea how the divination thing got started, and you don't NEED to know what the DM is going to throw at you (but you generally have some general idea) to prepare a solid spell list and make Knowledge checks when you see creatures.
The idea that "most level 20 wizards cower behind the big strong fighter" is patently ridiculous. I've yet to see what any melee fighter does against dragons, other than try to stay the hell out of their way and fire at it from range until the wizard lands the right spells on it. Archers can shoot them, but they can't stand up to a full attack.

Furthermore, it's not as though standing behind the Fighter would help, since 9/10 fighters can't prevent the enemy from closing, and those that can still have to deal with enormous flying and/or teleporting enemies.

You can't count on enemies always failing their saves, but you can count on statistics. That enemy a few CR above yours with the all good saves (some sort of BBEG outsider, dragon, etc)? sure, they might only have a 30-40% chance of failing... but that means that if you throw three spells at them, they're pretty damn likely to be down. Then there's all the spells that don't allow saves, from lower-level fare like Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Dizziness to high-level stuff like Irresistible Dance and Avasculate.

Seriously, most enemies aren't mind-immune. Many of those that are have Mind Blank. Rod-quickened (or have the Cleric do it) Greater Dispel plus arcane-reached Irresistible Dance is a staple strategy that works against just about anything that isn't a construct or undead. It's not guaranteed, but it's pretty damn close.

All the talk of wizards making everyone else redundant in 3.5 is just that...hot-air, blow-hard talk. It is simply not true.
They don't make everyone else redundant, unless they're optimized to ridiculous degrees. But they do contribute very disproportionately. A single spell turns a fight against a group of beefy warriors--humanoids, trolls, etc--from tough to easy. A single spell makes a hydra a third of the threat it was (Hydra's will save? Not good). And so on, and so forth.

Talya

2008-04-29, 12:37 AM

You have never demonstrated anything remotely resembling this. You keep saying it, and saying it. Most of the Wizard pwns supporting arguments I've seen however, produce actual substance. "Save or Suckl A will disable X% of the MM encounters at CR Y on a reliable basis, because <X%> has <Z> as its low save, which A targets." Actual reasons why the Wizard wins, rather then simply saying it does, in many words, and extra comparisons.

That argument, if made,is already invalid. You can't argue based on "most MM encounters." Every half-decent DM tailors his encounters to the party. They don't just randomly pull out a monster manual, turn to a page, and pick out a monster. Furthermore, they follow the rules for advancing them and upgrading them, turning them into something that is a challenge for the party to cast. Also, the party never has any idea what is going to work and what isn't, because the DM is not predictable in this regard. Note that this isn't relying on "rule 0." This isn't DM Fiat...this is the DM doing his normal job with the rules given in the system.

Now, that aside? You didn't even come close to addressing the rest of what I said. You want Fighters to be worse? Fine. You force your fighters to optimize worse. What you want is easier to accomplish by nerfing then it is to accomplish what I want by optimization. Especially since an equal amount of optimization in a better class will produce.. gasp, a better result. If me and my friend are equal optimizers, and I want a melee to be as good as him, even if we assume you're correct that the gap is surmountable, he my friend /still/ has to nerf themselves.

I have no idea what you just said.

There's no nerfing or optimization required. 3.5 already works for me in this way. WoD already works for you. Note that they are radically different games.

Is 3.5 perfect? Hell no. A few classes are downright stupid. (Monks!) A few concepts require houserules to make work without convoluted PrC combinations (Dextrous fighter-types.)

Frosty

2008-04-29, 12:41 AM

Catfight!

...

>.>

<.<

...just kidding. Umm hugs? <(^_^)>

...no? Sorry!! *rolls hide check*

Talic

2008-04-29, 12:49 AM

Yes, batman functions best with a party for support.

However, batman can function perfectly well without a party.

Let's go with Contact other plane (a fairly well optimized wizard will be able to reliably get a demi-deity at level 16). At level 16, let's go with 16 questions.

With my current projected path, will I be opposed in the next two days by anything that presents a significant threat to me?

Assuming I retreat to my demiplane after any significant encounter, will the threat be able to reliably follow me?

Is the greatest threat magical in nature?

Is the greatest threat physical in nature?

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which attack my opponent's mind and strength of will?

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which attack my opponent's physical fortitude?

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which are defeated by extraordinarily good reflexes?

Will this threat be immune to energy drain?

Will this threat be extraordinarily difficult for me to hit with my aimed range effects?

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on dealing physical damage to overcome me?

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on defeating my reflexes?

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on attacking my physical fortitude?

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on attacking my mind or strength of will?

Will this threat be possessed with the ability to detect the invisible easily?

Will this threat be possessed with the power of flight?

<one question left open>

Now, cast 3 times, to get an exceedingly good chance of receiving straight answers.

Now we know opponent's strengths, weaknesses, and some detection abilities... Provided that it's reasonable to assume the fighter type isn't able to block the ability of a demi-deity to know.

Artanis

2008-04-29, 01:00 AM

That argument, if made,is already invalid. You can't argue based on "most MM encounters." Every half-decent DM tailors his encounters to the party.
Oberoni Fallacy. Try again.

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:04 AM

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:05 AM

Oberoni Fallacy. Try again.

No, it isn't.

Every half-decent DM tailors his encounters to the party. They don't just randomly pull out a monster manual, turn to a page, and pick out a monster. Furthermore, they follow the rules for advancing them and upgrading them, turning them into something that is a challenge for the party to cast. Also, the party never has any idea what is going to work and what isn't, because the DM is not predictable in this regard. Note that this isn't relying on "rule 0." This isn't DM Fiat...this is the DM doing his normal job with the rules given in the system.

Oberoni fallacy indicates that something isn't imbalanced because "you can just change it." However, the game is designed for DMs to advance their encounters, to customize every single detail. There are rules specifically to govern it that require no house ruling, they are part of the system. A lazy DM is going to find players know the strengths and weaknesses of every enemy he pits them up against. A good one will take advantage of the tools he's been given to make sure they don't. Furthermore, he'll be creative with how he teams up various parts of an encounter, and how he advances them, so he can challenge his players.

A wizard relies on preparation. And any wizard who is well prepared much of the time has a lazy DM. Players don't get to pick their encounters, the DM does. And furthermore, if he's any good at all he's even changing them up before you run into them based on your spell selection. Nothing makes a wizard stingier with his spells than realizing no matter how he plans things out, over and over again with allarming frequency, his last encounter of the day would have been far easier if he still had that spell he used during the previous encounter...

Artanis

2008-04-29, 01:10 AM

You said a half-decent GM tailors his encounters for the party.

Meaning that if a GM is doing his job correctly, it is not imbalanced.

However, 3e IS imbalanced on a mechanical level. You even say so yourself, that Wizards are and (you claim) should be more powerful than melee.

Thus you are saying that the GM's job is to balance what is not balanced.

And you are saying that because this is the case, everything is fine.

That's the Oberoni Fallacy. Simply saying "OMG! IT IZ NOT TEH FALAZZY!" doesn't somehow change what it is.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 01:14 AM

That argument, if made,is already invalid. You can't argue based on "most MM encounters." Every half-decent DM tailors his encounters to the party. They don't just randomly pull out a monster manual, turn to a page, and pick out a monster. Furthermore, they follow the rules for advancing them and upgrading them, turning them into something that is a challenge for the party to cast. Also, the party never has any idea what is going to work and what isn't, because the DM is not predictable in this regard. Note that this isn't relying on "rule 0." This isn't DM Fiat...this is the DM doing his normal job with the rules given in the system.
Then why do you give so much of a damn what WotC does with monsters in 4e? A Half-decent DM tailors everything, right? Notwithstanding that if you have to add special stuff to counter the wizard, the wizard is by default better.

I have no idea what you just said.
It wasn't difficult or incomprehensible; I have a Fighter (Or god forbid, a Swashbuckler, Monk, or CW Samurai), my friend has a Wizard. My friend is my equivalent as an optimizer. You claim that Wizards are.. oh let's say a 7, and fighters are a 6; There's a gap, but it's surmountable (Which completely goes against your claim earlier that wizards were supposed to be something 'mere mortals' could never hope to attain). If both me and my friend are capable of adding +2 to a class, then my friend, who has a wizard, has a 9, and I have an 8. If I want my Fighter to be as good as their wizard, they have to only add +1, which is a nerf; They could have had a 9, easily. If you want fighters to be weaker, why not just start them off at 7, with the Wizard, and then /you/ add +1 instead of your friend and you both adding +2?

There's no nerfing or optimization required. 3.5 already works for me in this way. WoD already works for you. Note that they are radically different games.
Notwithstanding your own arguments defeating this claim.. you have always talked about throwing extra crap at the Wizard, in terms of adding extra defenses to monsters to counter them. How is that /not/ nerfing, even if it has rules to do it? And who the hell is talking about WoD?

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 01:18 AM

A wizard relies on preparation. And any wizard who is well prepared much of the time has a lazy DM. Players don't get to pick their encounters, the DM does. And furthermore, if he's any good at all he's even changing them up before you run into them based on your spell selection. Nothing makes a wizard stingier with his spells than realizing no matter how he plans things out, over and over again with allarming frequency, his last encounter of the day would have been far easier if he still had that spell he used during the previous encounter...

Actually, a wizard DOESN'T rely on preparation much. A wizard relies on an intelligently put-together spell list, made up of the strongest spells for their level in the game (like Glitterdust), with scrolls of reliably-useful spells for backup (why cast Mirror Image when you can read a scroll of it)?

What's more, you can't constantly tailor encounters to the wizard (much less to his spell list that day--do you never plan the party's encounters out in advance? Do you make them at the table after looking at the wizard's spell list?). Sometimes the plot demands this or that... and besides, you can't tailor all the encounters to the wizard, because the party also has, say, a Beguiler and a Cleric-archer to worry about.
And if every enemy suddenly has high saves, a high touch AC, SR, but low physical damage/melee defenses... well, that's going to get mighty suspicious and mighty old.

Besides which: if you have to spend so much time balancing the encounters so the wizard doesn't tear through them, that speaks to the wizard's unbalanced nature. Of course you can make things tougher on a specific PC... it's as easy as having all enemies go out of their way to target them, reasonable or not... but you don't have worry about doing it to the fighter or the rogue. If there's a fighter, you can grab any encounter you feel like, that fits thematically or story-wise or just looks interesting, and throw it in. With a wizard, you need to do a bunch of work.
I should be able to throw a group of three humanoid warriors at a party, of the same CR as, say, a Bone devil, without worrying about the wizard mopping them up in a round or two unless I go way out of my way to counter the player's specific spell list. I shouldn't have to throw a Bone Devil rather than three warriors, two giants, a single spellcaster, etc if I want an encounter that the wizard won't wade through. I shouldn't have to give every melee humanoid Steadfast Determination and Iron Will just so he's got even a 50% chance of making his Will save. I shouldn't have to make sure every single high level enemy is protected against Irresistible Dance. etc.

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:19 AM

Thus you are saying that the GM's job is to balance what is not balance.

Without the DM there is no balance in anything, because without the DM there are no encounters at all. The players don't get to choose what they are going to face, the DM has. Since you're using "balance," imagine the balance as a scale. The players are on one side. The DM has to put things on the other side to balance them out. This is not decided solely by CR, though, because the weight depends on the abilities of the party, vs. the abilities of the encounters. It is the DM's job to create a balanced encounter. The only imbalanced encounters are the DM's fault. The game has all the rules and tools he needs to make it balanced. There's no imbalance to start with, because there is no encounter at all until the DM creates it.

And you are saying that because this is the case, everything is fine.

That's the Oberoni Fallacy. Simply saying "OMG! IT IZ NOT TEH FALAZZY!" doesn't somehow change what it is.

And again,see above. This isn't the oberoni fallacy. The oberoni fallacy would require saying "Gee, none of the encounters I can create using the normal rules ever challenge the wizard, while the fighter can't do anything. I'll have to change the rules."

The Sandman

2008-04-29, 01:23 AM

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:24 AM

Then why do you give so much of a damn what WotC does with monsters in 4e? A Half-decent DM tailors everything, right? Notwithstanding that if you have to add special stuff to counter the wizard, the wizard is by default better.

Fluff's far harder to rewrite than rules.

(Which completely goes against your claim earlier that wizards were supposed to be something 'mere mortals' could never hope to attain).

Just because wizards are something mere mortals can never hope to attain, doesn't make the actual usefulness gap in combat all that huge.

If both me and my friend are capable of adding +2 to a class, then my friend, who has a wizard, has a 9, and I have an 8. If I want my Fighter to be as good as their wizard, they have to only add +1, which is a nerf; They could have had a 9, easily. If you want fighters to be weaker, why not just start them off at 7, with the Wizard, and then /you/ add +1 instead of your friend and you both adding +2?

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Notwithstanding your own arguments defeating this claim.. you have always talked about throwing extra crap at the Wizard, in terms of adding extra defenses to monsters to counter them. How is that /not/ nerfing, even if it has rules to do it? And who the hell is talking about WoD?

I haven't added any extra crap thrown at the wizard. I tailored my encounters to the party. That's not extra. That's how the game is designed. That's not "extra" at all. That's just normal.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 01:25 AM

And again,see above. This isn't the oberoni fallacy. The oberoni fallacy would require saying "Gee, none of the encounters I can create using the normal rules ever challenge the wizard, while the fighter can't do anything. I'll have to change the rules."

Well, 'above' was mostly "You have to have a GM, therefore, GM interference is to be expected". But even if using the normal rules, you can create things to challenge the wizard..

Look at the work. How much work do you have to put into it to challenge the wizard? How much work do you have to put into things to challenge the fighter? (Hint: Custom anything vs. out-of-the book monsters..)

Fluff's far harder to rewrite than rules.
In what galaxy is this normally true? It's usually far more work then it is to design new mechanics from the ground up as it is to write new descriptions. ESPECIALLY when you already have the fluff you want.

Just because wizards are something mere mortals can never hope to attain, doesn't make the actual usefulness gap in combat all that huge.
...In what sense does that mean wizards are more then mere mortals can ever hope to attain then? (Hint: Extra /out of combat/ utility is just as bad)

I still have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh my freaking god in heaven. How? What part loses you?

I haven't added any extra crap thrown at the wizard. I tailored my encounters to the party. That's not extra. That's how the game is designed. That's not "extra" at all. That's just normal.

How much work did you have to do to make the monster a threat to the wizard?

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 01:27 AM

Would another way to fix the problem be to make the Caster Level Check for spell resistance be based off the caster level of the spell, and then make spell resistance slightly easier for melee types to acquire? That way, higher level and metamagic spells have a decent chance of breaking spell resistance, but lower level stuff gets brushed off by 20th level fighters in all but rare cases.

For example, under that setup SR14 should give you a 50% chance of resisting Irresistible Dance, unless the caster blows a bunch of metamagic feats on improving it.

No. This is a slapdash patch thrown on without any thought for how it'll affect play (whoops, creatures). It also falls into the "useless half the time, win half the time" trap.

The way to fix the problem is to fix what the spells *do*. Arcana Evolved is a variant D&D, basically. It has full casters with 9th-level spells... but nobody suggests that they're overpowered, because the spells don't do the same things.

Talic

2008-04-29, 01:30 AM

With my current projected path, will I be opposed in the next two days by anything that presents a significant threat to me?

"Yes." ((What's not said - "Several. Nearly constantly, in fact. You won't find much time to rest, either."))

Assuming I retreat to my demiplane after any significant encounter, will the threat be able to reliably follow me?

"No." ((What's not said - "But the plot that will result in your doom is on a timeline. It won't wait for you to rest."))

Is the greatest threat magical in nature?

"Maybe." ((What's not said - "Everything in this setting is magical in nature." Furthermore, all encounters you are facing are of equal CR, and none is guaranteed to be the "greatest threat", so it can't base the answer on any one encounter.))

Is the greatest threat physical in nature?

"Maybe." ((See above.))

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which attack my opponent's mind and strength of will?

"maybe." ((see above.))

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which attack my opponent's physical fortitude?

"maybe." ((See above.))

Will this threat be resistant to my spells which are defeated by extraordinarily good reflexes?

"maybe." ((See above.))

Will this threat be immune to energy drain?

"maybe." ((See above))

Will this threat be extraordinarily difficult for me to hit with my aimed range effects?

"maybe." ((see above.)
Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on dealing physical damage to overcome me?
...we're going over the same ground here. You'll be facing at least 4encounters before you can rest again, and not one of them is identified as the greatest threat. How many "maybes" do you want?

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on defeating my reflexes?
see above

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on attacking my physical fortitude?
see above

Will this threat's primary attack form rely mainly on attacking my mind or strength of will?
see above

Will this threat be possessed with the ability to detect the invisible easily?
see above

Will this threat be possessed with the power of flight?
See above...
<one question left open>

No, what you got were a bunch of maybes thanks to a poorly thought out question. However, there's no way to get the answers to all the encounters you're going to face in a very short period of time. Furthermore, most encounters will not be a single opponent...they will be multiple enemies with varying strengths and weaknesses, even in the same encounter requiring vastly different strategies to beat.

No, what you've got is a DM who's determined to make a spell that is supposed to be on par with the following spells:

Cloudkill, Wall of Force, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, Break Enchantment...

and interpreting it in a very jerkish fashion to place it on a power level equivalent to the following spells:

Light, Flare, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation.

Further, there is no mention of the wizard's "Impending DOOOOOM" in this. Only wizard versus fighter.

Please note, spells such as this are not designed for DM's to require players to spend two and a half hours designing a three page dissertation on each question, to force the DM to answer directly, rather than with smart-alecky smarminess. The game is primarily to have FUN.

What this means? If something simple can be done, with 95% the accuracy of something complex, you go with it, rather than specifically trying to thwart every single ability that every PC you have has. Some of the answers you give are right up there with "I wish for a single copper coin," and getting the response, "Ok, the wish teleports you to the lair of Fistanthraxilion, the Ancient Wyrm of Legend. In front of you is a single copper coin, rolled free from the rest of his horde. Make a reflex save.".

In fact, I would, and have, walked out on games with this level of DM "nyah nyah player's can't play, cause I'm in charge, and I love beating my players with semantics". Shortly thereafter, I believe all the other players walked as well, and we had an actual game, based on trying to let players do things, rather than looking for reasons why they couldn't, and ways to thwart them.

In short, the DM is not against the players. There's a reason the spell has a risk of complete inability to cast for weeks, for a relatively low chance of answer. When you DO get the truthful answer, it's SUPPOSED to be helpful, not the result of a poorly worded 17 page contract with Mephistopheles.

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:31 AM

In reality, even most level 20 wizards end up cowering most fights behind the big strong melee types.

Then you should have no trouble proving it.

Go on, I await your statistically sound data that supports your conclusion.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 01:32 AM

"Ok, the wish teleports you to the lair of Fistanthraxilion, the Ancient Wyrm of Legend. In front of you is a single copper coin, rolled free from the rest of his horde.".

...and then you die!

The results of any Wish have to end with "and then you die." It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

(At least, that was the running joke in my AD&D game. "I wish not to die!" "You don't die this instant. And then you die.")

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:37 AM

Actually, a wizard DOESN'T rely on preparation much. A wizard relies on an intelligently put-together spell list, made up of the strongest spells for their level in the game (like Glitterdust), with scrolls of reliably-useful spells for backup (why cast Mirror Image when you can read a scroll of it)?

Indeed. That's what keeps a wizard from being a deadweight slowing down the party. To actually exercise any of the control and dominance people here talk about, they rely on extreme levels of preparation.

What's more, you can't constantly tailor encounters to the wizard (much less to his spell list that day--do you never plan the party's encounters out in advance? Do you make them at the table after looking at the wizard's spell list?). Sometimes the plot demands this or that... and besides, you can't tailor all the encounters to the wizard, because the party also has, say, a Beguiler and a Cleric-archer to worry about.

None of this stuff is exclusive to each other. of course encounters are planned out in advance. That doesn't rule out last minute minor changes or touchups. Admittedly, I don't play at a table. I play mostly online (OpenRPG and PbP). I'm not sure if that changes the dynamics.

And if every enemy suddenly has high saves, a high touch AC, SR, but low physical damage/melee defenses... well, that's going to get mighty suspicious and mighty old.

Indeed. And that wouldn't be fair, either, would it. No one enemy should have them all; they need a weak point. The trick is figuring out what to use against your current opponent. And the only reliable way to find out its weakness. And again, sometimes you make your melee types useless for an encounter on purpose...make the casters burn a bunch of spells beating it so they have less left next time.

Besides which: if you have to spend so much time balancing the encounters so the wizard doesn't tear through them, that speaks to the wizard's unbalanced nature.

It really doesn't take much time. I spend far more time detailing the abilities of various important/theatrical NPCs that will never see combat, just to get a feel for them in my head. With creature advancement, it's usually adding on some hit dice or some class levels that can all be done in your head anyway.

but you don't have worry about doing it to the fighter or the rogue.

You damn well do. Those guys can end a major encounter in a single round too, if you're not careful how you design it. Last thing you need is a rogue-assassin doing 66d6+ damage (including 6 save-or-die death attacks) against the BBEG because he caught him flatfooted with his armor off. Or the fighter systematically pinball-charging from opponent to opponent, one-shotting them all. Perhaps the only difference (and the reason that there is a balance difference at all) is that the wizard has more ways they can break things if you aren't careful as a DM...it's that versatility they have that does it.

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:39 AM

Please note, spells such as this are not designed for DM's to require players to spend two and a half hours designing a three page dissertation on each question, to force the DM to answer directly, rather than with smart-alecky smarminess. The game is primarily to have FUN.

Right. And it's the player's own fault if he chooses to try to design a three page dissertation on each question, because the DM's not going to make it easy for him regardless. Divinations are not there to let you know what's coming in detail. If you expect to get it, well, in the words of the dread pirate roberts, "Get used to disappointment."

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:41 AM

No love for Solo, I see...

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:42 AM

Then you should have no trouble proving it.

Go on, I await your statistically sound data that supports your conclusion.

Any data relies on a premise of some random encounters from a certain subset. As such, they are irrelevant, because there are no such thing as random encounters.

Do you believe it's impossible for a DM following the rules to design an encounter so that the fighter essential to a battle while the wizard is struggling?

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:44 AM

How much work did you have to do to make the monster a threat to the wizard?

Possibly none, if something from the MM jumped out at me as appropriate to the situation. At worst, a class level or two, or a few racial hit dice. Maybe a template. Nothing that doesn't take more than a couple minutes. Most of that stuff you can do in your head.

...In what sense does that mean wizards are more then mere mortals can ever hope to attain then? (Hint: Extra /out of combat/ utility is just as bad)

They can both be just as useful in a fight. The wizard just has more options for how to be useful. The ubercharger who hits for 1000+ damage is going to make the tarrasque just as unconscious as the wizard who successfully uses a save or die on it. (We'll ignore the "wish" spell, since that's one of the most asinine kill-requirements i've ever seen.) This is why the wizard is slightly more work for the DM, their extra power is based on all the different ways they can help win a fight. The fighter has limited options (although they do have quite a few, with splatbooks, it's still far less diverse.)

Talic

2008-04-29, 01:47 AM

You damn well do. Those guys can end a major encounter in a single round too, if you're not careful how you design it. Last thing you need is a rogue-assassin doing 66d6+ damage (including 6 save-or-die death attacks) against the BBEG because he caught him flatfooted with his armor off. Or the fighter systematically pinball-charging from opponent to opponent, one-shotting them all. Perhaps the only difference (and the reason that there is a balance difference at all) is that the wizard has more ways they can break things if you aren't careful as a DM...it's that versatility they have that does it.

You know, this sounds like the words of someone who designs encounters to thwart the PC's abilities, rather than showcase them. <Last thing you need is... <insert PC class> using <insert PC class ability being used effectively>."

Personally, I don't know about any other DM's here, but I, personally, design my major encounters... Well I design them so that the PC's must use all of their abilities, and use them well, to win. Not so that my characters can't use sneak attack, pinball charge, divination magic, or other somesuch abilities that they've focused their characters on.

Because the second method? Is like saying, "you know all those things you were working on? Well, when it's important, you don't really have them. Here, fight at 60% of your potential against the worst thing I've sent you up against this campaign. For the rogue, it has blindsight and lifesense, for the wizard, it's SR 45, for the fighter, it has a touch AC of 52 (flatfooted), and for any other good abilities, well, I'll think of something."

It's a jerk thing to do, IMO, and is counterproductive to fun. Because when DM's are on a power trip, rather than trying to make a good story, everyone loses. DM's write the laws of the world. They have all the power. There is no need to beat your PC's over the head with it. The PC's are usually SUPPOSED to win.

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:48 AM

Any data relies on a premise of some random encounters from a certain subset. As such, they are irrelevant, because there are no such thing as random encounters.
Is this what they call semantics?

Anyways, I was asking for proof of your assertion that in "real" high level games, most mages end up cowering behind fighters.

I shall assume, based on your lack of proffered evidence, that you don't have it.

Do you believe it's impossible for a DM following the rules to design an encounter so that the fighter essential to a battle while the wizard is struggling?

Dump them in an AMF.

Of course, this would be as mean as having the fighter face off against Rust Monsters.

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:52 AM

Because the second method? Is like saying, "you know all those things you were working on? Well, when it's important, you don't really have them. Here, fight at 60% of your potential against the worst thing I've sent you up against this campaign. For the rogue, it has blindsight and lifesense, for the wizard, it's SR 45, for the fighter, it has a touch AC of 52 (flatfooted), and for any other good abilities, well, I'll think of something."

I tend to do things like this:
Ubercharger charges first goon, kills him outright, charges second goon, kills him outright, charges third goon...who has feats specifically designed to thwart charging, or is weilding a reach weapon capable of tripping, etc.

Let them use it, but make sure they are aware it's not always going to work.

It's a jerk thing to do, IMO, and is counterproductive to fun. Because when DM's are on a power trip, rather than trying to make a good story, everyone loses.

On the contrary, the story is paramount. That's why you can't let superoptimized PC's trivialize it. The more they optimize, the better optimized their encounters will be.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 01:54 AM

Indeed. That's what keeps a wizard from being a deadweight slowing down the party. To actually exercise any of the control and dominance people here talk about, they rely on extreme levels of preparation.
No, it's what keeps the wizard rockin'.

Seriously, how many CR 3 to, oh, 7 enemies are there that Glitterdust doesn't wreak havoc on?

None of this stuff is exclusive to each other. of course encounters are planned out in advance. That doesn't rule out last minute minor changes or touchups. Admittedly, I don't play at a table. I play mostly online (OpenRPG and PbP). I'm not sure if that changes the dynamics.
Of course that changes the dynamics. You can go and rearrange an enemy's feats, spell list, etc, while looking his sheet over in detail, in between the first post of an encounter and the second.
"None of this stuff is exclusive to each other"--I'm not sure what you mean, or how it negates the point.

Indeed. And that wouldn't be fair, either, would it. No one enemy should have them all; they need a weak point. The trick is figuring out what to use against your current opponent. And the only reliable way to find out its weakness. And again, sometimes you make your melee types useless for an encounter on purpose...make the casters burn a bunch of spells beating it so they have less left next time.
This is what knowledge checks are for. They give you useful information about your enemies.
It's also not very hard to tell that the big brute enemy has a low-ish touch AC and a great Fort save, say.

It really doesn't take much time. I spend far more time detailing the abilities of various important/theatrical NPCs that will never see combat, just to get a feel for them in my head. With creature advancement, it's usually adding on some hit dice or some class levels that can all be done in your head anyway.
Oh? Like what? How do you turn the wide variety of vulnerable monsters out there, from hill giants to humanoid fighter-types, into things that'll give the wizard trouble? How do you guard every high-level enemy against Irresistible Dance? Etc.
"Adding on some hit dice" hurts the meleers a lot worse than the wizard. "Adding on some class levels" is rarely gonna help, unless you're doing something stupid like giving every enemy Rogue 2/Hexblade 3 or something.

You damn well do. Those guys can end a major encounter in a single round too, if you're not careful how you design it. Last thing you need is a rogue-assassin doing 66d6+ damage (including 6 save-or-die death attacks) against the BBEG because he caught him flatfooted with his armor off. Or the fighter systematically pinball-charging from opponent to opponent, one-shotting them all. Perhaps the only difference (and the reason that there is a balance difference at all) is that the wizard has more ways they can break things if you aren't careful as a DM...it's that versatility they have that does it.
You sure don't. Or rather, you do, but only in the sense of giving your BBEG basic defenses. Slap some heavy fortification armor on him. Boom, no more worrying about the Rogue, let him sneak attack the minions. If the fighter's a Cheese Trooper, give him any of the many, many ways to deal with that, from Elusive Target to Stand Still (which you may be giving him if he's a melee BBEG anyway) to spell-based defenses.

You're right about versatility; that's part of it. The rogue sneak attacks, the fighter charges and attacks the enemy crab's weak point for MASSIVE damage. The wizard can hit multiple kinds of saves, hit with rays, inflict multiple fight-ending or BBEG-nerfing conditions, some without a save... and that's all on one spell list.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 01:54 AM

Any data relies on a premise of some random encounters from a certain subset. As such, they are irrelevant, because there are no such thing as random encounters.
...DMG page 79 -102 are all about random encounters....

Possibly none, if something from the MM jumped out at me as appropriate to the situation. At worst, a class level or two, or a few racial hit dice. Maybe a template. Nothing that doesn't take more than a couple minutes. Most of that stuff you can do in your head.

Really. A few racial hit dice or class levels will make a Dragon the uber anti-caster, but leave them perfectly vulnerable to fighters? What do you just take out of the book, or 'just add a few racial hit dice' to, that is as good a spellcaster threat as it is a melee one?

They can both be just as useful in a fight. The wizard just has more options for how to be useful. The ubercharger who hits for 1000+ damage is going to make the tarrasque just as unconscious as the wizard who successfully uses a save or die on it. (We'll ignore the "wish" spell, since that's one of the most asinine kill-requirements i've ever seen.) This is why the wizard is slightly more work for the DM, their extra power is based on all the different ways they can help win a fight. The fighter has limited options (although they do have quite a few, with splatbooks, it's still far less diverse.)
..."The wizard has far more useful options then the Fighter, but they're still balanced". You're not even trying, are you?

Is this what they call semantics?
No, we call rectal imagery.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 01:54 AM

On the contrary, the story is paramount. That's why you can't let superoptimized PC's trivialize it. The more they optimize, the better optimized their encounters will be.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Nikita Khrushchev approves of this message.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 01:59 AM

Any data relies on a premise of some random encounters from a certain subset. As such, they are irrelevant, because there are no such thing as random encounters.
Look, if you have to throw out half (or more) of the monsters out there because of the wizard, the wizard's obviously overpowered. You don't have to throw out half the monsters because of the fighter or

How do you make dragons fightable for melee characters while keeping the wizard powerless against them, anyway?

Do you believe it's impossible for a DM following the rules to design an encounter so that the fighter essential to a battle while the wizard is struggling?
It's possible to do so on rare occasions. An enemy who's, like, a Rogue 2/Cleric 1 (Pride domain)/Paladin of Tyranny 3/Hexblade 8/Swordsage 2 (with Ascetic Mage), with a ring of freedom of movement and etc, is going to give the wizard conniptions.
But you can't make every enemy like that. Not without ruining the game.

Talic

2008-04-29, 02:01 AM

I tend to do things like this:
Ubercharger charges first goon, kills him outright, charges second goon, kills him outright, charges third goon...who has feats specifically designed to thwart charging, or is weilding a reach weapon capable of tripping, etc.

Let them use it, but make sure they are aware it's not always going to work.
Ah but that's not what you said... Your words were "Last thing we need is for..." (examples of characters using optimized abilities effectively in a story-critical encounter). Now, that makes this sound like backpedaling.

On the contrary, the story is paramount. That's why you can't let superoptimized PC's trivialize it. The more they optimize, the better optimized their encounters will be.

Hmm, yes, the story is the most important thing in the campaign. More important than those silly pc's and that ridiculous fun they want to have.

By elevating the story above the game, by making it the paramount concern...

You trivialize the PLAYERS.

And I'd say that any game worth playing starts with the players, and adds the other things only so far as they serve everyone's best interests. In a game, that interest is primarily fun. Thus, the story should never take a priority to the player, or the enjoyment of the game.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 02:03 AM

Hmm, yes, the story is the most important thing in the campaign. More important than those silly pc's and that ridiculous fun they want to have.

By elevating the story above the game, my making it the paramount concern, you trivialize the PLAYERS. And I'd say that any game worth playing starts with the players, and adds the other things only so far as they serve everyone's best interests. In a game, that interest is primarily fun. Thus, the story should never take a priority to the player, or the enjoyment of the game.

Hm.. I'd say you're half right. Notably, more the second half, where the story can't be more important then players or their fun. The first half is wrong, but mostly because it creates a false dichotomy with PC empowerment and having a strong storyline.

The Sandman

2008-04-29, 02:07 AM

On the contrary, the story is paramount. That's why you can't let superoptimized PC's trivialize it. The more they optimize, the better optimized their encounters will be.

Why not ramp it up slowly, though? The first few encounters should be a cakewalk. Once the BBEG has had enough time to analyze the party's fighting style, though, he should be sending more effective groups out to deal with them.

Once they start hitting higher levels, have them be well-known enough in their area of operations that most of their enemies are likely to have at least some idea of how the group fights, and will have already adjusted their styles accordingly before the party attacks them. Alternatively, once they realize that they're fighting the PCs, they shift tactics.

Talic

2008-04-29, 02:09 AM

Hm.. I'd say you're half right. Notably, more the second half, where the story can't be more important then players or their fun. The first half is wrong, but mostly because it creates a false dichotomy with PC empowerment and having a strong storyline.

I'm not saying you can't have a story. I'm not saying it can't be good. I'm saying that the story should never be more important than the player. If there's a conflict, whether your group likes optimization and combat, or it likes role-playing and story plots...

the conflict should always fall on the side that makes the game a more rewarding and enriching experience for everyone. That's sometimes the side where the BBEG gets away.

Sometimes, the DM needs some quick thinking. "Oh great, the rogue just one shotted my BBEG in an introductory encounter... Well, let's see... Add in this missive, and that plotline, and the guy I designed as a BBEG was in the employ of someone else." (After session, design in the details, but go with a rough model and some cryptic information to get the PC's started).

There is almost never an excuse to use DM-Fiat to mitigate the effectiveness of a PC. Saying no because you can is counterproductive.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:09 AM

Ah but that's not what you said... Your words were "Last thing we need is for..." (examples of characters using optimized abilities effectively in a story-critical encounter). Now, that makes this sound like backpedaling.

Notice I said "BBEG" in that "last thing we need is for" comment you're quoting? Some encounters should not be trivialized in any way.

Hmm, yes, the story is the most important thing in the campaign. More important than those silly pc's and that ridiculous fun they want to have.

Yes, yes it is. Because if the characters themselves made it fun, you wouldn't need the DM or game, you could all just sit around making characters and proclaiming how uber they were.

The story is what drives the game. A game that doesn't play like a book or a movie gets boring quick...

By elevating the story above the game, by making it the paramount concern...

You trivialize the PLAYERS.

Really? So this grand plot that they are at the very center of somehow trivializes them? Somehow that gets rid of the fun? I guess maybe for hack and slash gaming or the like. Some people like that thing. I despise it. I spend more time in social interaction/non-hostile settings as a player, than I do out finding combat. Combat is something as a player I want to get over with so I can get back to the roleplaying. As a DM I tend to give them the pacing I think they want. (Although I hate it when they make port after weeks at sea and can't think of anything to do in a bustling metropolis because there's nothing to kill.)

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:11 AM

Why not ramp it up slowly, though? The first few encounters should be a cakewalk. Once the BBEG has had enough time to analyze the party's fighting style, though, he should be sending more effective groups out to deal with them.

Once they start hitting higher levels, have them be well-known enough in their area of operations that most of their enemies are likely to have at least some idea of how the group fights, and will have already adjusted their styles accordingly before the party attacks them. Alternatively, once they realize that they're fighting the PCs, they shift tactics.

Absolutely. Fame has its disadvantages. And it's those mid-to-upper levels where that makes a bigger difference, anyway.

Charity

2008-04-29, 02:13 AM

Just 40odd days before wizards can take off the kid gloves and really let loose.
Wooo!

You know, I don't know of a single wizard/beguiler/full arcane caster whom doesn't have to rain it in to avoid stepping on the rest of the parties toes.
How can anyone still look at full casters and say they are balanced with melee classes? It is a mystery to me.

Tell you what Talya, why don't you run a game for all of us, we'll play wizards, and fighters 50/50 and you can show us all what we have all been missing all these years, You can demonstrate the critical balancing skills that you and all good DM's possess that I and every other DM I've met lacks.
The only way we manage to balance our games is by player consenting nerf, so show us how it's done oh guru, shall we start in the mid levels to save time say level 7 or 8?

Rutee

2008-04-29, 02:14 AM

I'm not saying you can't have a story. I'm not saying it can't be good. I'm saying that the story should never be more important than the player. If there's a conflict, whether your group likes optimization and combat, or it likes role-playing and story plots...

Right, that was the part I agreed with in full. Honestly your thesis was what I thought was totally right, you just started with a supporting argument which I didn't.

The story is what drives the game. A game that doesn't play like a book or a movie gets boring quick...
Having a good story doesn't, in fact, require that you thwart the players' trump cards at every turn.

In point of fact, working to thwart PC trump cards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfBarrage) is generally considered a bad idea (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect), barely excusable in normal fiction.

Really? So this grand plot that they are at the very center of somehow trivializes them?
It /can/, if the players aren't the catalysts, sure. A lot of very awesome plots suck when /you/ are the Xanatos Sucker.

Solo

2008-04-29, 02:14 AM

Tell you what Talya, why don't you run a game for all of us, we'll play wizards, and fighters 50/50 and you can show us all what we have all been missing all these years, You can demonstrate the critical balancing skills that you and all good DM's possess that I and every other DM I've met lacks.
The only way we manage to balance our games is by player consenting nerf, so show us how it's done oh guru, shall we start in the mid levels to save time say level 7 or 8?

I'm up for it.

Ozymandias can be retooled at a moment's notice to fit any level of game.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:14 AM

How do you make dragons fightable for melee characters while keeping the wizard powerless against them, anyway?

In the game I'm playing in, between levels 10 and 14, we fought an over-CR blue dragon and and over-CR deep dragon with a party of: Ranger/Fighter, Paladin, Fighter/Cleric (primarily on the smashy side), and Sorceress (me.) I had the hardest time affecting them, thanks to mean tricks my DM pulled on me. The others stood toe-to-toe with them.

And nobody died.

Solo

2008-04-29, 02:16 AM

I assume the dragons were played intelligently, as was the magic user?

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 02:18 AM

Then why do you give so much of a damn what WotC does with monsters in 4e? A Half-decent DM tailors everything, right? Notwithstanding that if you have to add special stuff to counter the wizard, the wizard is by default better.

What about putting stuff in that the paladin can't reach by charging on his mount, that the rogue can't sneak up to and kindeythieve, that the power attacking fighter can't hit?

Most classes are one trick ponies (though they can do their one trick exceedingly well). What's a rogue going to do vs. constructs or undead? Hope he has a demolition crystal and a +3 magic weapon.

It's just that a Batman wizard can perform very well against high AC targets, low AC targets, high will low fort or low fort high will save enemies that makes him appear better. But he still only has a handful of spells. Once he used up that spell that kills monsters with a low fort save, he'll have trouble with more. Preparing for all encounters possible means you have fewer spells for any one type of encounter. Defensive spells also take an action to cast, as well. Putting up all those sweet spells with miss chance takes time. Time that the rest of the party can be doing damage. At high levels, with a sizeable investment of wealth, the wizard can put up these abilities with swift actions, which frankly, he needs. If he doesn't get that windwall & mirror image up ASAP, he's going to be a pincushion.

In my experience, the best wizards (outside of playing extremely optimized ones with near free metamagic and/or little to no limit on source material), and some of the best casters for that matter, buff the party into the stratosphere and debuff the enemies. On their own, the buff/debuffer will never take out 100% of the encounters every day, since someone has to actually finish off the enemy. Solid fog, web, glittedust only work when you have party members. Multiple enervates are needed to kill a target. To one hit KO a target without needing the rest of the party, you have to burn a top tier spell slot or two, and you only get a few of those /day.

The entire idea of a Batman wizard is to augment the party in ways that they would never otherwise be able to. Sure, a wizard can go nova and mop up one encounter. But now he's a commoner with a lot of gear wealth and high knowledge for the rest of the day. He's much better to provide general support until he comes up against an enemy he *knows* he can take out with a single spell.

Good DMs aren't randomly pulling monsters from books, just as good wizards don't randomly pull spells from books, nor does anyone randomly choose feats. A good DM is tailoring the encounters to challenge the party. Is the rogue virtually invisible due to hide/move silent? None of the monsters can spot him? Do you just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the rogue is broken? Or do you use something with tremorsense? Is the fighter carving all the low AC giants to pieces with power attack? Does that make the fighter OP?

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 02:18 AM

I assume the dragons were played intelligently, as was the magic user?

You assume wrong.

My guess, low CR dragons that are a cakewalk in melee because only their breath does damage stood around and tried to fight multiple melee combatants.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:19 AM

It /can/, if the players aren't the catalysts, sure. A lot of very awesome plots suck when /you/ are the Xanatos Sucker.

Catalysts might be the wrong word, it implies the PCs are the reason the BBEG exists. However, the PCs are the only ones in a situation to stop him...

I'm unfamiliar with the term "Xanatos Sucker."

Solo

2008-04-29, 02:21 AM

Xanatos sucker: Sucker due to extremely improbable circumstance/ incredibly unlikely plot.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-29, 02:22 AM

In the game I'm playing in, between levels 10 and 14, we fought an over-CR blue dragon and and over-CR deep dragon with a party of: Ranger/Fighter, Paladin, Fighter/Cleric (primarily on the smashy side), and Sorceress (me.) I had the hardest time affecting them, thanks to mean tricks my DM pulled on me. The others stood toe-to-toe with them.

And nobody died.The DM went out of his way to nerf the spellcaster. I'm really not seeing how the DM having to specifically make stuff immune to one character makes that character less powerful.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:23 AM

The entire idea of a Batman wizard is to augment the party in ways that they would never otherwise be able to.

And if you've succeeded in getting your wizard to do that, then all worrisome "balance issues" are gone. The wizard who buffs the fighter into an unstoppable killing machine didn't do anything to hurt the balance between players, at all. However, he still needs that fighter around to do so.

Skjaldbakka

2008-04-29, 02:23 AM

Xanatos Roulette, not to be confused with the Xanatos Gambit. I will linkify to the appropriate tvtropes entries in a bit.

hmm, didn't know there was a Xanatos sucker as well. huh.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 02:26 AM

Catalysts might be the wrong word, it implies the PCs are the reason the BBEG exists. However, the PCs are the only ones in a situation to stop him...
No, it doesn't imply that. It implies that the PCs are the primary movers and shakers of the game's plot. It doesn't say they're the reason for the BBEG's existence; Indeed, that would be difficult, unless the BBEG was their creation run amok.

You know how the standard plot has the heroes as the reactive force to the BBEG's proactivity? That's bad for Roleplaying games. Players should be the proactive force, or at least not usually be the reactive force except when it's truly fitting.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "Xanatos Sucker."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosSucker

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 02:27 AM

In the game I'm playing in, between levels 10 and 14, we fought an over-CR blue dragon and and over-CR deep dragon with a party of: Ranger/Fighter, Paladin, Fighter/Cleric (primarily on the smashy side), and Sorceress (me.) I had the hardest time affecting them, thanks to mean tricks my DM pulled on me. The others stood toe-to-toe with them.

And nobody died.

Uh-huh, that's nice. Now, why don't you tell me about it? You're a sorcerer, what kept you from throwing any one of a number of spells at these things until they failed? And how did their full attacks not kill the melee characters?

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:27 AM

The DM went out of his way to nerf the spellcaster. I'm really not seeing how the DM having to specifically make stuff immune to one character makes that character less powerful.

I relied heavily on touch ranged touch spells, normally a great choice against a dragon. In the first encounter with the blue dragon, the dragon decided to sit on top of our paladin. Thanks to the vagaries of 3.5 rules, since the dragon and the paladin now occupied one of the same squares, I couldn't use my ranged touch spells without a 50/50 chance of hitting the paladin.

Second encounter, the dragon used some dragon-buff to send its touch-ac stratospheric. I ended up needing to be content buffing party members in both cases (although I think I eventually started fireballing the deep dragon since its reflex save wasn't great and I had no save-or-die/save-or-lose that it had any real chance of failing against.)

Character concept: No necromancy, some fire-blastyness (not a lot), enchantments, lots of save-or-x spells.

Talic

2008-04-29, 02:29 AM

Notice I said "BBEG" in that "last thing we need is for" comment you're quoting? Some encounters should not be trivialized in any way.
And note I referred to the BBEG as a story critical encounter. Which it is. And I find the notion that some encounters of make believe characters being more important than the real life, flesh-and-blood friends you play with... Well, I find that concept completely ridiculous.

Yes, yes it is. Because if the characters themselves made it fun, you wouldn't need the DM or game, you could all just sit around making characters and proclaiming how uber they were.The DM is needed to mediate. The DM does not need to plot fiat and neuter PC abilities to do that. You call the rules, you make judgement calls on what alterations need to be made for everyone to have the best time, and you move on. DM necessity is completely unrelated to the players having fun.

The story is what drives the game. A game that doesn't play like a book or a movie gets boring quick... And that's not mutually exclusive with letting the PC's use their abilities. Tell me, when's the last time you watched a movie where the protagonist used all their awesomest tricks on the mooks and had a sissy slap fight with the BBEG (Seagal movies not included, as his awesomest tricks seem to be sissy slap-fighting)??? No, the way that movies and books play out is that the last encounters are SPECTACULAR. Everyone gives everything they have, and wins by being the best/using teamwork/etc.

Really? So this grand plot that they are at the very center of somehow trivializes them? Somehow that gets rid of the fun?
When that story becomes more important than they are? Dang Skippy.

I guess maybe for hack and slash gaming or the like. Some people like that thing. I despise it. I spend more time in social interaction/non-hostile settings as a player, than I do out finding combat.
Good for you. Even Role playing, however, runs the risk of this happening (in fact, ESPECIALLY runs the risk). Whenever the DM loses sight of the PRIMARY focus of the game, these things happen. And that primary focus is enjoying a game. Period. No semantics. No arguments. Anyone who tells you otherwise is flat. out. wrong. When something other than that takes the primary focus of the game, then whoever let that happen is flat out wrong, also.

Combat is something as a player I want to get over with so I can get back to the roleplaying. As a DM I tend to give them the pacing I think they want. (Although I hate it when they make port after weeks at sea and can't think of anything to do in a bustling metropolis because there's nothing to kill.)
Also, your preference, and you're entitled to it. However, Role-playing vs Roll-playing has absolutely nothing to do with this (although both have their merits, and I enjoy both).

What has everything to do with this is the primary focus you have. When you place your story above everything else, you place it above the players. When you do that, you do a disservice to them. That is what trivializes the players. Nothing else.

Make story second, if you like. Great. But if most of your players are like CoV, and prefer the campaign setting to have finite rules that are followed, do that. If most are like me, and like a healthy blend of action and story, and a lighthearted game, go that way. If most are like you, and prefer heavy story-driven games, awesome. If most are like Solo, and want games filled with Awesome (TM), then that's what you need to craft.

In short, everything about a campaign needs to be tailored to the players. The best DM's are the ones who do this. The average ones, tailor the campaign they would like, and the players must conform to that. The worst DM's are the ones who don't give much thought to either method, and arbitrarily decide everything according to their own personal feelings at the moment.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:31 AM

Uh-huh, that's nice. Now, why don't you tell me about it? You're a sorcerer, what kept you from throwing any one of a number of spells at these things until they failed? And how did their full attacks not kill the emelee character?

There was no point using will or fort save spells against the dragon. it's got like a 5% failure rate and the fight wasn't going to (and didn't) last long enough for them to matter. I forget how many rounds it took, but it wasn't all that bad.

The melee types just had the AC and hit points to weather the storm while the dragon didn't.

The shadow dragon nearly killed the cleric with negative levels, actually. (Paladin was immune to them thanks to his armor.)

The Sandman

2008-04-29, 02:32 AM

You know how the standard plot has the heroes as the reactive force to the BBEG's proactivity? That's bad for Roleplaying games. Players should be the proactive force, or at least not usually be the reactive force except when it's truly fitting.

Actually, I'd say that the start of practically any campaign should be reactive; generally, the players won't find out about the BBEG's plans until said BBEG starts carrying them out.

What should hopefully happen is that the players slowly switch from being reactive to being proactive as they figure out a)precisely what the BBEG is doing and b)how best to screw it up. Once the BBEG has to start winging it in order to try and accomplish his evil goals without PCs coming out of every orifice, the players have done what they're supposed to do.

The problem is when the players are too unimaginative to do this, or when the DM is too unimaginative to let them.

Solo

2008-04-29, 02:35 AM

The melee types just had the AC and hit points to weather the storm while the dragon didn't.

The shadow dragon nearly killed the cleric with negative levels, actually. (Paladin was immune to them thanks to his armor.)

Citations needed.

Stats for dragons and stats for PCs would be nice.

Talic

2008-04-29, 02:37 AM

Citations needed.

Stats for dragons and stats for PCs would be nice.

Not really. Shadow Dragons are hardly a typical encounter. We have a PC who was protected due to an armor ability, and a cleric, with the same capabilities for armor, who didn't have it.

Thus, the benefit the paladin had has nothing to do with class balance, and everything to do with item selection.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:39 AM

And note I referred to the BBEG as a story critical encounter. Which it is. And I find the notion that some encounters of make believe characters being more important than the real life, flesh-and-blood friends you play with... Well, I find that concept completely ridiculous.

A few things:

1) I'm not bowing to every unbalanced and hare-brained idea a player throws at me because "the players come first." They most certainly do not. And if I find they're trivializing the encounters, the encounters will adapt. That's also so that they have fun. If the fighter one-shots every opponent, that's not fun for anyone. You limit those things to preserve the fun of the game. I am more inclined to make things harder to challenge the people who create overpowering builds than I am to tell them "No, you can't build an ubercharger" to begin with. I let them build what they want, then make sure that super-optimizing really won't help them a lot over the ones who don't.

2) I keep mentioning: I don't play over a table. I only know a very few of the people I game with on a personal level. Flesh and blood? They're as much flesh and blood friends to me as you are. In my PbP game, I barely know most of them, and they chose to join the game. Most are having a blast. I've lost one who didn't like the style of DMing, out of 8 or so players. I've got plenty who want to be part of the story, why should I tailor it for a bunch who don't? I'm DMing to have fun too.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 02:43 AM

There was no point using will or fort save spells against the dragon. it's got like a 5% failure rate and the fight wasn't going to (and didn't) last long enough for them to matter. I forget how many rounds it took, but it wasn't all that bad.

The melee types just had the AC and hit points to weather the storm while the dragon didn't.

The shadow dragon nearly killed the cleric with negative levels, actually. (Paladin was immune to them thanks to his armor.)
Really? How were your DCs so low that the dragons only failed on 1s? A Mature Adult blue dragon, CR 16 has a +17 Will save. Your DCs for your 6th level spells should've been, what, 24? 25? Those're damn fine odds.

That same CR 16 blue dragon has 31 AC, before spells like Mage Armor and Shield. It's got six attacks at +27 at least, +30 with Multiattack, +32 for the first... each for multiple dice plus STR. And Power Attack as an option, most likely.

How did they have the AC (in the 40s?) and hit points to weather these things? What, did the dragons have low HD and a bunch of class levels existing only to boost their saves?

I relied heavily on touch ranged touch spells, normally a great choice against a dragon. In the first encounter with the blue dragon, the dragon decided to sit on top of our paladin. Thanks to the vagaries of 3.5 rules, since the dragon and the paladin now occupied one of the same squares, I couldn't use my ranged touch spells without a 50/50 chance of hitting the paladin.
That's only for grappling, AFAIK. You could also risk disabling the paladin, since a paladin with a dragon on him is disabled anyway, or get him out in one of several ways.

Second encounter, the dragon used some dragon-buff to send its touch-ac stratospheric. I ended up needing to be content buffing party members in both cases (although I think I eventually started fireballing the deep dragon since its reflex save wasn't great and I had no save-or-die/save-or-lose that it had any real chance of failing against.)

Character concept: No necromancy, some fire-blastyness (not a lot), enchantments, lots of save-or-x spells.
That'd be Scintillating Scales, which turns natural armor into Deflection AC.
So why didn't you use True Strike (a wand is, what, 750 gp? Scrolls are a handful o'coins), or Greater Dispel Magic (dragons have low caster level) or regular Dispel Magic (see above). Or save-or-loses.

Dragon reflex saves aren't so much lower than their Will saves. that CR 16 blue dragon has +14 Ref compared to its +17 Will. Even if it had Iron Will, +19 Will vs. a DC of 25 means that you've got good odds over the course of the whole fight.

Also, geez, where the hell was that cleric's Death Ward?

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 02:46 AM

You sure don't. Or rather, you do, but only in the sense of giving your BBEG basic defenses. Slap some heavy fortification armor on him. Boom, no more worrying about the Rogue, let him sneak attack the minions. If the fighter's a Cheese Trooper, give him any of the many, many ways to deal with that, from Elusive Target to Stand Still (which you may be giving him if he's a melee BBEG anyway) to spell-based defenses.

How are those so different from giving the BBEG a mindblank, steadfast determination, and his lackeys protection from good or law or whatever?

Doomsy

2008-04-29, 02:47 AM

I'm actually debating how much it would 'maim' the arcane casting classes if I yanked all of the spells that emulated skills or granted things usually reserved for 'feats' for more than a round or two, and sharply cut out the buffs. And also cut the duration of long-term spells pretty sharply to prevent all-day buffing. My main problem with spellcasters is that they're a bit too adaptable, really. A wizard can out-ac a fighter, replace the rogue, etc.
I'd really like a way to sharply limit their ability to *change out* their spells and make them more like feats that require retraining when they need to alter them more than doing the above, but that would require a lot of planning. And probably bits of the above anyway.

Talya

2008-04-29, 02:48 AM

I'd really like a way to sharply limit their ability to *change out* their spells and make them more like feats that require retraining when they need to alter them more than doing the above, but that would require a lot of planning. And probably bits of the above anyway.

That sounds like the sorcerer.

Talic

2008-04-29, 02:53 AM

A few things:

1) I'm not bowing to every unbalanced and hare-brained idea a player throws at me because "the players come first." They most certainly do not. And if I find they're trivializing the encounters, the encounters will adapt. That's also so that they have fun. If the fighter one-shots every opponent, that's not fun for anyone. You limit those things to preserve the fun of the game. I am more inclined to make things harder to challenge the people who create overpowering builds than I am to tell them "No, you can't build an ubercharger" to begin with. I let them build what they want, then make sure that super-optimizing really won't help them a lot over the ones who don't.First: Putting the players first does not mean kowtowing to their every whim. That's where DM mediation comes in. But making encounters that effectively target one player, or are designed to neuter class abilities generally defeats the purpose of even having those class abilities. And that generally frustrates players. Which isn't good. Clear enough now?

2) I keep mentioning: I don't play over a table. I only know a very few of the people I game with on a personal level. Flesh and blood? They're as much flesh and blood friends to me as you are. In my PbP game, I barely know most of them, and they chose to join the game. Most are having a blast. I've lost one who didn't like the style of DMing, out of 8 or so players. I've got plenty who want to be part of the story, why should I tailor it for a bunch who don't? I'm DMing to have fun too.Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they're not flesh and blood. Real people take priority over make believe. Period. You're trying to use semantics to get around that point. Please, don't. Anyone who doesn't realize that, probably shouldn't be playing games. And that doesn't extend just to D&D. I'm talking monopoly and checkers too.

And just because you have 7 people that love your playing style, does not mean it's for everyone. In my 18 years playing D&D, and my 13 years DMing, I've probably ran games for over 100 people. I've played in over 30 campaigns. And I'll tell you, the DM's that impressed me the most were the ones who got the character concepts of everyone before they even put pen to paper on what the campaign would be about, or even what the campaign setting would be. The Best DM's tailor the campaign around the players, instead of vice versa. This is the only way I know of to tell your players that they are truly the whole reason the campaign exists. And when you start with that focus, you tell yourself before every ruling you make, and the reason this campaign exists is these 4, or 5, or 8 players.

That way, if you rule against a player's wishes, you are doing it for the right reason.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 02:57 AM

How are those so different from giving the BBEG a mindblank, steadfast determination, and his lackeys protection from good or law or whatever?

Well, because for a rogue you need Heavy Fortification armor (which is a good idea anyway). For a cheese trooper (which is an optimal and even cheesy fighter) you just need some battlefield control... which is a good idea for melee-heavy BBEGs anyway.

For wizards, you need: a high touch AC and (preferably)/or miss chance, a high Will save (Steadfast Determination only gets you so far!), a high Fort save, Mind Blank (and some way of renewing it after it goes down!), high-CL buffs to avoid dispelling, a ring of Freedom of Movement, etc etc.

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 03:58 AM

For wizards, you need: a high touch AC and (preferably)/or miss chance, a high Will save (Steadfast Determination only gets you so far!), a high Fort save, Mind Blank (and some way of renewing it after it goes down!), high-CL buffs to avoid dispelling, a ring of Freedom of Movement, etc etc.

You only need one of those; depending on what spells the wizard has left. The wizard's weakness is in his spell slot limits. You can exhaust him of one type of spell before the final battle.

He can still use lower level debuff/control spells, but those aren't going to finish the battle. Great, the BBEG is blind for the next 10 rounds? Well, that buys some time, but it by no means wins the fight.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 04:01 AM

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-29, 04:02 AM

He can still use lower level debuff/control spells, but those aren't going to finish the battle. Great, the BBEG is blind for the next 10 rounds? Well, that buys some time, but it by no means wins the fight.Uh, have you seen the stats for blindness? Unless the BBEG has blindfighting, he's in trouble. Listen checks to even locate the party, -2 AC, no Dex to AC, 50% miss chance, and half move speed. Yeah, a Spellcaster BBEG can escape, but the fight is over.

Ironically, a ninja would be immune, on the basis of being awesome.

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 04:05 AM

You're kidding right? Anyone who doesn't have blindsense /is/ done.

Please tell me how a gray elf wizard with str as a dump stat and poor BAB could possibly finish off a well armored BBEG. Try to bring it down with a wand of something blasty, perhaps scorching ray?

My point is, yes, the wizard seriously debuffed a target. But he still needs the rest of the party to actually kill him.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 04:09 AM

Please tell me how a gray elf wizard with str as a dump stat and poor BAB could possibly finish off a well armored BBEG. Try to bring it down with a wand of something blasty, perhaps scorching ray?

That might work. I could just let the rest of the party hit the guy now that he's helpless. But that doesn't make me balanced; I still contributed more then the rest of the party by renderring the BBEG Helpless.

There's a reason MMOs render bosses immune to crowd control, folks, and it has to do with the fact that if you don't, the boss will firstly be easy, and second, lockdown-capable classes will be horrendously overvaluable.

The problem here being that blanket renderring immune to lockdown doesn't just hurt the Wizard, and is the same as the blanket immunity crap that so much of 3.5 loves. (HEavy Fortification/Anatomy-less immunities, I'm looking at you)

My point is, yes, the wizard seriously debuffed a target. But he still needs the rest of the party to actually kill him.
No, the Wizard won the fight. It being more expedient to have the rest of the party finish doesn't make him less valuable.

Here's the problem with using the term "Debuff". It's undervaluing what the Wizard is doing. "Debuff" does not properly encompass Save or Suck; Save or Suck makes you /helpless/. You are /done/. The only difference between Save or Suck and Save or Die, in effect, is time expediency, not efficacy.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-29, 04:11 AM

Please tell me how a gray elf wizard with str as a dump stat and poor BAB could possibly finish off a well armored BBEG. Try to bring it down with a wand of something blasty, perhaps scorching ray?

My point is, yes, the wizard seriously debuffed a target. But he still needs the rest of the party to actually kill him.Summon Monster. Depending on the level, a slot far lower than your highest will be fine. The guy is borderline useless. And besides, if your job is summed up as I'll beat anything we come across, you kill it when I've made it useless for you, you start to wonder why he's even bothering to bring you instead of a Warrior.

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 04:43 AM

Huh.

Maybe my party's doing it wrong.
After the wizard disables a monster, they still have to kill it. That's usually pretty hard to do without any actual damage output.

I guess what they call teamwork-"you blind it, I'll stab it in the soft spots" isn't that fun for you guys?

For instance, the party cleric has recently taken to casting Doomtide before letting the rogue go into combat. Both are very happy with that arrangement. The rogue's player grins from ear to ear as he rolls fistfulls of d6s, the cleric is stoked that he's doing something other than hitting a monster with his quarterstaff (he's not DMM, since that would have made the fighter feel useless, and casting 7th level spells at 3rd level is to OP, imo).

The wizard's player is quite risk averse- much of prepared spells and early casting is devoted to defensive stuff. Fair enough- he's a gray elf with 13 dex and 13 con- minmaxed to have a lot of int. He just got teleport, so that's always filling one of his level 5 spell slots. He uses mostly grease, rays of enfeeblement, glitterdust, rainbow pattern, dismissal, haste, slow, and enervate. Plinks with a wand of scorching ray when he can't do anything in a fight. Now normally, he prepares some spells that force will saves, some that force fort saves. Others that target low touch ACs. However, between this and casting defensive spells, he gets to make one or two critical moves per battle, and remove one or two enemies. This leaves a bunch of other targets that need to be taken down by the other characters.

The biggest source of trouble (and fun), though, has been his contributions out of battle. Mounts, phantom steeds, and teleport have all meant they could get just about anywhere really fast, at every level. So he has to prep those spells, too. For whatever reason, he hasn't scribed utility scrolls, nor really picked them up.

They had been fighting a lot of ogres, ogre magi, hobgoblins, and hill giants with non-associated class levels. This made them very difficult to hurt with will saves, rays of enfeeblement didn't mean much vs. a monster with 20 or 30 str, they had magic of their own, and since the non-associated levels were at 1/2 CR, they had more than usual feats, skills, and abilities to use. They were typically played intelligently, using the terrain to their advantage, power attacking, spreading out vs. AoE effects, targeting the caster, forcing him to spend rounds putting up defenses or making the cleric bring him out of the negatives, and arranging themselves so their reach would tear up melee. They also made full use of potions and scrolls, thanks to item creation feats and adept levels.

What it came down to was the players having to work together. There were too many HD, high save monsters with good ranged attacks for the wizard to totally solo all of them. They were too tightly clustered and deadly for the pouncing tigerform druid and his animal companion to jump in willy-nilly. They had too many HP for the cleric to bring down on his own before his buffs wore out, despite his stratospheric AC.

However, working together, they could bring them down. Grease, slow, glitterdust and haste from the wizard (none of which, on their own, would have stopped the monsters from shooting him down or chasing after him), high damage from the druid, buffs from the cleric, and good tanking from the fighter allowed them to overcome.

Maybe I just optimize my monsters too much to handle my players.

Fitz

2008-04-29, 06:42 AM

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 07:16 AM

an odd idea i thought of a while back was to have the spell casting time increaed to equal the spell level in rounds to cast. therefore free action for lvl 0, 1 action for level 1, full round for level 2, 2 full rounds for level 3 and so on.

means the higher level spells take a lot longer to get into place, and the wizard needs to be protected for that time.

however not had a chance to test the idea so it may not be that workable?

Fitz

It's not workable. For one thing, a spell that requires two actions isn't just twice as bad as a spell that requires one, it's multiple times as bad. With a rule like this, nothing above third level would ever get cast. It wouldn't have the chance to.

There's no way to actually protect the wizard, meaning spells would always be disrupted.

And finally, not only would the players find that it's pointless to play a spellcaster, but if they were to do so, they'd be just sitting there most of the time.

I really wish people would think these little ideas all the way through.

Talic

2008-04-29, 07:26 AM

If they allowed some sort of check to reduce the time, it'd be feasible, though. Perhaps enough to get your highest level to a full round action, and everything else to a standard action...

But even so, all that does is Delay the wizard's effectiveness for 2 levels.

Reinboom

2008-04-29, 07:30 AM

Too extreme, if you wish to try something like that, make it a bit slower of an increase... ie:

0 ; Reduced time to Swift action.
1-2 ; Same
3-4 ; 'Up Standard' (standard actions become 1 round).
5-6 ; 'Up Standard' + 1 round
7-8 ; 'Up Standard' + 2 rounds
9 ; 'Up Standard' + 3 rounds / Tear shed for Time Stop (Unless Maximized)

Tempest Fennac

2008-04-29, 07:36 AM

Wouldn't increasing casting times make spellcasters more of a liability then anything? Also, if that was applied to buffs and healing spells, it would hurt the other party members rather then help tem to become more balanced. I'd say Cuddly's games sound to be good due to everyone needing to work togather to hide their classes weaknesses.

SamTheCleric

2008-04-29, 07:46 AM

Roderick_BR

2008-04-29, 08:50 AM

I think I hate the idea of "balance" in a multi-player game because everyone's idea of Fun is different. That is the goal of a game... fun. Normally, a gaming group all have similar ideas of what they want out of a particular session, so balance for them is different from the casual players that get together every other week and spend the first 3 hours of a 4 hour session simply role-playing conversations in character, not once looking at their character sheet or dice unless the DM interjects something or ushers the plot along.

Your idea of balance may be good for you or people who have similar interests and ideas as you, but it may not be good for others. This causes conflict because everyone on the internet has to be right.
You mean there are people that *prefer* to play an unbalanced game?
I could see a group that doesn't care about it... just not caring, not prefering it. That's what it sounded like.
The issue about balance is that the game is, by default, unbalanced, requiring tons of homebrews to work fine for everyone.
That said, what most unbalance things is really just the way spellcasting works in D&D. I strongly believe that casters have access to powers way above their CL. Do you allow a 1st level fighter to start with a MW weapon and a MW full plate? Maybe you do and find it fun, but it'll get in the way of the others players. Then, at higher level, the casters start to get too powerful for the group. THAT is the problem.
If you want to make class X or class Y in your game more or less balanced, it's up to you and your group. But the characters should come balanced by default.

Mr. Friendly

2008-04-29, 09:16 AM

Premise: D&D is a cooperative medieval fantasy game in which "players" have "characters" that are able to fulfill some function (role) toward accomplishing "goals".

Source of fun: While debatable, I think it could be generally accepted that "fun" is derived by having a sense of accomplishment in the form of overcoming challenges, generally challenges related to your characters function. Also, participating in the challenges/objectives and having a noticable impact on the outcome of the game.

Difficulty: Some character classes are able to perfom multiple or all roles which means some characters are not able to participate. The principle offenders in this list are Druids, Clerics and Wizards. Other characters have limited roles that are easily overshadowed by others (fighters) or hyperspecial skills that exclude all others (Rogues + traps) when used.

Added Difficulty: The standard tropes of fantasy are, without a *lot* of modification, almost unusable in normal play. Consider the corridor filled with traps; a standard literary device, but in D&D it becomes a painful and unfun ordeal for every other player at the table except the rogue. What about the ancient riddle written in a forgotten tongue that the players must learn before solving? Ruined in one spell. One first level spell.

Balance: In first and second edition, the overwhelming power of clerics and wizards was mitigated by a slower xp table and by the bonus xp tables, which allowed fighters and rogues to outlevel at almost a 2 to 1 ratio. 3rd edition has no such stipulations.

SamTheCleric

2008-04-29, 09:42 AM

You mean there are people that *prefer* to play an unbalanced game?
I could see a group that doesn't care about it... just not caring, not prefering it. That's what it sounded like.
The issue about balance is that the game is, by default, unbalanced, requiring tons of homebrews to work fine for everyone.
That said, what most unbalance things is really just the way spellcasting works in D&D. I strongly believe that casters have access to powers way above their CL. Do you allow a 1st level fighter to start with a MW weapon and a MW full plate? Maybe you do and find it fun, but it'll get in the way of the others players. Then, at higher level, the casters start to get too powerful for the group. THAT is the problem.
If you want to make class X or class Y in your game more or less balanced, it's up to you and your group. But the characters should come balanced by default.

I'm saying some people don't care about balance... They just play and have fun without having to break everything and optimize this and find the best class for that.

(Just so you know, I'm the type that optimizes... or tries to. But I play with people that usually have "organic" characters)

Talya

2008-04-29, 10:02 AM

I'm saying some people don't care about balance... They just play and have fun without having to break everything and optimize this and find the best class for that.

(Just so you know, I'm the type that optimizes... or tries to. But I play with people that usually have "organic" characters)

Some people who do care about balance have different ideas about what "balanced" means. It does not need to be equal. It just means everyone has a niche/role that is valuable in the party.

SamTheCleric

2008-04-29, 10:13 AM

Some people who do care about balance have different ideas about what "balanced" means. It does not need to be equal. It just means everyone has a niche/role that is valuable in the party.

I think as long as everyone at your table is having a good time... mission accomplished.

Fun > Balance

Charity

2008-04-29, 10:24 AM

Artemician

2008-04-29, 10:57 AM

Hi I'm freddy the weasel, my party role is to clean up the scraps after the rest of the party have had their fill of the feast.
I also get to clean the plates and break camp, I'm a clever lil weasel and I'm so happy to fill this niche.

A class may fulfil a niche role very well, but if the niche role is completely redundant, the class is likewise redundant. For example, the high level Warblade may fulfil the niche role of "Massive Damager" extremely well. However, if you're running a campaign where he doesn't get to bring his melee skills to bear, like an agrarian farming/mercantile campaign or a political intrigue campaign, the poor sod can't make use of his talents.

Of course, there are plently of campaigns which *do* feature melee fighting, and of course the Warblade can do well in that sort of campaign. It's a matter of to what extent that a role is a niche one. Let's say I have a class called the Merchant, who excels in filing taxes, making payments and running huge multinational corporations. However in an average campaign, he's not of use. There *are* campaigns where he's going to be useful, like the abovementioned agrarian mercantile campaign, but by and large, most campaign's aren't like that.

PS: Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. It just brought up something.

Mr. Friendly

2008-04-29, 11:02 AM

I think as long as everyone at your table is having a good time... mission accomplished.

Fun > Balance

If I want to play a rogue or a fighter or even a fighter/rogue, how am I having fun when the cleric walks around with Find Traps and Divine Power and tons of other spells?

The problem isn't that the overpowered class step on other class' toes, they step on the toes, grind them beneath their boot heels then chop them off at the ankle.

Sucrose

2008-04-29, 11:06 AM

I think as long as everyone at your table is having a good time... mission accomplished.

Fun > Balance

So, then, why do you find it irritating that others, who find enjoyment in participating on equal terms with the other players (without undue nerfing of some, and heavy optimization by the others), and overcoming various challenges together, wish to have balance?

Because some people's enjoyment of the game is predicated on this sort of possibility, balance is a desirable game feature.

For some, Balance leads to Fun.

(Not really for me; I find joy in squeezing the blood out of a turnip, and designing meleeists that have a chance of contributing equally with wizards, at least in combat, but I recognize that this is a somewhat abberant play preference.)

Artemician

2008-04-29, 11:11 AM

Talya

2008-04-29, 11:25 AM

On blanace, a word of caution though.. there have been people* who have expressed their opinions that they like unbalance, and the finely tuned unbalance present in 3.5 is why they love it so much.

Dead serious on this one. Apparently, the way 3.5 runs things is in line with their view of how their ideal fantasy world should be like, or words to that effect.

*Can't remember his/her name at the moment

I've said similar. I consider balance to be making every class useful, not every class equal. And I do believe spellcasters SHOULD seem superhuman compared to the melee types...but pay for it. As such, a wizard should be able to perform feats of magic that can lay waste to nations...but not all that often, and not without leaving themselves incredibly vulnerable.

Which isn't to say 3.5 has done that completely successfully. Some classes (Monk, or the awful CW samurai) are generally awful. Furthermore, Fighter needs more. 2 more skill points per level, an extra class skill of their choice (excluding UMD), and perhaps a high reflex save would help. Allowing three martial study feats and a martial stance feat goes a long way toward helping fighters, too. Right now, I would say the balance is perfect between TOB classes and spellcasters, as far as where they should be for the fantasy feel to it.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 11:49 AM

To compensate for power differences, I tend to give the non-magicians more wealth.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 12:00 PM

To compensate for power differences, I tend to give the non-magicians more wealth.

Some would argue that this either is either against the RAW, nonsensical (uh, party members? Shall we divvy up the loot), and ineffectual (spells>items).

They're probably evil powergaming munchkin scum, but they still argue it.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 12:07 PM

I relied heavily on touch ranged touch spells, normally a great choice against a dragon. In the first encounter with the blue dragon, the dragon decided to sit on top of our paladin. Thanks to the vagaries of 3.5 rules, since the dragon and the paladin now occupied one of the same squares, I couldn't use my ranged touch spells without a 50/50 chance of hitting the paladin.

If the Dragon was Large or larger you could have just targeted any of the squares that Dragon was in, but the Paladin wasn't. But I can see how smart choices would make you useful, and that would kill your theory.

Second encounter, the dragon used some dragon-buff to send its touch-ac stratospheric. I ended up needing to be content buffing party members in both cases (although I think I eventually started fireballing the deep dragon since its reflex save wasn't great and I had no save-or-die/save-or-lose that it had any real chance of failing against.)

1) Dispel Magic, bam. Have fun.

2) So Scintillating Scales instead of Wraithstrike/Heroism/Haste/any other spells that would help the Dragon wreck shop on the party (since apparently you weren't very threatening).

3) What level? Seriously, Dragons have about a 40% chance of failure on fort save spells through the whole progression of levels. Not to mention the tones of other options.

Indon

2008-04-29, 12:09 PM

Some would argue that this either is either against the RAW, nonsensical (uh, party members? Shall we divvy up the loot), and ineffectual (spells>items).

They're probably evil powergaming munchkin scum, but they still argue it.

If the party gets a lot of magical weapons as loot, even trying very hard to divvy is likely to leave people who use magical weapons a bit ahead.

Jayabalard

2008-04-29, 12:10 PM

Why limit it?Because that's the sort of fantasy that many people like. Certainly, its not what everyone likes, but you can't please all the people all of the time. D&D picked a particular fantasy niche, where people who are just swinging sharpened hunks of metal don't get to tell the laws of the universe to sit down and shut up.

I like the answer "Because Nerds are Wizards" better, frankly :smallannoyed:other way around. Wizards are nerds; fighters are jocks. Guess which group is more likely to be playing D&D.

Are you thinking from a Baritone to a Soprano?bass is a lower voice than a Baritone. Soprano, though, is a women's voice... You'd generally refer to it as Countertenor or "Sopranist" if you are talking about high male voice, though you could also use "Treble" (though that generally refers to a child voice)

There is an easy counter to this argument. Why should it be just as easy to reshape reality as it is to swing a sword?This really isn't a counter argument. Noone made the claim that it is as easy, so you're not countering anything (it also becomes a a strawman argument at that point). Even if someone had made that claim, asking that question doesn't actually counter anything.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 12:12 PM

If the party gets a lot of magical weapons as loot, even trying very hard to divvy is likely to leave people who use magical weapons a bit ahead.

Then you aren't going to be fighting many, say, spellcasters, since they would generally have to be equipped with lootable spellcaster items.

Wizards' spellbooks are prime examples of this.

Solo

2008-04-29, 12:27 PM

You only need one of those; depending on what spells the wizard has left. The wizard's weakness is in his spell slot limits. You can exhaust him of one type of spell before the final battle.

Scribe Scroll [Item Creation]
Prerequisite

Caster level 1st.
Benefit

You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is its spell level × its caster level × 25 gp. To scribe a scroll, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price.

Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

Morty

2008-04-29, 12:40 PM

D&D picked a particular fantasy niche, where people who are just swinging sharpened hunks of metal don't get to tell the laws of the universe to sit down and shut up.

Answer me, then, why do all 3ed sourcebooks assume that level x fighter, level x cleric and level x rogue are equally useful members of the team? Newsflash: because you say something doesn't make it so. Second newsflash: your way of playing isn't canon just because you say so,=.

This really isn't a counter argument. Noone made the claim that it is as easy, so you're not countering anything (it also becomes a a strawman argument at that point). Even if someone had made that claim, asking that question doesn't actually counter anything.

Noone except 3ed D&D magic system, that is. The one where casting a spell is a matter of six seconds and can be done all day as long as wizard has got spells prepared.

Mr. Friendly

2008-04-29, 12:41 PM

That whole "limit loot" thing is basically useless.

I mean, seriously. What happens when you get a partial party wipe?

"Well Cleric, looks like FIghter and Rogue died."

"Well Wizard, nothin I can do for them except go through their pockets for loose change"

"Works for me."

Unless of course you ar also changing the rules for selling items. Which is your right, but it isn't what the books say.

Not to mention there are tons of ways to make money, not even counting the *really* questionable stuff or the evil stuff.

Solo

2008-04-29, 12:52 PM

Answer me, then, why do all 3ed sourcebooks assume that level x fighter, level x cleric and level x rogue are equally useful members of the team?

You know what happens when you assume.

Morty

2008-04-29, 12:56 PM

You know what happens when you assume.

We all do. However, Jayabalard seems to be under the impression that D&D's unbalance is somehow planned by designers, while the assumption that all players are supposed to be equal indicates it's a screw-up on designers' part. See pages 174 and 175 in DMG. Pay particular attention to the sentence "No class should excel beyond another one overall".

Talya

2008-04-29, 12:57 PM

the Dragon was Large or larger you could have just targeted any of the squares that Dragon was in, but the Paladin wasn't. But I can see how smart choices would make you useful, and that would kill your theory.

Tried that. DM said it didn't work that way, I had a miss chance no matter what I targeted if it was the dragon.

1) Dispel Magic, bam. Have fun.

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet. (And for that matter, I'm torn between Break Enchantment, and Greater Dispell. Right now I'm leaning toward Break Enchantment. Yes, it's limited lower, but I have an extra 5th level spell slot coming, and all my 6s are planned out. Furthermore, I had no idea why my touch spells were missing...it was seriously bothering me. I'd never seen that spell before then, or had any idea what it was.

2) So Scintillating Scales instead of Wraithstrike/Heroism/Haste/any other spells that would help the Dragon wreck shop on the party (since apparently you weren't very threatening).

That's true...never thought of that. If not for me being there, he may have been buffed with somethin else.

3) What level? Seriously, Dragons have about a 40% chance of failure on fort save spells through the whole progression of levels. Not to mention the tones of other options.

The Blue was a CR 14 Adult. (Obvious because of its size, and our level being slightly less than that.) Note that base dragon stats assume "average" ability scores (10,11,10,11,10,11)...and our DM puts many enemies on the elite array, and for boss encounters our DM tends to give enemies the same point buys we had (40), which boosts it a bit. They also intelligently use some items from their hoard.

I don't know the CR of the shadow dragon. I do know it had a nasty negative level breath weapon. I'd only ever seen one in FR novels before that.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 12:58 PM

You know what happens when you assume.

Aargh, the truisms, make them stop.

Anyway, our group tried playing our way through the pre-made modules with no sense of restraint. It mostly ended up with explosions.

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:01 PM

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet

That's no excuse not to grab the most useful third level spell evar.

Scrolls and wands exist for a reason, you know. Grab Dispel Magic and scroll/wand what it beat out.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 01:02 PM

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet.

Sorry, but I must say this:

what

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:07 PM

That's no excuse not to grab the most useful third level spell evar.

Scrolls and wands exist for a reason, you know. Grab Dispel Magic and scroll/wand what it beat out.

Thing is, dispel magic is rather limited, because it caps out very low. Greater Dispel is great, but I only recently got access to level 6 spells. I also had other priority spells, and no room for a third level spell in my character concept. Greater Dispel will cost me too much, i need those level 6 slots. Break Enchantment does everything Dispel Magic does and more, although it caps a bit lower than Greater Dispel. I have a free fifth level spell known I haven't decided on yet, but I'm loathe to give up any of my third level spells.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 01:08 PM

Talya, please PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, but...

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet.
That strikes me as very, very odd. Dispel Magic would've been the second spell I learned for level 3 spells. This is because spellcasters are dangerous, and you want to have a way to deal with buffs.

Dragon caster levels are laughably low, so Dispels have a terrific chance of working.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-04-29, 01:10 PM

Talya, please PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, but...

That strikes me as very, very odd. Dispel Magic would've been the second spell I learned for level 3 spells. This is because spellcasters are dangerous, and you want to have a way to deal with buffs.

Dragon caster levels are laughably low, so Dispels have a terrific chance of working.

Also, sorcerers make some of the better dispellers, with spontaneous casting and all that.

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:11 PM

Break Enchantment does everything Dispel Magic does and more,

Break Enchantment can debuff an enemy? Really?

Tayla, I think that, as far as playing the sorcerer goes, "Ur Doin' it wrong"

Feel free to take it the wrong way, be offended, etc, etc. It's not like I can stop you, and really, who am I to tell you how to react to what I say?

Talya

2008-04-29, 01:19 PM

There's not a level 3 spell on my list I can get rid of to make room for it. Plus with a sorcerer, you don't want multiple spells that do the same thing. I knew I was going to want a higher level one later, and I don't get enough spell swaps.

Fireball (Suboptimal, but character concept demands it, and it had to be my first level 3 spell)
Light of Brightwater (Custom spell the DM created for me when I wanted to take Light of Venya for her very divine flavor)
Phantom Steed
Suggestion (She's got greater spell focus enchantment by her PRC, and as a combat-usable one, it's a staple.)
Bonus Forgotten Realms spell the DM allows: Greater Mage Armor

I've got one more level 5 spell to take soon, and nothing else I want from level five, however. Break Enchantment looks like the one.

I'd also need to point I had no idea "Scintillating Scales" existed, and I never saw or heard the dragon cast a spell, so I had no idea he was buffed in any way, so even if I'd had dispel magic, I'd have very little reason to cast it.

Dominate Person
Teleport
Telekineses
Improved Blink (Bonus FR)

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 01:25 PM

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet. (And for that matter, I'm torn between Break Enchantment, and Greater Dispell. Right now I'm leaning toward Break Enchantment. Yes, it's limited lower, but I have an extra 5th level spell slot coming, and all my 6s are planned out. Furthermore, I had no idea why my touch spells were missing...it was seriously bothering me. I'd never seen that spell before then, or had any idea what it was.

1) If you are a Sorcerer and didn't choose Dispel Magic, then your Cleric is practically required to prepare a few. Step one in facing any Dragon above CR 10 is to hit it with a dispel.

2) Choosing between Break Enchantment and Greater Dispel isn't a choice, they both do incredibly different things from different spell slots. And Break Enchantment is totally not worth a spell slot.

3) See this must be a play difference. In most any game I've played, we use that little, "notice the effects of a spell with a spellcraft check" section which allows you to figure things out. Granted Sorcerers are crippled when it comes to Spellcraft checks, but you really should have been able to hit the one for a second level spells.

4) As I was saying above, Dispel Magic is the number one most important spell when facing Dragons, since they usually use spells for buffing, or maybe Crowd Control. And you can beat their CL fairly easily. Yes, casters are always going to look bad if you don't use the best option, that any party should have access to.

That's true...never thought of that. If not for me being there, he may have been buffed with somethin else.

Not necessarily, he could have been buffed with all of those spells too, further reason that Dispel Magic is crucial. Obviously he wasn't because your DM was playing it nice on the melee characters so that he wouldn't kill them.

The Blue was a CR 14 Adult. (Obvious because of its size, and our level being slightly less than that.) Note that base dragon stats assume "average" ability scores (10,11,10,11,10,11)...and our DM puts many enemies on the elite array, and for boss encounters our DM tends to give enemies the same point buys we had (40), which boosts it a bit. They also intelligently use some items from their hoard.

1) Then the Dragon wasn't a CR 14. He was a minimum CR 15 because using higher stats increases the CR as per the CR guidelines.\

2) I am a firm proponent of intelligent enemies who uses items that are part of their hordes. The Leap Attack Fix thread went into great depth regarding Dragons, and suffice it to say, that despite the fact that many posters tell me I'm playing the 24 Int Dragon wrong when I use strategy and items, I agree fully with your DMs use of items.

3) So level 13 against a CR 15 Blue Dragon +17 fort save versus 7th level spells. So at level 13 you have a DC of 26 for save-or-dies of your highest level. Yeah, I'm pretty sure wasting your time Fireballing was wasting your time when you could have had a 45% chance of instantly killing him every round.

Personally, I would have just hit him with a Stun Ray or something. (Remember what I said about targeting a square he was in and the Paladin wasn't). And of course anyone arguing that stunning the Dragon for 1d4+1 rounds isn't winning the fight is just silly.

I don't know the CR of the shadow dragon. I do know it had a nasty negative level breath weapon. I'd only ever seen one in FR novels before that.

Me neither. But the point about Deathward still stands. At level 13+ Everyone in the party should have access to it, and probably Freedom of Movement (negating the pin of the Paladin from the Blue) for any big fight.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 01:26 PM

I can't say I'm DnD Optimizer supreme, but I'm pretty sure Greater Mage Armor is significantly worse then Dispel Magic. It can't be worth a slightly improved buff to Mage Armor, to sacrifice the ability to strip all the enemy's buffs

Phantom Steed, I assume, is concept, as is Light of whoever it was, and Suggestion.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 01:32 PM

1) I think all her Bonus FR spells are like a Domain, she can't just get the good ones, she stuck with crappy Greater Mage Armor.

3) Break Enchantment can't do the important things, like strip buffs from Dragons (I'm also talking about Heroism/Haste ect.) Or in combat anything. Seriously, if Break Enchantment can do everything you are using Dispel for, you just suck at using Dispel.

4) I second Solo on the doing it wrong. Based on your description of yourself and your party, I would say you actually have no real casters at all.

Roderick_BR

2008-04-29, 01:40 PM

A class may fulfil a niche role very well, but if the niche role is completely redundant, the class is likewise redundant. For example, the high level Warblade may fulfil the niche role of "Massive Damager" extremely well. However, if you're running a campaign where he doesn't get to bring his melee skills to bear, like an agrarian farming/mercantile campaign or a political intrigue campaign, the poor sod can't make use of his talents.

Of course, there are plently of campaigns which *do* feature melee fighting, and of course the Warblade can do well in that sort of campaign. It's a matter of to what extent that a role is a niche one. Let's say I have a class called the Merchant, who excels in filing taxes, making payments and running huge multinational corporations. However in an average campaign, he's not of use. There *are* campaigns where he's going to be useful, like the abovementioned agrarian mercantile campaign, but by and large, most campaign's aren't like that.

PS: Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. It just brought up something.
The real problem starts when said character can't fill his *own* niche. Taking the warblade for example, what if he joins a campaign full of direct combats and monstes, but can't do anything because the others characters keeps one-shoting everything before he have the chance to act?
That's what happens to many characters like fighters and monks, due to their class features being bad and/or others classes, like wizards and druids, being too good.

In the end, the group, or one or two playes, are not having fun.

Solo

2008-04-29, 01:57 PM

There's not a level 3 spell on my list I can get rid of to make room for it

You can get rid of a third level spell, you are just unwilling to do so. Note the distinction.

Reel On, Love

2008-04-29, 02:04 PM

Tried that. DM said it didn't work that way, I had a miss chance no matter what I targeted if it was the dragon.
The rules don't work that way, AFAIK.
Also, a paladin trapped under a dragon is useless. Ray away!

Hello! Sorcerer! Haven't had a place or inclination to add it to my spell list yet. (And for that matter, I'm torn between Break Enchantment, and Greater Dispell. Right now I'm leaning toward Break Enchantment. Yes, it's limited lower, but I have an extra 5th level spell slot coming, and all my 6s are planned out. Furthermore, I had no idea why my touch spells were missing...it was seriously bothering me. I'd never seen that spell before then, or had any idea what it was.
You might've missed my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4258937&postcount=150), so I'll cover some things here, like what about True Strike? A wand is 750 gp. Scrolls are cheaper. you can even afford to take it as a spell known.
Why didn't the cleric have a Dispel or Greater Dispel, either?

That's true...never thought of that. If not for me being there, he may have been buffed with somethin else.
It could have been buffed with plenty of other things anyway.
You should also have made a Spellcraft check as your rays kept veering off to the side (assuming deflection AC, well, deflects), just in case.

The Blue was a CR 14 Adult. (Obvious because of its size, and our level being slightly less than that.) Note that base dragon stats assume "average" ability scores (10,11,10,11,10,11)...and our DM puts many enemies on the elite array, and for boss encounters our DM tends to give enemies the same point buys we had (40), which boosts it a bit. They also intelligently use some items from their hoard.

I don't know the CR of the shadow dragon. I do know it had a nasty negative level breath weapon. I'd only ever seen one in FR novels before that.
Cleric. Death ward. Where was the death ward?
For that matter, where were the Freedom of Movements (going up against a dragon without grapple immunity is bad)?

Giving enemies 40 (!) point-buy boosts their CR, by one point at least. And, what, despite having increased STR and CON (presumably), that 29-AC, +29/27/27/27/27/27 (BEFORE point-buy strength increases) attack routine dragon (Multiattack) who may well have had Power Attack somehow failed to kill a single melee character, despite full attacking repeatedly? Did they have ACs in the 40s or something?

A CR 14 Blue Dragon has a +15 Will save. Give it a 14 base WIS through point-buy,and that's... +17 vs. DCs of 24-26? Why weren't you spamming save-or-loses, again? Call it +20 with an X of Resistance +3; it still would've failed 1 in 4 times or so.

Basically, there's no way that thing could have not killed a meleer or two except negligence, and you failed to be effective because of a poorly chosen spell list, a bad ruling, and . In other words, if the DM isn't using the dragon's full routine (forget Wraithstrike + Power Attack, just the normal full attack routine), Mage Armor and Shield (the melee counterparts to Scintillating scales), etc, and is cranking the stats that increase saves with the point-buy, and casting Scintillating Scales, etc... he's setting the dragon up specifically to be resistant to you.
And with better tactics and/or a better spell selection, you could still have taken it pretty easily.
Not having room for Dispel because of Fireball and Light of Somethingorother (the rest of that line sucks, except the first at very low levels vs. undead) and Phantom Steed (look, it's nice, but it's for wizards[/I) and Suggestion? give me a break. I could understand if you were saying "no room, I had Ray of Dizziness, Haste, Dimension Step, and Ray of Exhaustion" or something, but as is?

Greater Dispel is a great choice for a sorcerer, while Break Enchantment is a sucky one (c'mon, the cleric can prepare it any time it might be useful, why waste a spell known)?

You're posted about your sorceress before. It's a testament to the power of spellcasting that she's effective [I]despite the many suboptimal choices (from mildly to vastly) involved. She could've been effective in this encounter, too.
Also, now you know about scintillating scales. Have Dispel Magic next time.
We, however, still haven't been given any idea as to how that dragon avoided mincing melee characters, and how to make dragons feasible for a melee character to engage while making the spellcaster resort to throwing barely-effective damage spells.

Mr. Friendly

2008-04-29, 02:09 PM

RE: Talya, Sorcerer and Break Enchantment

Break Enchantment is useless. Have a scroll or two of it, sure. Take it as one of your spells? Worst decision ever.

Break Enchantment
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5, Pal 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.

Note the casting time. If you reliably have 10 combat rounds to stand around casting, by all means take it.

Suggestion, as a combat usable staple? You must not fight golems, undead, mindless creatures or creatures that don't share a language with you. Also, your DM must be really lenient with you.

Seriously though, you should really look into wands and scrolls.

Sholos

2008-04-29, 03:02 PM

Solo

2008-04-29, 03:06 PM

Question. How are we getting even a 6th level spell to a DC of 24? That's a total of +8 for the stat modifier. A 26. For a 5th level spell you'd need a 28. 4th you need a 30. And that's the lower end of what people are saying should have been possible.

6 level spell with DC of 24. +8 modifier from somewhere.

Assuming a start with 18 in casting stat. that's a +4

3 stat points increase to 21. That's +5.

+4 item of Cha, that's +7 modifier.

Last +1 could be Spell Focus or something.

Rutee

2008-04-29, 03:06 PM

A 22 is pretty easy for a human, with WBL and point buy. Factor in feats that raise DCs and there you have it.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 03:08 PM

Spell Focus? Other feats that raise DC? If you start out with 17 cha put 3 increases in cha, and have a +4 cloak of charisma, you can end up with 24 charsma, which is +7. A single spell focus can get you that DC 24.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 03:24 PM

18 + 3 stats from levels + 6 Item is 27 or +7 modifier right there.

Ideally you'll have a +2 racial, maybe a feat to increase DCs. Not hard here.

I mean this is level 13 here. (Not to mention I was assuming a competent caster, IE Wizard, so 7th level spells.)

Frosty

2008-04-29, 03:56 PM

You're assuming that a +6 item is available. It might not be.

Solo

2008-04-29, 04:18 PM

You're assuming that a +6 item is available. It might not be.

We were asked how to get a stat up to a certain number and provided multiple ways of doing so. I fail to see the problem.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 04:18 PM

You're assuming that a +6 item is available. It might not be.

No, I'm assuming WBL spent competently. Yes if your DM decides to arbitrarily deprive you of an item that is integral to your character you are slightly less well off. But saying a caster can't find a +6 item (the only item they even want) when it is beneath half their WBL is as stupid as arbitrarily making all magical weapons in the campaign world non-spiked chains, and declaring that no one can create magical spiked chains either. It makes no sense, and it's an example of a bad DM trying to compensate for his inability to deal with useful characters (and failing at it.)

Talya

2008-04-29, 04:22 PM

Also, a paladin trapped under a dragon is useless. Ray away!

Right, so I'm going to fire away at the dragon and not care for the safety of the friend and comrade? That's a really "good" aligned act from an exalted character, isn't it?

You might've missed my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4258937&postcount=150), so I'll cover some things here, like what about True Strike? A wand is 750 gp. Scrolls are cheaper. you can even afford to take it as a spell known.
Why didn't the cleric have a Dispel or Greater Dispel, either?

It could have been buffed with plenty of other things anyway.
You should also have made a Spellcraft check as your rays kept veering off to the side (assuming deflection AC, well, deflects), just in case.

As I said, the cleric fancies himself a melee type more than a cleric.
And yes, it was described as deflecting, but it was also described as hitting, then deflecting off the dragon's scales. I rolled fairly high on the attack, I had no reason to suspect I was actually missing the AC. Truestrike wasn't something I considered. I just switched tactics. And AFAIK, spellcraft doesn't work that way. You'd have to see/hear the spell being cast, wouldn't you?

Cleric. Death ward. Where was the death ward?

See above. Also note that the cleric had 2 levels of fighter, and 3 levels of "Battlesmith," so was 5 caster levels behind the party.

For that matter, where were the Freedom of Movements (going up against a dragon without grapple immunity is bad)?

I'm the only one in the party with grapple immunity. We don't get to buy our loot, for the most part...it's pretty much random drops for anything about 10,000 gold. The "battlesmith" tends to focus on melee stuff.

Giving enemies 40 (!) point-buy boosts their CR, by one point at least.

Of course, giving the party a 40 point buy in the first place boosts the CR of what they should be fighting by about the same amount.

A CR 14 Blue Dragon has a +15 Will save. Give it a 14 base WIS through point-buy,and that's... +17 vs. DCs of 24-26? Why weren't you spamming save-or-loses, again? Call it +20 with an X of Resistance +3; it still would've failed 1 in 4 times or so.

For a battle that is only going to last 4-5 rounds, casting a spell with even a 40% success rate is a losing proposition. Unless you luck out and get it on the very first or second casting, the thing's half dead by the time it works.

Basically, there's no way that thing could have not killed a meleer or two except negligence,
You keep saying that, but they mauled it. /shrug
I don't know, before this I've always preferred to be the melee type, and I've never had issues with dragons. You flank, you use concealment, tactical feats, buffs, you pump your AC and attack bonus into the stratosphere, you kill.

Furthermore, that was the first and only encounter I'd ever had where a dispel would have been all that useful. I generally find it better to bypass such defenses by picking another method of attack that they aren't protected against.

Not having room for Dispel because of Fireball and Light of Somethingorother (the rest of that line sucks, except the first at very low levels vs. undead) and Phantom Steed (look, it's nice, but it's for [I]wizards[/I) and Suggestion? give me a break. I could understand if you were saying "no room, I had Ray of Dizziness, Haste, Dimension Step, and Ray of Exhaustion" or something, but as is?

Give you a break? So an arcane high-priestess of a greater deity and mortal descendant of an efreeti who specializes in enchantments--should just skip the concept because I might have wanted want to dispell something once in 14 levels?

Greater Dispel is a great choice for a sorcerer, while Break Enchantment is a sucky one (c'mon, the cleric can prepare it any time it might be useful, why waste a spell known)?

Probably true, I was thinking break enchantment acted a lot more like the dispell magic line. In any event, a sorcerer planning on taking greater dispel shouldn't be taking the regular dispel.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 04:24 PM

*sniffles at his headband of int +2 at level 11*

Still, there's a chance the shop you go to just don't have it in stock. If forgot what the minimum CL to craft one is, but they're not going to be sold in every single village.

But I agree, getting DC24 just isn't *that* hard.

Solo

2008-04-29, 04:25 PM

Probably true, I was thinking break enchantment acted a lot more like the dispell magic line. In any event, a sorcerer planning on taking greater dispel shouldn't be taking the regular dispel.

A sorcerer planning on taking Greater Dispel takes Regular Dispel first, then swaps it out later when he gets Greater Dispel.

This ain't DnD Online where your sorcerer can't swap out spells known, you know.

Cuddly

2008-04-29, 04:36 PM

No, I'm assuming WBL spent competently. Yes if your DM decides to arbitrarily deprive you of an item that is integral to your character you are slightly less well off. But saying a caster can't find a +6 item (the only item they even want) when it is beneath half their WBL is as stupid as arbitrarily making all magical weapons in the campaign world non-spiked chains, and declaring that no one can create magical spiked chains either. It makes no sense, and it's an example of a bad DM trying to compensate for his inability to deal with useful characters (and failing at it.)

Uhhh, what?
In campaigns that run for some amount of time, wealth often gets locked up in items. It can be difficult for the caster to scrounge the 20k gold up to go from a +4 stat item to a +6, if their loot has been in items they're selling for half price. In other words, if the party has put all their level 9 or 10 or 11 wealth into magic items, then hit 12, it is costing a character 40k to get that upgrade, since he has to sell twice as much to get it.

For a battle that is only going to last 4-5 rounds, casting a spell with even a 40% success rate is a losing proposition. Unless you luck out and get it on the very first or second casting, the thing's half dead by the time it works.

A half dead dragon can still one shot a party member. A dragon with 1 HP can still tear the fighter in half. There was no reason you shouldn't have been spamming save-or-dies, since being stingy on spells would get your party members killed. That can't be a good thing, can it?

Give you a break? So an arcane high-priestess of a greater deity and mortal descendant of an efreeti who specializes in enchantments--should just skip the concept because I might have wanted want to dispell something once in 14 levels?

To be fair, Talya, your experience with a non-optimized caster is just that. You sacrificed making powerful choices for choices your character would. While that's certainly admirable, for having a character concept and sticking to it (I would never have the balls to give up dispel magic for fireball!), it's hardly relevant to the discussion of "well played casters are really, really OP. No, really, we're not even kidding a little."

Probably true, I was thinking break enchantment acted a lot more like the dispell magic line. In any event, a sorcerer planning on taking greater dispel shouldn't be taking the regular dispel.

!?!?!!?!??!
Everyone, ever, should use dispel magic! Even if you plan on getting greater dispel later, waiting what, 6 levels, is hardly worth it!

Talya

2008-04-29, 04:44 PM

when it is beneath half their WBL

IIRC, assuming you're starting at a level and didn't get there normally, you can spend no more than 25% of your WBL on any one item.

*flourishes her +6 cloak of charisma* Or convince a party crafter to make you one, I suppose.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 04:51 PM

Right, so I'm going to fire away at the dragon and not care for the safety of the friend and comrade? That's a really "good" aligned act from an exalted character, isn't it?

Yeah, but a made up ruling doesn't change anything. Fact is the rules are you could hit the dragon without having a chance to hit your opponent.

And AFAIK, spellcraft doesn't work that way. You'd have to see/hear the spell being cast, wouldn't you?

"20 + spell level: Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry."

Spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)

I'm the only one in the party with grapple immunity. We don't get to buy our loot, for the most part...it's pretty much random drops for anything about 10,000 gold. The "battlesmith" tends to focus on melee stuff.

I think we are talking about the Cleric casting FoM, not rings. By the way, point out to him that both Deathward and FoM of buffs for melee characters. Ask him how much he would like to do that fight over again, but with out negative levels.

Of course, giving the party a 40 point buy in the first place boosts the CR of what they should be fighting by about the same amount.

No it doesn't. It increases the Dragons CR more. The players aren't expected to start with 10s and 11s, the dragons CR is based on the assumption he does. If the Dragon uses the same stat generation as the PCs, the Dragon is of a higher then base CR.

For a battle that is only going to last 4-5 rounds, casting a spell with even a 40% success rate is a losing proposition. Unless you luck out and get it on the very first or second casting, the thing's half dead by the time it works.

It's still alot better then fireballing. We are talking about the worst strategy here, the best would be to use any number of better things, like dispel magic or Stun ray, that you didn't have. Proving that a poorly built caster doesn't outclass everyone else doesn't prove anything.

You keep saying that, but they mauled it. /shrug

And we keep saying, that undoubtably your DM did the same thing that most DMs do with Dragons, play them really stupid to prevent them from mauling the melee PCs. The Dragon's Full attack with absolutely no buffs (even though he should have had buffs) no items (again, should have them) and base 10 stats (you apparently expect more) should down 1 PC per round.

That it didn't implies that the DM didn't use Power Attack effeciently, used that 40 stat points entirely in mental stats, (since you don't have any fort or dies) and gave him a bunch of anti-caster gear instead of some items of +Str.

Then decided to spread out his full attack routine against multiple opponents each round instead of downing one.

I don't know, before this I've always preferred to be the melee type, and I've never had issues with dragons. You flank, you use concealment, tactical feats, buffs, you pump your AC and attack bonus into the stratosphere, you kill.

And Dragons have better buffs, better concealment, better tactics to use, and they have better attack bonuses and better AC. (A Dragon auto hits on a 2 against any realistic melee character that isn't a Goulda Monk with Ascetic Mage.)

Furthermore, that was the first and only encounter I'd ever had where a dispel would have been all that useful. I generally find it better to bypass such defenses by picking another method of attack that they aren't protected against.

But the point is that this one time it would have been useful to bypass defenses, but it's always useful to negate opponents offense and BC. Dispel a haste, or buffed up enemy. Dispel the Black Tentacles that have immobilized the entire party other then you. Ect.

Probably true, I was thinking break enchantment acted a lot more like the dispell magic line. In any event, a sorcerer planning on taking greater dispel shouldn't be taking the regular dispel.

As I have no doubt been ninjaed by Solo, take Dispel and trade it out when you get Greater.

Crow

2008-04-29, 04:56 PM

To be fair, most of the "Wizard beats Dragon" strategies around here require the dragon to be pretty stupid too...

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 04:56 PM

IIRC, assuming you're starting at a level and didn't get there normally, you can spend no more than 25% of your WBL on any one item.

*flourishes her +6 cloak of charisma* Or convince a party crafter to make you one, I suppose.

Right, but you didn't start there did you?

I personally do nothing but save up money for my awesome +casting stat items. Not like their is much else to spend it on.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 04:57 PM

*flourishes her +6 cloak of charisma* Or convince a party crafter to make you one, I suppose.

So your sorceress didn't take Vow of Nudity I wager? :smallwink:

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 04:59 PM

To be fair, most of the "Wizard beats Dragon" strategies around here require the dragon to be pretty stupid too...

Not really, Dispel or Greater Dispel have a very very high chance of success. Followed by any number of touch spells to bring it down:

Stun Ray/Metaed Orb of death/Metaed Enervation of Death/Irresistible Dance/Maximized Reached Shivering Touch/ect.

Crow

2008-04-29, 05:04 PM

Not really, Dispel or Greater Dispel have a very very high chance of success. Followed by any number of touch spells to bring it down:

Stun Ray/Metaed Orb of death/Metaed Enervation of Death/Irresistible Dance/Maximized Reached Shivering Touch/ect.

Dispel or Greater Dispel have about a 45% chance to take down anything put up by a caster of your same caster level. Your very very high chance of success depends a great deal on the dragon in question, and is by no means a blanket assumption. Also, the dragon could beat you to the punch or have a contingency up.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 05:10 PM

If the Dragon in question has your CL, you are boned (unless you are well optimized) and probably way in over your head because that Dragon probably is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-CR'ed for you.

Crow

2008-04-29, 05:14 PM

Caster level is one the easiest things to boost. I thought all you optimizers knew that?

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 05:15 PM

Dispel or Greater Dispel have about a 45% chance to take down anything put up by a caster of your same caster level. Your very very high chance of success depends a great deal on the dragon in question, and is by no means a blanket assumption. Also, the dragon could beat you to the punch or have a contingency up.

Unfortunately for Dragons, none of them have a CL of equal to yours: they run (when facing a Dragon of your CR) from your CL-9 to your CL-7, not counting items. So Dispel has a very very good chance to work.

Can these cheese out their feat selection and make really really smart item selection (the kind I get called a Munchkin for using) and get a higher CL that is harder to dispel? Yes. Does that mean that the normal strategies rely on the Dragon being stupid? No it means they rely on the Dragon not being a a cheese monster.

And what on earth do you mean by "beating you to the punch?" He can't dispel your protections, so he can't use any of the above spells to down you.

Crow

2008-04-29, 05:24 PM

Whoa now. Why is it that if a dragon uses the same strategies a wizard around here uses, he suddenly becomes a cheese-monster?

Talya

2008-04-29, 05:25 PM

No it doesn't. It increases the Dragons CR more.

Uh...giving the players a 40 point buy increase's the dragon's CR even more?

It's still alot better then fireballing. We are talking about the worst strategy here, the best would be to use any number of better things, like dispel magic or Stun ray, that you didn't have. Proving that a poorly built caster doesn't outclass everyone else doesn't prove anything.

Better? So doing an average of nothing is better than doing 40 damage?

And we keep saying, that undoubtably your DM did the same thing that most DMs do with Dragons, play them really stupid to prevent them from mauling the melee PCs. The Dragon's Full attack with absolutely no buffs (even though he should have had buffs) no items (again, should have them) and base 10 stats (you apparently expect more) should down 1 PC per round.

That it didn't implies that the DM didn't use Power Attack effeciently, used that 40 stat points entirely in mental stats, (since you don't have any fort or dies) and gave him a bunch of anti-caster gear instead of some items of +Str.

Then decided to spread out his full attack routine against multiple opponents each round instead of downing one.

I have a few fort save spells.

As for power attacking, I'm of the opinion a DM who uses it is not being fair. The DM knows the AC of his characters, but the dragon does not. Power attack is rough for players to use because they're always trying to figure out exactly how much they can use and still boost their damage before it makes hitting too hard to be worth it. A DM doesn't have that problem.

Also, dragons typically don't focus on one target. A dragon is typically a proud creature that doesn't believe these puny mortals pose a threat to it. It should generally turn its attention to anyone who has had the misfortune of angering it at any particular time. And if he can't take down a character in a single full attack, he can't take them down with melee period, since the next round they'll be back up to full hit points.

And Dragons have better buffs, better concealment, better tactics to use,

Uh...no they don't. They're really pathetic spellcasters, and lack the versatility for tactics that a party has...especially if encountered in an enclosed environment where they can't take advantage of their aerial superiority.

and they have better attack bonuses and better AC. (A Dragon auto hits on a 2

A CR14 blue dragon had to roll higher than 5 (at +21) to hit my sorcerer in melee, and I had the lowest armor class in the party, by far. (That's assuming it can get past improved blink and mirror image, mind you. I'm still probably harder to hit than my party.)

But the point is that this one time it would have been useful to bypass defenses, but it's always useful to negate opponents offense and BC. Dispel a haste, or buffed up enemy. Dispel the Black Tentacles that have immobilized the entire party other then you. Ect.

I've had to do stuff like that all of once, really (and a daylight spell suffices). Typically we're the ones buffed through the roof and using the battlefield control spells. I think the lack of similarly levelled enemy spellcasters in our opponent list has colored my spell-selection. I'm geared for fighting monsters and melee types, not enemy spellcasters of my own level, usually.

I did have a one on one fight against a drow cleric who was 2 levels higher than me.

It went like this: She realizes she's been conned. Roll initiative. I win. (Thanks nerveskitter!) I cast Glass Strike. (Doesn't break SR.) She casts Destruction. (I use Ruin Delver's Fortune, make my save. Take half my hit points in damage.) I use Glass Strike again. This time I break SR, she fails save. Battle over.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 05:32 PM

Whoa now. Why is it that if a dragon uses the same strategies a wizard around here uses, he suddenly becomes a cheese-monster?

He's not if he uses the same strategies a Wizard does. If he uses the exact same strategies a Wizard uses his CL is still going to be 3-5 less then your level at best.

Being a cheese Monster is called taking epic feats that give you a CL of 21 at CR 13.

Not to mention you claimed they relied on a Dragon being stupid, not on him not optimizing to hell and back.

There is a difference between stupid/competent/and very very well optimized Wizard (again, the one that every single opponent always claims: "No one would ever allow that in game.")

Frosty

2008-04-29, 05:45 PM

Edit: double post.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 05:49 PM

Talya: A good DM will be getting into the mindset of his monsters, and making Power Attack decision based on what the monster would've done (which is based on the Intelligence of the monster, how much experience the monster has fighting adventurers, etc).

Also, perhaps CoV means that if the dragon casts Wraithstrike, he'd be hitting on 2s?

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 05:56 PM

Uh...giving the players a 40 point buy increase's the dragon's CR even more?

No, it increases the Dragon's CR more then it increases the CR of enemies you are supposed to fight. Now you are just trying to misinterpret what I say.

Better? So doing an average of nothing is better than doing 40 damage?

Better. Doing an average of killing your opponent in two rounds is better then stacking on such minor damage.

As for power attacking, I'm of the opinion a DM who uses it is not being fair. The DM knows the AC of his characters, but the dragon does not. Power attack is rough for players to use because they're always trying to figure out exactly how much they can use and still boost their damage before it makes hitting too hard to be worth it. A DM doesn't have that problem.

I'm of the opinions:

1) A DM who doesn't use Power Attack is babying his PCs.
2) The DMs job is to pretend he doesn't know things he doesn't know, like the PCs AC and the casters list (Note that earlier you were claiming that the DM is obligated to read the casters spells prepared and then make sure that all enemies are immune, but now Power Attacking is bad.)
3) The PCs usually find out the AC of the enemy pretty quick, when they don't already have it memorized from the MM.
4) The DM could have the Dragon Power Attack for varying amounts using the same methods the PCs use to find out the AC.
5) The DM doesn't need to know the PCs AC, and I usually don't when I DM.

Also, dragons typically don't focus on one target. A dragon is typically a proud creature that doesn't believe these puny mortals pose a threat to it. It should generally turn its attention to anyone who has had the misfortune of angering it at any particular time. And if he can't take down a character in a single full attack, he can't take them down with melee period, since the next round they'll be back up to full hit points.

1) The PCs regain full health? Even though you have no one that can cast heal?
2) Stop forcing your conception of Dragons onto all of them. They have colors with different listed personalities. Only Reds fit the one you described. Whites are obligated to attack one enemy till he dies, Blacks are likely to hit and run, and Blues use surprise and stealth to get the edge, doesn't sound like trusting in their inherent superiority to me.
3) Dragons are smart. They kill people in th best way. And that is by full attacking them to death if they are standing adjacent.

Uh...no they don't. They're really pathetic spellcasters, and lack the versatility for tactics that a party has...especially if encountered in an enclosed environment where they can't take advantage of their aerial superiority.

Yes they do, better then all the PCs in your party except you. Their pathetic spellcasting is still enough to Mirror Image, Displacement, Haste, Heroism, Wraithstrike, Blood Wind, or any number of other spells.

Not to mentions SLAs and the fact that the Blue could have just burrowed around popping out of walls to hit you.

A CR14 blue dragon had to roll higher than 5 (at +21) to hit my sorcerer in melee, and I had the lowest armor class in the party, by far. (That's assuming it can get past improved blink and mirror image, mind you. I'm still probably harder to hit than my party.)

Too bad a base CR 14 Blue has a +27 to hit with a ten in Str. Meaning once again that your DM pulled points away from Str for Wisdom or something else, thus crippling the Dragon and making it easier for the melee group he knew would get decimated. And that's not counting the fact that he could have cast Haste/Heroism/Heroics/Wraithstrike/Bloodwind/Bull's Str/ect. to have had a much higher to hit.

But we already told you your DM plays Dragons stupid and weak on purpose to prevent them from killing off the party melee.

I've had to do stuff like that all of once, really (and a daylight spell suffices). Typically we're the ones buffed through the roof and using the battlefield control spells. I think the lack of similarly levelled enemy spellcasters in our opponent list has colored my spell-selection. I'm geared for fighting monsters and melee types, not enemy spellcasters of my own level, usually.

It probably doesn't hurt that when you do face spellcasters, your DM doesn't have them use spells. But not facing appropriately leveled casters is just one more example of your DM playing down so that he doesn't annihalate the melee party that would get walked over by a caster using things like Confusion and Solid Fog.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 06:02 PM

Also, perhaps CoV means that if the dragon casts Wraithstrike, he'd be hitting on 2s?

Nope, just in general. A CR 14 has a +27 to hit unbuffed with a 10 base Str, and should probably have Heroism/Bull's Str or a Str increasing item up.

The fact is that any dragon smart enough to have Scintillating Scales and using the Elite Array should have at least a +35 or so to hit.

But apparently the DM decided to take the Dragon's Str down from the MM and have it cast no spells.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 06:03 PM

It sounds like the DM used a modified dragon that sucks in melee and is uber against spells. It happens, but i t's not a standard dragon.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 06:12 PM

It sounds like the DM used a modified dragon that sucks in melee and is uber against spells. It happens, but i t's not a standard dragon.

Exactly. And this is my point. DMs do this, because a real Dragon would eat melee for breakfast, and DMs have to play down to prevent that.

Frosty

2008-04-29, 06:25 PM

Exactly. And this is my point. DMs do this, because a real Dragon would eat melee for breakfast, and DMs have to play down to prevent that.

Would you, as a DM, endorse that method to have a balanced encounter?

Corolinth

2008-04-29, 06:36 PM

The shadow dragon had a spell to turn his natural armor bonus into a deflection bonus because he's a smart creature, knows what his weaknesses are (such as low touch AC), and, being a dragon capable of casting spells, has the means to overcome many of those weaknesses.

So yes, in a sense, it was a standard dragon. People often forget that dragons tend to have an intelligence score that rivals premiere arcane spellcasters.

This is a battle that occurred several months ago, so I don't recall the specifics, but it was easily plausible that the dragon had its saves buffed, so Talya's assumption that her "save or lose" spells weren't going to work was indeed wise.

As for why the cleric (who was only three levels behind in spellcasting advancement) did not memorize Death Ward, that is a classic example of what Talya is talking about when she says that the DM knows things the players don't. They made requisite knowledge rolls to research the dragon they were going to fight beforehand. I told them that the dragon's breath, "sapped the strength of its victims." They took this to mean that it dealt strength damage, and the cleric memorized Sheltered Vitality instead of Death Ward.

It's possible to snow players. Especially the ones who know everything.

It's easy to critique the actions of players, and point out what they so obviously should have done to trivialize an encounter. However, sitting at the table playing is far different from sitting at a computer desk with a copy of the Monster Manual cracked open in front of you. When you don't have all of that nice information at your fingertips that allows you to pass on sage advice on internet message boards, the obvious solution suddenly becomes less obvious.

Turcano

2008-04-29, 06:56 PM

Would you, as a DM, endorse that method to have a balanced encounter?

The whole CR system needs to be recalibrated, because (for the most part) a given CR is assigned with the assumption that the DM is treating his players with kid gloves.

Ascension

2008-04-29, 07:18 PM

I know this is Oberoni, but, for what it's worth, if a DM can figure out what strategy you are using as a caster, it doesn't take long to adapt to it.

My sorcerer is almost exclusively focused on buffs and debuffs, with some battlefield control thrown in for good measure. I've got nothing at all that does direct damage. I've got a pretty high DEX, so I've been firing poisoned crossbow bolts when I start running low on spells. Last session we entered an area that had halls too small for me to enlarge the dwarf, fought only undead so I couldn't use my rays of enfeeblement or poison, and some of the enemies had /magic DR so my mundane crossbow couldn't even hurt them. I would have cast web or grease, but all the damage dealers in the party are melee focused and they didn't want me doing anything that would limit their ability to charge at things and hit them with pointy sticks.

This left me abusing the Rod of Wonder that the DM had, on a lark, given me, leading eventually to rolling a 66 and being reduced to 1/12th of my height. It's not italicized in the table, so it's not as the spell, and it doesn't list any duration, so I ended up riding around on my weasel familiar until the fighters remembered how much of our loot I'm carrying in my Handy Haversack and had it wear off so that they wouldn't be deprived their WBL.

So in other words, if the DM is out to get you, he'll get you. At least he did give me one encounter in the entire (five hour) session that I could use my rays of enfeeblement on... I know this is not nearly as optimized as you can get it, but it's fun when you roll max on an empowered ray of enfeeblement at 6th. 13 strength damage to an Ettin? Yes please!

tyckspoon

2008-04-29, 07:28 PM

For future reference, Ray of Enfeeblement works just fine on undead. An ability penalty is not treated the same way as ability damage in the rules; immunity to damage does not grant immunity to a penalty. You can use Ray of Enfeeblement on pretty much anything you can hit with the ray.

sonofzeal

2008-04-29, 07:28 PM

It's possible to snow players. Especially the ones who know everything.
Too true. A good DM (and I'm only starting to get there) can subtly manipulate events to achieve a surprising degree of control over even the most willful players. Basic example - I once set up a situation, using a totally CR-appropriate encounter, no mind control or illusion, and no explicit nudging on my part, that resulted in the party paladin stabbing his best friend in the back without provocation or warning.

As to CR... yeah, it's borked. In practice, preparation and planning play such a huge roll that the actual strength of the monster is usually substantially less important than how organized the player response against it is. Hence my proclivity for dropping Advanced Gibbering Mouthers with DC 19 Gibbering and DC 25 Spittle down though roofs at them. :belkar:

Sholos

2008-04-29, 08:01 PM

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-04-29, 08:10 PM

@Frosty. Only if you have to. I much prefer playing non-gimped, non-stupid monsters against smart well optimized PCs, who of course, don't stand in full attack range of a Dragon unless they know it's going to be dead before it finishes.

The shadow dragon had a spell to turn his natural armor bonus into a deflection bonus because he's a smart creature, knows what his weaknesses are (such as low touch AC), and, being a dragon capable of casting spells, has the means to overcome many of those weaknesses.

We are not saying Scintillating Scales is a non-standard Dragon. I am saying that:

1) According to Tayla's report of the Blue Dragon, it would have to have a Str score of 10 (which is pretty much impossible given that it has a +16 racial increase.)

2) That in general the Dragon was using inferior tactics against it's melee opponents compared to it's spellcaster opponents, such as not buffing itself with Bull's Str/Heroism/Heroics/or comparable melee buffs.

3) That you used rulings that are just plain not the way the game works in ways that nerf casters more: Such as giving her a 50% chance of hitting the Paladin, even when by the rules she shouldn't have, and assumablely not applying that same chance to the melee characters, and not giving her the spellcraft check she gets automatically to find out exactly what Scintillating scales does.

4) Tayla's Sorcerer is so far from an optimized caster that it isn't proof of optimized casters not being awesome.

So yes, in a sense, it was a standard dragon. People often forget that dragons tend to have an intelligence score that rivals premiere arcane spellcasters.

And I am asserting that if it applied even half the intelligence it does to countering spellcasters toward countering melee, that it would have crushed them.

This is a battle that occurred several months ago, so I don't recall the specifics, but it was easily plausible that the dragon had its saves buffed, so Talya's assumption that her "save or lose" spells weren't going to work was indeed wise.

Except it's far more plausible based on what she's said here that she just had no idea how likely her spells where to succeed. But even if it did have it's saves buffed, that would be a further example of the dragons investing far more resources, and intelligently using those resources far better against spellcasting opponents then against melee opponents.

As for why the cleric (who was only three levels behind in spellcasting advancement) did not memorize Death Ward, that is a classic example of what Talya is talking about when she says that the DM knows things the players don't. They made requisite knowledge rolls to research the dragon they were going to fight beforehand. I told them that the dragon's breath, "sapped the strength of its victims." They took this to mean that it dealt strength damage, and the cleric memorized Sheltered Vitality instead of Death Ward.

1) I think we are talking about how Deathward should be memorized every single day no matter what.
2) Excellent, they made a silly mistake, and due to unclear language a successful knowledge roll hurt them. That proves nothing.
3) The standard this group sets isn't exactly very high. Did they find out what color the Dragon was?

It's possible to snow players. Especially the ones who know everything.

And why are you trying to snow players when they make successful knowledge roles?

It's easy to critique the actions of players, and point out what they so obviously should have done to trivialize an encounter. However, sitting at the table playing is far different from sitting at a computer desk with a copy of the Monster Manual cracked open in front of you. When you don't have all of that nice information at your fingertips that allows you to pass on sage advice on internet message boards, the obvious solution suddenly becomes less obvious.

I play exactly like I preach. With intelligent choices made completely independent of looking at any MM. These choices include for this circumstance:

1) Playing a Wizard not a Sorcerer.
2) Better spell choices then the ones above.
3) Preparing Death Ward every day no matter what when a Cleric.
4) Asking what color the Dragon is.
5) Casting Dispel magic.
6) Demanding my spellcraft checks to identify spells in effect.
7) Using Rays against Dragons.
8) Knowing the rules, so that the DM can't give me a 50% chance to hit an ally when I don't have one.
9) Don't show the DM my spell list for the day.

As far as dragons go, I see no reason not to optimize the hell out of them. We're talking very old, very intelligent creatures here. Way more intelligent than almost any given human. Which means that they're going to know how to fight and how to cover their weaknesses. So all the metagaming you do as a DM to make dragons scary I see as simply playing their intelligence level correctly.

Right, but do you advocate playing them very smart against spellcasters and very very very very very stupid against melee opponents for no reason other then that if you played them intelligently they would destroy the melee in one round?

tyckspoon

2008-04-29, 08:17 PM

As far as dragons go, I see no reason not to optimize the hell out of them. We're talking very old, very intelligent creatures here. Way more intelligent than almost any given human. Which means that they're going to know how to fight and how to cover their weaknesses. So all the metagaming you do as a DM to make dragons scary I see as simply playing their intelligence level correctly.

I wonder where the idea of the super-intelligent dragon comes from, especially when considering the chromatics.. a Red dragon doesn't break human limits until it hits the Old age category, at which point it is Int 20 with a CR of 20. Certainly it's smart, and there should be some consideration for the massive life experience it accrues for living that long.. but an Int-focused PC can easily get a high enough score to think circles around it. There's no real basis for the 'You can't outplan a dragon, they're SMRTR than you!!' meme I sometimes see floated in dragon threads. Before the Old category, it's at best Int 18. Which means it is a statistical surety (with rolled stats, at least; there is little to no chance with the lower arrays) that there are a number of normal humanoids that can meet or exceed the dragon's intelligence before any sort of leveling or magic items are applied.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-04-29, 08:28 PM

I wonder where the idea of the super-intelligent dragon comes from, especially when considering the chromatics.. a Red dragon doesn't break human limits until it hits the Old age category, at which point it is Int 20 with a CR of 20. Certainly it's smart, and there should be some consideration for the massive life experience it accrues for living that long.. but an Int-focused PC can easily get a high enough score to think circles around it. There's no real basis for the 'You can't outplan a dragon, they're SMRTR than you!!' meme I sometimes see floated in dragon threads. Before the Old category, it's at best Int 18. Which means it is a statistical surety (with rolled stats, at least; there is little to no chance with the lower arrays) that there are a number of normal humanoids that can meet or exceed the dragon's intelligence before any sort of leveling or magic items are applied.3 of the 5 chromatic dragons have 16 Int and 16 Wis by the adult age. That means they have a +6 racial mod to the 2 stats that are most beneficial to planning. Yes, a human should be better by the time they are an appropriate CR, but the DM should play them with very good plans by then.

Sholos

2008-04-29, 08:30 PM

@Frosty. Only if you have to. I much prefer playing non-gimped, non-stupid monsters against smart well optimized PCs, who of course, don't stand in full attack range of a Dragon unless they know it's going to be dead before it finishes.

We are not saying Scintillating Scales is a non-standard Dragon. I am saying that:

1) According to Tayla's report of the Blue Dragon, it would have to have a Str score of 10 (which is pretty much impossible given that it has a +16 racial increase.)

2) That in general the Dragon was using inferior tactics against it's melee opponents compared to it's spellcaster opponents, such as not buffing itself with Bull's Str/Heroism/Heroics/or comparable melee buffs.

3) That you used rulings that are just plain not the way the game works in ways that nerf casters more: Such as giving her a 50% chance of hitting the Paladin, even when by the rules she shouldn't have, and assumablely not applying that same chance to the melee characters, and not giving her the spellcraft check she gets automatically to find out exactly what Scintillating scales does.

4) Tayla's Sorcerer is so far from an optimized caster that it isn't proof of optimized casters not being awesome.

And I am asserting that if it applied even half the intelligence it does to countering spellcasters toward countering melee, that it would have crushed them.

Except it's far more plausible based on what she's said here that she just had no idea how likely her spells where to succeed. But even if it did have it's saves buffed, that would be a further example of the dragons investing far more resources, and intelligently using those resources far better against spellcasting opponents then against melee opponents.

1) I think we are talking about how Deathward should be memorized every single day no matter what.
2) Excellent, they made a silly mistake, and due to unclear language a successful knowledge roll hurt them. That proves nothing.
3) The standard this group sets isn't exactly very high. Did they find out what color the Dragon was?

And why are you trying to snow players when they make successful knowledge roles?
Agreed with all.

I play exactly like I preach. With intelligent choices made completely independent of looking at any MM. These choices include for this circumstance:

1) Playing a Wizard not a Sorcerer.
2) Better spell choices then the ones above.
3) Preparing Death Ward every day no matter what when a Cleric.
4) Asking what color the Dragon is.
5) Casting Dispel magic.
6) Demanding my spellcraft checks to identify spells in effect.
7) Using Rays against Dragons.
8) Knowing the rules, so that the DM can't give me a 50% chance to hit an ally when I don't have one.
9) Don't show the DM my spell list for the day.
Hmm....

1) Stylistic choice. You can't really tell someone who wants to play a Sorcerer to play a Wizard. They don't want to play a Wizard. If they did and had a choice, they would be. So I think it's best to point out how a Sorcerer could have handled things better than to point out (again) how the Wizard is far better than the Sorcerer.

2) I agree that not taking Dispel Magic was kind of silly, but I also don't agree with telling people that their spell selection was bad simply because it's not optimized. She had a specific character concept and built on that. I applaud such character building, even if it leads to slightly weaker characters. Still probably should have taken Dispel Magic, though.

3) Agreed. Negative levels and death effects are just too nasty to not be prepared against.

4) Aren't Shadow dragons black? Then they might have prepared against acid breath and been equally screwed. Or were you talking about the blue dragon? Then it makes sense to find out the color.

5) Agreed.

6) Agreed. If the player didn't know about the option, the DM should have pointed it out. If neither knew about it.... well the DM should have, at least.

7) Touch AC high = hard to use rays. Also, that 50% chance of hitting the Paladin (whether or not we agree with the ruling doesn't change the fact that it was still there) makes using the rays even more dangerous.

8) DM's houserules beat RAW. Now, the rules should have been consistent, I'll give you that.

9) Agreed, unless the DM has a reason for knowing it. Like the party is famous and their spell selection is well known. Of course, with a sorcerer it's pretty easy to know what they're casting if you're DMing. It's not like they're "prepared" list changes (you know, since they don't have one).

Right, but do you advocate playing them very smart against spellcasters and very very very very very stupid against melee opponents for no reason other then that if you played them intelligently they would destroy the melee in one round?

Oh hell no. I love dragons. They would tear up parties exactly like they're intended to. Unless the party is smart, of course. As above, I definitely agree with you on that point.