Why does everyone think spellcasters destroy martial classes?

[Stupendous_Man]

yup. It wouldn't be a duel, but this was defined as 1vs1, not a duel.

i see that you have discovered the joys of semantics

[Akimbo]

You won't have that elf subtrait thing so your hummingbird familar will only give a +4 bonus so you'll lose +5 initiative. Still, you'll most likely win it as you'll have improved initiative and the halfling won't (halfling has iron will and weapon focus javelin as his two feats).

Once again, the Elf level gives an extra spell slot, that is then used on Nerveskitter, the doubling bonus doesn't come up until level 3.

[tyckspoon]

You won't have that elf subtrait thing so your hummingbird familar will only give a +4 bonus so you'll lose +5 initiative. Still, you'll most likely win it as you'll have improved initiative and the halfling won't (halfling has iron will and weapon focus javelin as his two feats).


I believe somebody mentioned upthread that the increased familiar bonus comes in at level 3, not 1. The Elf Generalist variant doesn't offer all that much that is immediately relevant to a level 1 duel (unless we accept the really horribly cheesy and not in the spirit of the contest packmaster route, in which case the extra spell might buy an extra dog.) It's a good setup for a character who may exist outside of the restricted circumstances of a duel, tho.

BTW, what was your character again? Halfling with.. 18 Wis, 18 Dex? So that's 16 spent on Wis and 10 on Dex.. 6 left can buy you up to a 14 Str, which.. drops to 12. Huh. You actually do manage to squeeze out a Strength bonus. I'm surprised.

Also, if you're planning on being inside of 30 feet, you may want to swap your Weapon Focus for Point Blank Shot. That'll put your damage up to a +2 modifier while maintaining the hit bonus, which puts you back to very good odds of dropping a Gnome and a 100% chance of disabling the 2 HP Elf on a hit.

[Akimbo]

You'd probably have trouble against clerics and druids. A halfling cleric or druid with 18 Wis and iron will would have a +9 to will save. A dwarf variant would have +10. Still, you win on first round 40% of the time against the halfling and 35% of the time against the dwarf.

Oh I know Clerics and Druids are my biggest problem, honestly if the Druid is built in certain ways (spellcasting over melee) then I have to color spray his AC then beat him to death, or spam and hope for a low roll.

He can actually be an Anthrobat Druid and cast DC 18-19 Fort saves or be stunned for a round. And they do 1d6 Non lethal too.

So that sort of thing is made of awesome for a Duel like this, because he can just prepare four of them and sick his animal companion to either use up my readied action to Color Spray, or if I choose not to Color Spray it, he can have it ready an action to disrupt and then close himself.

But Druids being the best level 1 characters with animal companions shouldn't surprise anyone. Though they do miss out against characters with high Fort saves, which is why they are generally less powerful in game at low levels (in spellcasting). Since most enemies have higher Fort then Will.

[turkishproverb]

yup. It wouldn't be a duel, but this was defined as 1vs1, not a duel.

So then once he used buffs, its not a duel either. Fun.

[Akimbo]

I believe somebody mentioned upthread that the increased familiar bonus comes in at level 3, not 1. The Elf Generalist variant doesn't offer all that much that is immediately relevant to a level 1 duel (unless we accept the really horribly cheesy and not in the spirit of the contest packmaster route, in which case the extra spell might buy an extra dog.) It's a good setup for a character who may exist outside of the restricted circumstances of a duel, tho.

1) That was me, the person who also uses it.

2) You also get an extra prepared spell per day. Like, if you have 20 Int, and are level 1, you get 4 spells per day instead of 3.

[Akimbo]

So then once he used buffs, its not a duel either. Fun.

HAHAHAHA. Mage's aren't allowed to use buffs in duels. How cute.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of a mage's duel have you? The only dueling rules in an official WotC source.

[turkishproverb]

HAHAHAHA. Mage's aren't allowed to use buffs in duels. How cute.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of a mage's duel have you? The only dueling rules in an official WotC source.

I was specifically talking about the going into a duel with a buff issue. IF he can buff prep, I can pre-burn his spellbook to cut things off.

[snoopy13a]

Once again, the Elf level gives an extra spell slot, that is then used on Nerveskitter, the doubling bonus doesn't come up until level 3.

Oh, ok. So nerveskitter gives +4 iniative. So you get 5 spells and use nerveskitter, mage armor, and shield beforehand holding in reserve two color sprays for the fight, fair enough? But the gnome would only get 3 spells right?

Anyway, how are you getting two feats with your wizard? From what I understand, wizards only get to choose one feat (unless they are human).

[Swok]

I was specifically talking about the going into a duel with a buff issue. IF he can buff prep, I can pre-burn his spellbook to cut things off.

How in the hells do you burn the spellbook that never leaves the wizards presence?

[turkishproverb]

How in the hells do you burn the spellbook that never leaves the wizards presence?

Burn down the building, for starters. That should get it from alot of level 1s if you star while they sleep

[Stupendous_Man]

i think you've proved someone else's point.

[turkishproverb]

i think you've proved someone else's point.

Who's point?

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, ok. So nerveskitter gives +4 iniative. So you get 5 spells and use nerveskitter, mage armor, and shield beforehand holding in reserve two color sprays for the fight, fair enough? But the gnome doesn't get

Anyway, how are you getting two feats with your wizard? From what I understand, wizards only get to choose one feat (unless they are human).

Nerveskitter is +5 and it is a swift action to cast (you cast it once you are asked to roll initiative).

[Akimbo]

I was specifically talking about the going into a duel with a buff issue. IF he can buff prep, I can pre-burn his spellbook to cut things off.

Once again, the rules for mage duels? yeah you can come in prebuffed.

And not only can you walk in with any personal buffs you want, you then get a round to summon something if you want, or buff some more if you have a really short duration buff, and the other guy still can't stop you. (He gets a similar round) then you can ready an action to counterspell. So does he. Then you begin the duel.

See, no one thinks buffing before you go to a duel is crazy except you.

[turkishproverb]

Once again, the rules for mage duels? yeah you can come in prebuffed.

And not only can you walk in with any personal buffs you want, you then get a round to summon something if you want, or buff some more if you have a really short duration buff, and the other guy still can't stop you. (He gets a similar round) then you can ready an action to counterspell. So does he. Then you begin the duel.

See, no one thinks buffing before you go to a duel is crazy except you.

So, your applying the rules for a wizards Duel to any duel? Wow. that makes sense. :smallconfused:

[snoopy13a]

Nerveskitter is +5 and it is a swift action to cast (you cast it once you are asked to roll initiative).

Ok, couldn't find the info on it. Pretty good spell for a wizard, especially as they can follow up with color spray against mobs that almost definitely don't have 18 Wisdom and Iron Will :smallsmile:

So a 20 Dex wizard with Improved Int and a hummingbird gets a +13 to initiative and if they are an elf with that elf subclass specializing in say Illusion then they get to prepare five spells instead of the three that a generalist 20 Int Wizard would get. All fair enough. But I can't see how the wizard can have both Improved Int and Spell Focus (unless they are a human)*.

Ok, I see how the hummingbird gives Improved Int as a bonus feat and the wizard is buying spell focus.

[tyckspoon]

So a 20 Dex wizard with Improved Int and a hummingbird gets a +13 to initiative and if they are an elf with that elf subclass specializing in say Illusion then they get to prepare five spells instead of the three that a generalist 20 Int Wizard would get. All fair enough. But I can't see how the wizard can have both Improved Int and Spell Focus (unless they are a human).

It's the Elven Generalist racial class. I'm pretty sure they're not actually allowed to specialize.. well, more accurately, the class sort of makes them a specialty non-specialized mage. The Elf would get four spells, just like a 20 Int specialist. It just wouldn't be from a specified school.

[Emperor Tippy]

It's the Elven Generalist racial class. I'm pretty sure they're not actually allowed to specialize.. well, more accurately, the class sort of makes them a specialty non-specialized mage. The Elf would get four spells, just like a 20 Int specialist. It just wouldn't be from a specified school.

Correct. If gives you 1 extra spell slot per day of the highest spell level you can cast.

[Akimbo]

So, your applying the rules for a wizards Duel to any duel? Wow. that makes sense. :smallconfused:

No, I am pointing out the fact that someone casting mage armor half an hour before a fight has absolutely no comparison at all to burning down a house with someone in it.

[tyckspoon]

Incidentally, 1st level scrolls are dirt-cheap. If prebuffing or a buff round are permitted, Mage Armor and Shield can be cast from scrolls. That leaves the Wizard's actual slots for Nerveskitter/Color Spray/Color Spray. Similarly, potions of level 0 spells are very inexpensive- I would expect the Fighter to be sensible and take a sip of.. oh, Resistance and Guidance, which could be combined for +2 to his first save. Or Guidance could be saved for his attack roll if he wants to take his chances.

[Bassetking]

Yeah, the monk threads were much more spectacular.

It's probably just as well the Wizard Vs. Monk challenge match never got off the ground. It would have engulfed the whole playground. :P

- Saph

My favorite part was when My Distinguished Opponent tried to claim that a wizard with a list full of Fog and Wall spells, was "Specifically arena optimized" and "Against the 'Generic adventurer' spirit of the competition.

[Inhuman Bot]

i see that you have discovered the joys of semantics

This is awkward but... what's semantics?

[Aquillion]

I have two questions.

1. Why do these discussions always come down to duels? One-on-one duels aren't a major part of D&D. They're barely even a minor part of D&D. There are no rules or guidelines for them anywhere in any of the core books, are there? None of the classes are designed or balanced with them in mind. They're totally pointless and prove nothing. Utility in a four-person party fighting monsters is the best option

Try a party with all the full-casters removed vs a party with all the strictly-melee people removed, say, and see what the highest-CR encounters each can handle are at various levels.

The full-caster party promises not to laugh at the no-caster party. Not much, anyway.

2. Why wizards? Why do the discussions always turn to wizards? Druids and clerics are overpowered, too, and druids are actually a much more logical class to compare to melee-types for showing problems, since they can do so much to take the melee guy's place even without drawing on their spells.

Is there something about wizards in particular that attracts this sort of discussion? Why do we so rarely see 'cleric vs. XYZ' or 'druid vs. XYZ' threads? Why is it always wizards?

(Ironically -- and contrary to expectations -- wizards are actually much better at being a support class than the other two, and therefore less ideal for duels. This is because a lot of the cleric and druid's real strength comes from personal-only buffs, while a lot of the wizard's strength comes from battlefield alteration / save-or-suck / buff-other spells that help the whole team. It's just that the wizard kicks so much ass at supporting the rest of the team that it ends up feeling like everyone else is just finishing off the ineffectual sleeping / bound / trapped / fleeing opponents the wizard is holding down for them.)

[Inhuman Bot]

I think the duels thing is because people like a one on one comparison. It can be easier, and in theory, less abstract.
Also, Maybe because the company is called Wizards of the coast.
Then again, wizard appear to be more powerfull then the druid, I think.

Lastly, if you use mountains of optimization, I think the fighter wins. Why? because there was a build called (I think) The reaper, and it was a multiclass fighter, almost on par with pun-pun in terms of cheese, if anything could be on par with pun-pun. (I'll post it when I find it)

[snoopy13a]

If the hummingbird gives improved int as the bonus feat then it shouldn't also confer a +4 initiative bonus should it?

That's a +8 bonus by one familiar. You look at the core familiars and their utility isn't that great (the toad is probably the best in this situation as it gives +3 hit points). Still with that nerveskitter spell, the wizard gets at least a +14 bonus (+5 Dex, +5 nerveskitter, and +4 familar) so it is academic anyway.

[chiasaur11]

I think the duels thing is because people like a one on one comparison. It can be easier, and in theory, less abstract.
Also, Maybe because the company is called Wizards of the coast.
Then again, wizard appear to be more powerfull then the druid, I think.

Lastly, if you use mountains of optimization, I think the fighter wins. Why? because there was a build called (I think) The reaper, and it was a multiclass fighter, almost on par with pun-pun in terms of cheese, if anything could be on par with pun-pun. (I'll post it when I find it)

On par with Pun Pun?

This I gotta see.

If it can't retroactively turn its enemies to candy, it ain't close.

[Akimbo]

I think the duels thing is because people like a one on one comparison. It can be easier, and in theory, less abstract.
Also, Maybe because the company is called Wizards of the coast.
Then again, wizard appear to be more powerfull then the druid, I think.

Lastly, if you use mountains of optimization, I think the fighter wins. Why? because there was a build called (I think) The reaper, and it was a multiclass fighter, almost on par with pun-pun in terms of cheese, if anything could be on par with pun-pun. (I'll post it when I find it)

The first time I ever saw someone say something like this they said a "Lockdown" Fighter was cpabale of beating a Druid/Wizard in a duel at level 20.

I then proceeded to show 7 ways that a Wizard could start adjacent to the Lockdown Fighter with one buff, and still win.

I would love to see a "Reaper" build that relies on melee or ranged attacks to accomplish it's goals and does not have the ability to cast detection/scrying/teleport/battlefield control spells, But is still as good as Cindy. Because there probably isn't one.

[Bassetking]

For what it's worth, 3.5's all-time CharOp top damage build was a primarily melee build.

[Akimbo]

If the hummingbird gives improved int as the bonus feat then it shouldn't also confer a +4 initiative bonus should it?

That's a +8 bonus by one familiar. You look at the core familiars and their utility isn't that great (the toad is probably the best in this situation as it gives +3 hit points). Still with that nerveskitter spell, the wizard gets at least a +14 bonus (+5 Dex, +5 nerveskitter, and +4 familar) so it is academic anyway.

The toad grants 3hp, the equivalent of toughness, but not the feat. The rat grants +2 fort saves, the equivalent of Great Fort, but not the feat.

Guess what the Hummingbird does? It grants an untyped +4 Init bonus, which doubles with the 3rd level substitution and stacks with improved Init.

[Akimbo]

For what it's worth, 3.5's all-time CharOp top damage build was a primarily melee build.

Unfortunately, the difference between 1000 damage a round and infinity is largely academic pre-epic. And nothing at all matters Post-Epic, because Epic spells are all.

And you know, you still have to hit with a melee attack. Compare that to a Blasphemy optimized Ur-Priest with some Nar Demonbinder levels and some Sublime Chord levels, and probably Dweomerkeeper.

He can throw down an AoE attack with a 40ft radius that kills anything with fewer then 100 HD, no save, no SR, and he can spontaneously convert it to whatever element he wants.

[snoopy13a]

The toad grants 3hp, the equivalent of toughness, but not the feat. The rat grants +2 fort saves, the equivalent of Great Fort, but not the feat.

Guess what the Hummingbird does? It grants an untyped +4 Init bonus, which doubles with the 3rd level substitution and stacks with improved Init.

Fair enough.

But then you can't have both spell focus illusion and improved initiative (unless you're human). You could go with spell focus as with the hummingbird and nerveskitter you'll still have +14 to initiative. Or you could not cast nerveskitter (leaving you with two spells left) and still have +9 to my +4.

Or you could go with improved init as your feat and go with a +18 modifier to my +4 but then it'll be 5% easier for me to make my Will Saves. Or perhaps go with a +13 modifier without casting nerveskitter so you hold two colorsprays in reserve.

You're still going to probably win of course.

[Bassetking]

Unfortunately, the difference between 1000 damage a round and infinity is largely academic pre-epic. And nothing at all matters Post-Epic, because Epic spells are all.

And you know, you still have to hit with a melee attack. Compare that to a Blasphemy optimized Ur-Priest with some Nar Demonbinder levels and some Sublime Chord levels, and probably Dweomerkeeper.

He can throw down an AoE attack with a 40ft radius that kills anything with fewer then 100 HD, no save, no SR, and he can spontaneously convert it to whatever element he wants.

See, you're thinking too small. Forget the 40' radius. Forget people. This is a build that can shatter planes of existence with a single slap. One swift backhand, and the Prime Material is unmade. Dude can singlehandedly (Hah!) take out any of the Nine Hells in one round, starting at level 12.

Guy can delete things by poking them. I don't care how potent your Wish&Word is, I'll take the guy that puts on his metal glove, and makes buildings evaporate, just for giggles.

[Akimbo]

Fair enough.

But then you can't have both spell focus illusion and improved initiative (unless you're human). You could go with spell focus as with the hummingbird and nerveskitter you'll still have +14 to initiative. Or you could not cast nerveskitter (leaving you with two spells left) and still have +9 to my +4.

Or you could go with improved init as your feat and go with a +18 modifier to my +4 but then it'll be 5% easier for me to make my Will Saves. Or perhaps go with a +13 modifier without casting nerveskitter so you hold two colorsprays in reserve.

You're still going to probably win of course.

Or I could take two flaws Like I said I did and grab Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, and Improved Init.

[Akimbo]

See, you're thinking too small. Forget the 40' radius. Forget people. This is a build that can shatter planes of existence with a single slap. One swift backhand, and the Prime Material is unmade. Dude can singlehandedly (Hah!) take out any of the Nine Hells in one round, starting at level 12.

Guy can delete things by poking them. I don't care how potent your Wish&Word is, I'll take the guy that puts on his metal glove, and makes buildings evaporate, just for giggles.

Except that he can't, because all he can attack is a given five foot square of wall. He can't attack the Plane, he can only attack a specific place on the ground which will then immediately pulverize. But that pulverization is limited to that very small area.

I mean you think punching the ground here allows you to do damage to someplace far away outside your reach? Fine how much damage do you take from a thousand Monks punching the Ground somewhere else? Because apparently reach and being a single object have no limit of damage conveance, so every ubercharger can actually kill everyone in the game, because he charges a mote of air, and the damage radiates outword from that mote of air and hits all those people that are on that plane and does damage to them as if he attacked them.

Seriously, your argument that infinite damage allows you to attack un attackable objects is pretty damn stupid.

[Aquillion]

See, you're thinking too small. Forget the 40' radius. Forget people. This is a build that can shatter planes of existence with a single slap. One swift backhand, and the Prime Material is unmade. Dude can singlehandedly (Hah!) take out any of the Nine Hells in one round, starting at level 12.

Guy can delete things by poking them. I don't care how potent your Wish&Word is, I'll take the guy that puts on his metal glove, and makes buildings evaporate, just for giggles.But the thing is, you're fighting a wizard. If you could actually walk up to him and attack him, he'd already be dead, regardless of your damage optimization (hint: you can't.)

And even if you manage to destroy the Prime Material with one swift backhand, so what? He's a wizard. He casts Plane Shift to somewhere else and leaves you floating in a featureless void forever.

[Eldariel]

I recall the max damage was dealt by Chuck. This thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=993832) lists him as able to deal 75,638,312,530,000,000 (that is 75638.4 billion damage). I recall some record approached Googal (10^100) damage though, but can't find it. Bleh. Maybe the Locate City Bomb...

[snoopy13a]

Or I could take two flaws Like I said I did and grab Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, and Improved Init.

Flaws are a rules variation that I won't agree to. Too unbalanced in my book for a wizard to start off with three feats to a non-human fighter's two. Especially since one of the only advantages to a fighter is the bonus feat at level 1.

Remember you're getting:

1) A non-core familiar (hummingbird)*

2) Access to the nerveskitter spell*

3) [Access to the gray elf class*] <-- strike that

4) Opportunity to self-buff shield and mage armor before the fight

5) Right to choose a starting distance of 30 feet from each other beforehand

6) Access to the general elf specialization (granted if you specialized in Illusion it would have the same effect)*

I'm getting:

Nothing :smalltongue:

There's no way I'm giving you two extra feats. :smallwink:

*None of these are in my primary reference guide:

http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

[Eldariel]

Gray Elf is core. Check Monster Manual (or SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#grayElf) - why they ever put the sorry-excuse-for-a-race High Elf into PHB still eludes me; Con-penalty and nothing substantial for it, not to even mention Favored Class: Wizard without anything beneficial for a Wizard save for Longbow Proficiency).

[snoopy13a]

Gray Elf is core. Check Monster Manual (or SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#grayElf) - why they ever put the sorry-excuse-for-a-race High Elf into PHB still eludes me; Con-penalty and nothing substantial for it, not to even mention Favored Class: Wizard without anything beneficial for a Wizard save for Longbow Proficiency).

Ok, stand corrected there.

[Bassetking]

I recall the max damage was dealt by Chuck. This thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=993832) lists him as able to deal 75,638,312,530,000,000 (that is 75638.4 billion damage). I recall some record approached Googal (10^100) damage though, but can't find it. Bleh. Maybe the Locate City Bomb...

The 1d2 Crusader (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-855878) disagrees with your assessment.

[Emperor Tippy]

The 1d2 Crusader (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-855878) disagrees with your assessment.

The 1d2 Crusader technically never deals any damage. Damage is only dealt once damage is calculated and the damage calculation for a 1d2 Crusader never ends and can not be ended.

That is unless you have found a way to stop the loop.

[Bassetking]

The 1d2 Crusader technically never deals any damage. Damage is only dealt once damage is calculated and the damage calculation for a 1d2 Crusader never ends and can not be ended.

That is unless you have found a way to stop the loop.

Wording of Aura of Chaos, Tippy. It's been there since the build was created. You can choose whether to re-roll and add again, as per the text of the ability, or can choose not to.

EDIT:Specific Wording. "You CAN continue to re-roll" ToB p.57

[krossbow]

(when pray tell did you read, hear or see, in books or movies of wizards with scythes).






Magus, supreme awesome dark wizard of chrono trigger.


NEXT.

[Eldariel]

The 1d2 Crusader (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-855878) disagrees with your assessment.

Alright, so of course I meant non-infinite combos. There are many ways to go infinite (not to mention omnipotent level 1 PC which can choose how much damage is dealt and heck, rebuild the rules of the game).

[ZekeArgo]

Magus, supreme awesome dark wizard of chrono trigger.


NEXT.

In the biz we call an "oh snap". Your rebuttal? (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=199)

[Stupendous_Man]

Wording of Aura of Chaos, Tippy. It's been there since the build was created. You can choose whether to re-roll and add again, as per the text of the ability, or can choose not to.

EDIT:Specific Wording. "You CAN continue to re-roll" ToB p.57

there's a black enchantment in magic that says "you may sacrifice enchantment when an opponent's creature comes into play to counter that creature", but even though there is a may in the sentence, the ability is not optional, meaning you have to sacrifice the enchantment when an oponent first plays a creature. you cant' choose when to sacrifice the enchantment.

[ZekeArgo]

there's a black enchantment in magic that says "you may sacrifice enchantment when an opponent's creature comes into play to counter that creature", but even though there is a may in the sentence, the ability is not optional, meaning you have to sacrifice the enchantment when an oponent first plays a creature. you cant' choose when to sacrifice the enchantment.

And the rules regarding the text in M:tG, nevermind the rulings and text changes that make the card text obsolete, really mean nothing when it comes to DnD

[Stupendous_Man]

And the rules regarding the text in M:tG, nevermind the rulings and text changes that make the card text obsolete, really mean nothing when it comes to DnD

i'm just saying words don't always mean what you think they mean. you have to keep the possibility in mind, at least.

[Arbitrarity]

I recall the max damage was dealt by Chuck. This thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=993832) lists him as able to deal 75,638,312,530,000,000 (that is 75638.4 billion damage). I recall some record approached Googal (10^100) damage though, but can't find it. Bleh. Maybe the Locate City Bomb...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=573196
Total damage > (2.5*10^36530)^^73600, using Knuth's up-arrow notation

[krossbow]

eriously, your argument that infinite damage allows you to attack un attackable objects is pretty damn stupid.


Hey, it worked for superboy after all. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Primepunch.PNG/150px-Primepunch.PNG) smallbiggrin:

[Colmarr]

A 20 Dex, 20 Int, 6 Con, wizard is something I could play from level 1 on without a real problem (with enough sources at least).

Seriously!? This sounds like a character concept that would only survive in an extremely friendly campaign, by which I mean (et al):

1. The DM never imposes 4 encounters per day.
2. The DM never gets lucky and hits a high AC
3. The DM never uses a grappling creature or a creature with improved grab against the casters.

With all due respect, I have great difficulty seeing such a wizard survive to reach 5th level in any ordinary campaign.

[tyckspoon]

Seriously!? This sounds like a character concept that would only survive in an extremely friendly campaign, by which I mean (et al):

1. The DM never imposes 4 encounters per day.
2. The DM never gets lucky and hits a high AC
3. The DM never uses a grappling creature or a creature with improved grab against the casters.

With all due respect, I have great difficulty seeing such a wizard survive to reach 5th level in any ordinary campaign.

Really? And what kind of Wizard do you think *would* survive? 20 Int and specializing means the wizard really *has* four spells, so he can drop a first-level spell for every encounter if he needs to. His AC is about as high as it can reasonably be for a constant score. Grappling creatures.. well, what wizard would you make that will have any sort of decent grapple check? *Any* first level wizard is easy to kill if something gets its claws on him.

[kpenguin]

And it would be a lot less playable long term. A 20 Dex, 20 Int, 6 Con, wizard is something I could play from level 1 on without a real problem (with enough sources at least).

But... at level 1... couldn't you get downed by a single magic missile then? I mean, you have 2 HP, so that means that a magic missile will at least disable you. If more than a one is rolled...

I guess if you had a Shield spell on. Since you have 5 dex, I suppose that would be enough to guarantee you go first on initiative on most rounds.

[Jade_Tarem]

Seriously!? This sounds like a character concept that would only survive in an extremely friendly campaign, by which I mean (et al):

1. The DM never imposes 4 encounters per day.
2. The DM never gets lucky and hits a high AC
3. The DM never uses a grappling creature or a creature with improved grab against the casters.

With all due respect, I have great difficulty seeing such a wizard survive to reach 5th level in any ordinary campaign.

What, the rest of the wizard's party doesn't exist? Your fighter and rogue are there for the 4 encounters. Hitting a high AC doesn't really matter vs. wizards at low levels, and again, the other party members are there to keep grapplers off of you - remember, when you're grappling you expose yourself to the oh-so-opportunistic other players...

There are, naturally, situations that can kill the wizard before he can get assistance, but I think you'll find that those fall under the categories of either "extremely bad luck" or "EL above party level."

Edit: And you couldn't get taken out completely by a single magic missile. Remember - it's at hp -10 that you die. The cleric can fix everything else.

Teamwork, people. :smallwink:

[ZekeArgo]

But... at level 1... couldn't you get downed by a single magic missile then? I mean, you have 2 HP, so that means that a magic missile will at least disable you. If more than a one is rolled...

I guess if you had a Shield spell on. Since you have 5 dex, I suppose that would be enough to guarantee you go first on initiative on most rounds.

And the difference between 2 HP and 5-6 HP at level 1 when a longsword can do 1d8+2-6 or more is? It's still a one-hit kill if anyone gets within striking distance. Sure, if you take a 14 con you don't have to worry about a single magic missile possibly killing you, but even at a decent 12 CON for the archetypal "feeble wizard" theres a good chance you'll be down to 0 without proper protections, which will work for the 2 HP wiz just as well.

[Sholos]

I like how a very, very cheesed out "core" wizard still stands a chance at losing to an unremarkable fighter. I'd like to see if someone can make an "uber" wizard using standard character generation rules. That is, PHB only.

As to that wizard surviving? Probably not. There's these little things called "surprise rounds". With only 2 hp, the wizard will be very lucky to actually survive.

[Cainen]

I like how a very, very cheesed out "core" wizard still stands a chance at losing to an unremarkable fighter.

No. No they don't.

[Spiryt]

And the difference between 2 HP and 5-6 HP at level 1 when a longsword can do 1d8+2-6 or more is? It's still a one-hit kill if anyone gets within striking distance. Sure, if you take a 14 con you don't have to worry about a single magic missile possibly killing you, but even at a decent 12 CON for the archetypal "feeble wizard" theres a good chance you'll be down to 0 without proper protections, which will work for the 2 HP wiz just as well.

Right, but with 6 Con it's really possible to don't get any HP at all when gaining a levels. So Wizard can end with, let's say, 8HP at 9th level, considering that he rolled few 3 or 4. Or with 18 considering all full HD (some DM do it that way).

That's really one (weak) hit trough all those levels. Yes, later HP besomes redundant to Wizard, but earlier he's implayable with 6 Con.

So I don't think that accusing some rather silly, strictly Duel builds of being crappy in actula game is fair.

[ZekeArgo]

I like how a very, very cheesed out "core" wizard still stands a chance at losing to an unremarkable fighter. I'd like to see if someone can make an "uber" wizard using standard character generation rules. That is, PHB only.

As to that wizard surviving? Probably not. There's these little things called "surprise rounds". With only 2 hp, the wizard will be very lucky to actually survive.

Or how about this: 28 pt buy "iconic" grey elf wizard, stats:

STR 6
DEX 18 (16 Base, 10 Points)
CON 8 (10 base, 2 points)
INT 20 (18 base, 16 points)
WIS 8
CHA 8

Starts with 3 HP, which in all honesty is the same as 6HP if 10 points were spent in dex. Since we've got a guy who is apparently fighting on his lonesome, Improved Initiative is the order of the day

28 pt buy Human Fighter

STR 18(16 points)
DEX 12(4 Points)
CON 14 (6 Points)
INT 8
WIS 10 (2 Points)
CHA 8

Now, assuming an "iconic" fighter your in at least medium armor, reducing your speed to 20'', and you've taken, for sake of argument, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, and Power Attack.

Nevermind that you have to be within 40' starting to even get a charge off against the elf if you do win initiative, he still does have 3 points on you since improved initiatives cancel each other out.

Now you can argue "why not go 10 points to DEX and bring things closer to even?" But then you lose any bonus at all to CON, dropping your HP to 9, or if you switch the two wis points to con, you stay at 10 HP, but dip into a negative will save, making your save vs his first sleep effect at a 17.

So, your betting money that the fighter will not only beat the wizard at a check in which the wizard has a better modifier, while automatically being within range to charge without the wizard having seen him long before he was in range, and be able to succeed at a DC 16-17 save vs a will effect?

[snoopy13a]

Seriously!? This sounds like a character concept that would only survive in an extremely friendly campaign, by which I mean (et al):

1. The DM never imposes 4 encounters per day.
2. The DM never gets lucky and hits a high AC
3. The DM never uses a grappling creature or a creature with improved grab against the casters.

With all due respect, I have great difficulty seeing such a wizard survive to reach 5th level in any ordinary campaign.

The wizard should also be percieved as a low priority target by the enemy NPCs.

The enemy NPCs at level 1 are likely going to be thug types. Probably mostly warriors with some fighters and rogues. Your level 1 NPC wizard is likely a wizard's apprentice who probably isn't going to be fighting adventurers in the first place. Level 1 NPC Bards are going to be rare and likely traveling alone and thus non-violent. Level 1 NPC Clerics are going to helping out their superiors at the temple, etc. So your level 1 NPC Thugs have likely only fought other Thugs.

So, your NPC thugs are going to assume that the adventures are either whimps (commoners) or tough guys (warriors, fighters and rogues). That whimpy looking elf with a walking stick and normal clothes (I'm assuming the elf is prudent enough not to wear wizard robes) is likely percieved by the thuggish NPCs as a whimp and thus the least amount of danger. The cleric, fighter, and rogue have armor and will be percieved as tough guys and thus be higher priority targets.

Of course, if the wizard casts a spell then he becomes priority #1 in the eyes of the thugs.

[OneFamiliarFace]

So, your NPC thugs are going to assume that the adventures are either whimps (commoners) or tough guys (warriors, fighters and rogues). That whimpy looking elf with a walking stick and normal clothes (I'm assuming the elf is prudent enough not to wear wizard robes) is likely percieved by the thuggish NPCs as a whimp and thus the least amount of danger. The cleric, fighter, and rogue have armor and will be percieved as tough guys and thus be higher priority targets.

This one got me into all kinds of trouble with my hulking fighter and everyone assuming he would be a good target for will saves and being correct!

While this might be true in the case of thugs, wild animals/beasts/monsters will be probably just want an easy meal, meaning they will gobble up the wizard first and make off with him!

I think that it is safe to say that, as an errant arrow can easily drop an unprepared lvl 1 wizard in one hit, most of them need just a touch of DM special favor to make it to level 2, especially after they have used their two useful spells for the day!

[Treguard]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Q9_nCpDfJzcSPM:http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/12/zoidberg.jpg
No.. Noo! Not again with the wizards and fighters!

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Right, but with 6 Con it's really possible to don't get any HP at all when gaining a levels. So Wizard can end with, let's say, 8HP at 9th level, considering that he rolled few 3 or 4. Or with 18 considering all full HD (some DM do it that way).

That's really one (weak) hit trough all those levels. Yes, later HP besomes redundant to Wizard, but earlier he's implayable with 6 Con.

So I don't think that accusing some rather silly, strictly Duel builds of being crappy in actula game is fair.

except that you gain at least 1 HP per level of course, please check page 9 of your local PHB for reference.

[Akimbo]

Flaws are a rules variation that I won't agree to. Too unbalanced in my book for a wizard to start off with three feats to a non-human fighter's two. Especially since one of the only advantages to a fighter is the bonus feat at level 1.

Remember you're getting:

1) A non-core familiar (hummingbird)*

2) Access to the nerveskitter spell*

3) [Access to the gray elf class*] <-- strike that

4) Opportunity to self-buff shield and mage armor before the fight

5) Right to choose a starting distance of 30 feet from each other beforehand

6) Access to the general elf specialization (granted if you specialized in Illusion it would have the same effect)*

I'm getting:

Nothing :smalltongue:

There's no way I'm giving you two extra feats. :smallwink:

1) You can take flaws, nothing is stopping you.

2) You can use non-core ACFS, just be glad I'm not trading out for Abrupt Jaunt because I like to have a familiar at later levels.

3) Use non-core sources if you want.

4) Okay, how about this system: we start adjacent and if either one of us chooses to move farther we do. The thing is, that's a stupid system because as soon as you are past my range of attack I'll decide that I want to have the duel start from different planes so I can level up before you ever get to me.

Starting where only one person can attack isn't a duel.

5) Yeah, that's just because this is exactly the character I would play in a campaign, so unlike all the counter builds, I'm thinking long term.

And as was pointed out to you, the Core race of Grey elf is core.

[Emperor Tippy]

Seriously!? This sounds like a character concept that would only survive in an extremely friendly campaign, by which I mean (et al):

1. The DM never imposes 4 encounters per day.
2. The DM never gets lucky and hits a high AC
3. The DM never uses a grappling creature or a creature with improved grab against the casters.

With all due respect, I have great difficulty seeing such a wizard survive to reach 5th level in any ordinary campaign.

Not really. You can 1 hit drop pretty much any CR appropriate challenge. And you have other party members to help as well.

Besides, who ever said my HP would be low? One of my feats would be Faerie Mysteries Innate which gives me Int to HP instead of Con to HP. I can take it at level 1 and be just fine.

And the simple fact is that aginst a properly built fighter type you will die if he hits you, no matter your HP (unless you are going for something like 30+ con). If you are a fighter type and aren't forcing a save for massive damage on every hit at levels 15+ then you are doing something wrong.

---
If you know what you are doing and have a half way decent party then you can play a 20/20/6/8/8 wizard just fine. Even without FMI it stops being a problem as soon as you get poymorph (level 7).

Pick up FMI and Keen Intellect and you are covered on Will saves as well (you also get Int to Spot, Sense Motive, heal, and survival).

At level 1 I could go FMI, KI, and Improved Initiative and have:
HP: 9
AC: 15
Initiative: +13 (before Nerveskitter)
Reflex: +5
Fort: -2
Will: +7

Which is very nice.

[Akimbo]

This one got me into all kinds of trouble with my hulking fighter and everyone assuming he would be a good target for will saves and being correct!

While this might be true in the case of thugs, wild animals/beasts/monsters will be probably just want an easy meal, meaning they will gobble up the wizard first and make off with him!

I think that it is safe to say that, as an errant arrow can easily drop an unprepared lvl 1 wizard in one hit, most of them need just a touch of DM special favor to make it to level 2, especially after they have used their two useful spells for the day!

So I take it nobody noticed when I said that I was would play this build with the feat Faerie Mysteries Innate replacing Greater Spell Focus?

That means I have 9 HP at level 1. And if I roll nothing but ones I still have 84 HP at level 10.

Curse your impeccable Ninja.

[Spiryt]

except that you gain at least 1 HP per level of course, please check page 9 of your local PHB for reference.

Indeed, he'll end with average 11HP at 9th level then, although he can end with 10 or 18 too (although the last one is very improbable).

[Oslecamo]

You do realize this low con wizard will be killed easily by a bunch of goblin warriors wich easily have +5 to move and hide whitout need of skill points, while the wizard can't see them at all thanks to his negative wisdom.

Not to mention, if the wizard finds zombies, vermins, skeletons, plants or contructs or something else that laughs at mental magic he's screwed.

So, the only thing this wizard can kill at 1st level are badly built fighters with medium armor. Woot!

Because most enemies at 1st level that aren't outright immune to sleep/color spray have positive hide and move silently modifiers, while the wizard has a negative spot/listen modifier, leaving himself open to a suprise round where his high dex is useless.

[Starbuck_II]

You do realize this low con wizard will be killed easily by a bunch of goblin warriors wich easily have +5 to move and hide whitout need of skill points, while the wizard can't see them at all thanks to his negative wisdom.

Not to mention, if the wizard finds zombies, vermins, skeletons, plants or contructs or something else that laughs at mental magic he's screwed.

So, the only thing this wizard can kill at 1st level are badly built fighters with medium armor. Woot!

Because most enemies at 1st level that aren't outright immune to sleep/color spray have positive hide and move silently modifiers, while the wizard has a negative spot/listen modifier, leaving himself open to a suprise round where his high dex is useless.

Grease takes care of them unless they are rogues, but than versus rogues you got "mental magic" as you put it.
By level 3, you can blind the immune guys with mental magic (Glitterdust).

[Akimbo]

It's funny because both of those posts came 20 minutes after the explanation that the Wizard has 9HP at level 1, a Party, and a Spot modifier of +11 with his Familiar on his shoulder.

(Sorry Tippy, my specialty is stealing good ideas and combining them. Though apparently you have done this before, Keen Intellect is new to me.)

[Treguard]

Heh, faerie magic initiate: probably one of the fruitiest of feats ever concieved.

"Keep conducting your battle plans, don't mind me and [insert fellow party member's name here]* here! We're just gonna gambol in the fields and pick posies for about fifteen minutes, okay?" :smallbiggrin:

*slight snag is that it requires two to tango.. or in this case frolic.

[Emperor Tippy]

Heh, faerie magic initiate: probably one of the fruitiest of feats ever concieved.

"Keep conducting your battle plans, don't mind me and [insert fellow party member's name here]* here! We're just gonna gambol in the fields and pick posies for about fifteen minutes, okay?" :smallbiggrin:

*slight snag is that it requires two to tango.. or in this case frolic.

Yeah, but you only have to do it once, ever.

[Treguard]

Actually , when you put it that way, it's not so bad. Especially as the "Int instead of Con to hitpoints" rite involves fifteen minutes of a "sensual" nature with a partner... I don't think I have to elaborate beyond that. :smallwink:

[Akimbo]

Actually , when you put it that way, it's not so bad. Especially as the "Int instead of Con to hitpoints" rite involves fifteen minutes of a "sensual" nature with a partner... I don't think I have to elaborate beyond that. :smallwink:

So? As one of my players says, Elven Girls are Kinky.

And as every character in Bored of the Rings has mentioned a few times: Boy elves look just like girls.

[Jade_Tarem]

You do realize this low con wizard will be killed easily by a bunch of goblin warriors wich easily have +5 to move and hide whitout need of skill points, while the wizard can't see them at all thanks to his negative wisdom.

Not to mention, if the wizard finds zombies, vermins, skeletons, plants or contructs or something else that laughs at mental magic he's screwed.

So, the only thing this wizard can kill at 1st level are badly built fighters with medium armor. Woot!

Because most enemies at 1st level that aren't outright immune to sleep/color spray have positive hide and move silently modifiers, while the wizard has a negative spot/listen modifier, leaving himself open to a suprise round where his high dex is useless.

*Sigh*

You *do* realize that a malicious DM can kill any character, of any build, at any level, right?

"Sorry, Dave, but 20 goblin archers use their surprise round to pincushion your level 1 wizard. I mean, sure, it's 10 times the EL that you're supposed to face, but I'm proving a point here. Guess you should have gone with an awesome melee class, or a ranger, or something that fits my ideology that warrior types should better than wizards."

"...I fail to see how that would have helped."

"Well, I wouldn't hate you so much."

Also, I fail to see how *most* enemies, outside of an undead campaign, are going to be immune to sleep at EL 1.

Also, why are we competing at level 1 to determine whether or not the wizard is weaker than the fighter? There are nineteen other levels, and the wizard stomps the bejeezus out of most warrior builds for most of them.

[ServantofBragi]

Um, why don't you guys just try duking it out under this situation, instead of going into more hypotheses about the area and conditions?

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=728013

Except the Fighter has no books outside core also.....obviously.....:smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

stuff

I think that the whole point is that, someone (probably Saph, at first) was suggesting that Wizards on levels 1 - 9 are just OK on the power scale.

And noone was talkin about 20 th level goblins, I think.

And seriously, this thread was peacefully dying.

Now it can raise once more :smallsigh:

[RebelRogue]

Idealized duels like this is a bad measure of whether one class is better than another for real-life gaming purposes. Most D&D games have very little PvP (or one on one battles) anyway. It's a game about teamwork. Also, the powers of different classes are basically paced differently (casters run out of spells, melee fighters do not run out of attacks etc). I'm not saying that casters may not be "better" overall, just that this really proves nothing.

Also, to me personally, it's bad when the game gets turned into an intellectual optimization challenge. I like having options, but some of the things people do in here goes against the spirit of the game (this, of course, is my highly personal opinion!) I know some of you like doing stuff like this for fun, but this was originally a question of real-game balance! And yes, I'm sure some would never play a wizard (or any caster) sub-optimally in a real game, but others (probably most) do, be it for flavour or fun. I think it's sad to see people insulting other posters because of (wizard) spell choices!

[Jade_Tarem]

I think that the whole point is that, someone (probably Saph, at first) was suggesting that Wizards on levels 1 - 9 are just OK on the power scale.

And noone was talkin about 20 th level goblins, I think.

And seriously, this thread was peacefully dying.

Now it can raise once more :smallsigh:

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Also, I was talking about 20 normal goblins, not 20th level goblins.

[Zeta Kai]

I doubt that I'm the only one who sees that the OP's question was a Grenade (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm). An extremely effective Grenade, at that.

[Eldariel]

You're not, but the confusing part is the purpose. There seems to be none - he stands to gain nothing from this thread. He's not distracting attention from anything else since he's not posting anything else and...well, the whole pointlessness made me think he wanted an actual discussion on the matter.

[AmberVael]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

[fractic]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

It sums everything up so well indeed. Pure genius. This thread has just been won.

[Inhuman Bot]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

Nice. It's a good point.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

:xykon: Bwahahahahahaha!

Oh man, that's hilarious. Can you make ones for other standard D&D flame wars? Like Alignment or 3e v. 4e? :smallbiggrin:

[Akimbo]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

Indeed, truly let us all unite against our most hated enemy. Sure Druid is better then Fighter, and serves the same purpose, but at least Fighter doesn't break out an ever smoking bottle, demand all my buffs, and then insist we run away from every fight.

(Also, you should give Fighter the Schroedinger Hat, he's the one who changes build. Imppobable combination means I can pretty much just keep the same build for everything.)

[AmberVael]

It sums everything up so well indeed. Pure genius. This thread has just been won.

Nice. It's a good point.
Well thank you. I try. :smallwink:

:xykon: Bwahahahahahaha!

Oh man, that's hilarious. Can you make ones for other standard D&D flame wars? Like Alignment or 3e v. 4e? :smallbiggrin:
Perhaps, if you bribe me with cookies. :smalltongue:


Indeed, truly let us all unite against our most hated enemy. Sure Druid is better then Fighter, and serves the same purpose, but at least Fighter doesn't break out an ever smoking bottle, demand all my buffs, and then insist we run away from every fight.

(Also, you should give Fighter the Schroedinger Hat, he's the one who changes build. Imppobable combination means I can pretty much just keep the same build for everything.)
Eh, the Schrödinger argument typically applies to wizards, and mostly the wizard just needed a distinguishing feature. I kept changing the hat from panel to panel, so I was like "ooo! Schrödinger hat!"

[Gareshra]

(preferably their own demiplane where they're sure to not be disturbed).
Wait, wizards can create demiplanes? How?

[Kyeudo]

Idealized duels like this is a bad measure of whether one class is better than another for real-life gaming purposes. Most D&D games have very little PvP (or one on one battles) anyway. It's a game about teamwork. Also, the powers of different classes are basically paced differently (casters run out of spells, melee fighters do not run out of attacks etc). I'm not saying that casters may not be "better" overall, just that this really proves nothing.


I agree. The class that can contribute the most in the widest variety of circumstances is the one that is the strongest. Let's compare their capabilities.

Fighter
Combat: Can deal ridiculous damage in combat. Cannot attack anything but the opponent's AC.
Traps: Has high hit points and a good Fort save, so can survive setting off traps most of the time.
Mobility: Has Jump, Climb, Ride, and Swim as class skills.
Social: Has Intimidate as a class skill.
Stamina: Can keep going as long as he has hitpoints. Vulnerable while sleeping.

Wizard
Combat: Can render an opponent unable to act or render them dead outright. Can attack Touch AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will.
Traps: Can either bypass traps via spell or set them off with summons.
Mobility: Has Fly, Water Breathing, Polymorph, Teleport, Dimension Door, and other spells that render conventional movement obsolete.
Social: Has Charm, Dominate, Hypnotism, and other spells that render social skills obsolete.
Stamina: Can keep going as long as he has higher level spell slots. Sleeps in extradimensional spaces, immune to conventional attack and detection.

EDIT:
Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

ROFLMAO. That is made of pure win.

[Akimbo]

You know, all this has gotten me in the mood for level 1 Dungeon Crawl, call it a test, and skip all that epic plot that people keep trying to fit in level 1 games. (Seriously, no, it doesn't matter, I'm level 1. The King didn't call me, nor did anyone, I'm level 1. I just happened on a Dungeon and walked inside.)

Level 1 Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter (so a "standard" party.)

I could play Wizard since I've already got him: Faerie Mysteries Innate/Keen Intellect/Improved Init.

retraining rules in effect if we ever level up enough for it to matter. Could be fun.

Maybe even something like World's Largest Dungeon but without teleport/summoning restrictions, and with actual places to go outside and get scrolls. So maybe something closer to Undermountain, though I know it has weird rules to.

[AmberVael]

Wait, wizards can create demiplanes? How?
Genesis. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm)

Maybe even something like World's Largest Dungeon...
Oops, you ruined your idea. Doesn't matter what you do now, it's been tainted by the World's Largest Dungeon. :smalltongue:
*played a little of that adventure once and really disliked it*

[fractic]

Doen't the worlds largets dungeon screw wizards over a bit since they can't learn new spells besides the 2 at level up?

[Akimbo]

Yes I know WLD penalizes Wizards, that's why I said something like it, but without all it's cooky rules and with the ability to walk back outside and get some new items if we choose.

[Sholos]

So, basically you don't want to ever play a wizard unless you can have all the cheese you want? Geez. I think that's my biggest problem with wizard players. They seem to get the most excited about obscure bits of cheese that most everyone else has never heard of, and whine the most if you try to restrain them at all.

[Akimbo]

So, basically you don't want to ever play a wizard unless you can have all the cheese you want? Geez. I think that's my biggest problem with wizard players. They seem to get the most excited about obscure bits of cheese that most everyone else has never heard of, and whine the most if you try to restrain them at all.

No, I wouldn't play that specific Wizard without all the aspects that come with it.

I would play many other types of Wizard that I have played that use different strategies/themes/race/stats/feats.

I've played a Wizard with much higher Con, much higher Wis, and lower base Int and Dex, I just don't happen to use things that are incompatible with each other.

[Eldritch_Ent]

So, basically you don't want to ever play a wizard unless you can have all the cheese you want? Geez. I think that's my biggest problem with wizard players. They seem to get the most excited about obscure bits of cheese that most everyone else has never heard of, and whine the most if you try to restrain them at all.

Eh? Being able to scribe spells isn't cheese, it's a key class feature. It's really the main thing wizards have over Sorcs.

[Inhuman Bot]

It's like saying "Allright fighter, enter the dungeon. What's your weapon of choice? The longsword? allright, you can't use any longswords in this dungeon."

[Bayar]

Then he will use his fists !

But what if his fists ARE his weapon of choice ? "Alright, you cant use your fists in the dungeon" "But I need to use them to wield weapons too !" "Well...it's not my problem, buddy."

[Sholos]

Eh? Being able to scribe spells isn't cheese, it's a key class feature. It's really the main thing wizards have over Sorcs.

It's not the scribe spell part I don't like. It's all the extra-Core stuff (and the broken stuff in Core).

I'd point out that Wizards get a lot over Sorcs. Like, a decent number of spells and bonus feats.

[Tokiko Mima]

It's not the scribe spell part I don't like. It's all the extra-Core stuff (and the broken stuff in Core).

I'd point out that Wizards get a lot over Sorcs. Like, a decent number of spells and bonus feats.

And a better class skill list. And the ability to use metamagic without adding to casting time without burning a higher level feat or trading in your familiar. And they can give up a feat to be able to spontaneously cast any divination spell. And when they specialize, they're only one spell/day per spell level behind sorcerers, and get new spell levels sooner. And they qualify more easily for the better PrC's. And their primary casting stat makes them gives them skill points that far outweigh Charisma's small advantage in social skills. :smalleek:

[Mushroom Ninja]

Okay, I think I've boiled down all the major points and arguments into a much simpler format. Let me know what you think.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight1.png
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/classyfight2.png

Yup... That's basically it...

[Gareshra]

Genesis, eh? Well, what book is that in? I don't see it in the PHB, so I'm wondering where I would look to find that spell.

[AmberVael]

Well, it's in the SRD, obviously, since I just linked it. :smalltongue:
It appears in the Epic Level Handbook (though they distinctly list it as a non-epic spell), but I'm not sure of any other sources (though I do believe I've seen it somewhere else.)

[Gralamin]

Well, it's in the SRD, obviously, since I just linked it. :smalltongue:
It appears in the Epic Level Handbook (though they distinctly list it as a non-epic spell), but I'm not sure of any other sources (though I do believe I've seen it somewhere else.)

Deities and Demigods

[Flickerdart]

It's also, I think, a Psionic Power that works exactly the same as the spell. 9th level Metacreativity.

[Aquillion]

It's also, I think, a Psionic Power that works exactly the same as the spell. 9th level Metacreativity.
No, there's one major difference. The Psionic Power was written first... and says you can't manipulate the Time trait on the demiplane you create.

The arcane version lacks that restriction, for reasons nobody has ever been able to figure out. It still isn't entirely clear whether that means you can set it or not (it is very vague about what you can and can't do), but either way it's a significant difference.

[Occasional Sage]

*peek*

*poke*

Wow! I've skimmed a couple of pages without finding anything scrubbed, or any banned posters.

Are ya'll REALLY discussing wizard v fighter, or is this just a front for something else?

[Shadowtraveler]

I think the problem is that spellcasters have a much wider range of options than most non-casters (spells), and that spells can and have been horribly, horribly abused in the past. More so than most other rules at least.

[turkishproverb]

I think the problem is that spellcasters have a much wider range of options than most non-casters (spells), and that spells can and have been horribly, horribly abused in the past. More so than most other rules at least.

It doesn't help that by later levels limited numbers of spells mean next to nothing.

[Jade_Tarem]

It's not the scribe spell part I don't like. It's all the extra-Core stuff (and the broken stuff in Core).

A lot of it isn't too bad. There are many glaring exceptions, but for the most part a reasonable player won't just up and start selecting the most absolutely broken stuff he can think of - your statement earlier about "this is what upsets me about wizard players" makes me think that you've had some really bad experiences with wizards in the past and soured on the whole idea.


And a better class skill list. And the ability to use metamagic without adding to casting time without burning a higher level feat or trading in your familiar. And they can give up a feat to be able to spontaneously cast any divination spell. And when they specialize, they're only one spell/day per spell level behind sorcerers, and get new spell levels sooner. And they qualify more easily for the better PrC's. And their primary casting stat makes them gives them skill points that far outweigh Charisma's small advantage in social skills. :smalleek:

Sure, but sorcerers got [I]style. :smallamused:

[chiasaur11]

*peek*

*poke*

Wow! I've skimmed a couple of pages without finding anything scrubbed, or any banned posters.

Are ya'll REALLY discussing wizard v fighter, or is this just a front for something else?

You got us. It's a money laundering scheme.

[Bosh]

On paper, casters in D&D 3.5ed whipe the floor with other classes. However in practice this is often not the case, because:

1. Figuring out how to play to the strengths of D&D melee classes is fairly simple (high strength, big two-handed weapons, power attack).

2. Figuring out how to play to the strengths of clerics and wizards is slightly harder. Many people play them in the way that classes that like that most commonly used in computer games (healbot and artillery piece) and don't realize that doing so doesn't play to the strength of those classes. Basically a lot of D&D players play their wizards like V in OoTS and that isn't a good way to make them powerful.

3. In my experience the players who want to kick some ass tend not to play druids. All of the druids I've seen have done things like have squirrel animal companions, never enter melee, etc. etc. which keeps them from being overpowered. I've never seen a druid steal the spotlight despite how ridiculously easy it is for them to do so.

4. People love multiclassing and playing around with LA, this gimps the power of casters horiffically.

5. GMs often fudge things to make their boss monsters stay alive more than a round or two, in my experience they're far more likely to do this with powerful save or die effects that casters use on the first round of combat against the boss mosnter.

6. Although there are plenty of ways for casters of kick ass at level one (wolf animal compansions, sleep, colorspray, etc.), the imbalance between casters and non-casters gets worse at higher levels and most people don't play at higher levels.

For example in the last few games my group has played we've had casters such as:

-Warmages (not overpowered at all)
-Elf wizard who did lots of evocation with three levels of the elf racial class
-Cleric with low strength that never buffed himself
-Wizard/rogue going for arcane trickster
etc.

In pretty much all of these parties a straight up power attacking fighter (let alone an optimized charge monkey) could hold his own just fine, I think that a lot of D&D groups are like this despite how completely borked balance is on paper.

[ZerglingOne]

Wow o_o; this thread blew up big time. A lot of insight, but certainly a lot of off topic posts haha. Thanks guys, and I now believe it when they say V's choice of specialization was horrible.

I was surprised to see how little flaming there was, I thank you all for being very civil :D.

-TZO

[Kompera]

Thanks for tbe explanation. Something that is amusing is how some people have accused feats like Combat Vigour and a feat which lets you Full Attacked while being grappled as overpowered (they aren't really too powerful due to CV needing Combat Focus, and the grapply feat is only available later on in the game).The objections to melee cheese is typically that melee types simply should not be able to accomplish superhuman things because that spoils suspension of disbelief, while if the same or even greatly superior things are accomplished via magic then this is all well and good. Because, well, it's magic.


Ok, since everyone is doing this, a few things:
-Wizards aren't generally optimized for damage because that steals the last thing Fighters could do decently. Further, it's simply too much effort to deal a lot of damage, when you can just roll a single die and win instead (or maybe Dispel opponent's protections/items/whatever first, 'cause y'know you're a caster and can do it).

That said, you can build a Wizard that deals 1000 damage a turn without breaking a sweat. Or gives opponents 20 negative levels (that kills a level 20 character).What you're saying translates to this: "Wizards aren't generally optimized for damage because that steals the last thing Fighters could do decently. But if they wanted to they could, anyway."

And I agree. There is a huge imbalance issue with 3.x which requires very careful management by the GM to even attempt to contain. And that's if the GM wants to contain it, since a lot of D&D players seem to hold the opinion that having magic trump martial is just fine and dandy and is the natural order of things. Which of course begs the question: Why isn't everyone playing a full casting class? But that rarely seems to be a subject of any concern to the magic supremacists.


Mostly because people keep on using Level 20 as the baseline, as you're doing, despite the fact that the ratio of the number of D&D sessions played at level 1 to the number of D&D sessions played at level 20 is about 100:1.

If you play with core rules only and start all your games at level 20, then of course the fighters are going to be outmatched. But why are you starting at level 20 in the first place?
That was the example given by the OP. But level is irrelevant. Full casting classes are demonstrably better than melee types at any given level in 3.5 regardless of rule set, unless the house rules for casters savagely nerfs their capabilities. If you disagree, well it's a simple thing to create a party of 4 or 5 X level PCs and set them against any given 4 encounters per day. If played intelligently, the casters will both more easily defeat and more easily avoid any given encounter at any given level. Casters are not unbeatable at low levels, but the same encounters which would challenge a non-casting group or a mixed class group will also be beatable using an all caster group. And in most cases the all caster group will win faster or will be better able to avoid combat all together.


I've played lots of games at those levels, and I can say with a fair amount of certainty that this isn't true. I've seen level 5 melee characters show up the level 5 spellcasters plenty of times, and that's in core. Add in Tome of Battle, and the melee characters start laughing.

The level 5-10 range is fairly balanced between casters and meleers. Sure, if the spellcasters are using the absolute best picks and the meleers are totally unoptimised, the casters will look better. If it's the other way round, the meleers will look better. At these levels it comes mostly down to player skill.
I've played a lot of D&D games at lower levels also. And I have seen melee types dominate at those levels. But balance based on player skill isn't balance. It's a fallacy that a game is fair and balanced if and only if the players playing the classes which can be overpowered simply don't know how to play the game in a manner which fully utilizes their advantages.

You can't have both of your statements be true...
If "The level 5-10 range is fairly balanced between casters and meleers" is true, than "At these levels it comes mostly down to player skill" isn't true. And vice versa. If balance relies on ignorance than it's also true that balance is destroyed by a non-ignorant (in the dictionary meaning of that word, not as a pejorative) player. And if player knowledge or whimsy can destroy the balance of the game, then the game is not balanced. And that makes your assertion of balance false by definition.

[arguskos]

And that's if the GM wants to contain it, since a lot of D&D players seem to hold the opinion that having magic trump martial is just fine and dandy and is the natural order of things. Which of course begs the question: Why isn't everyone playing a full casting class? But that rarely seems to be a subject of any concern to the magic supremacists.
I just wanted to ask a question, and answer yours.

1. Why isn't everyone playing a caster? Well, because a good number of people don't like casters, for whatever reason. And that's fine. It's their choice, and they make it willingly.

2. In my mind, someone with a sword will, eventually, reach a point at which he can no longer improve at swordplay without crossing into the realm of the supernatural. I don't care how long you train at swinging that longsword, you will never split atoms with it. Ever. If you don't believe me, go try it. You can be a master of your art, but there are things that will remain beyond your skill. You might be able to wade through armies, cause you are just that damn skilled with your sword, but you will never gain the power to fly because of your weapon training, because your weapon just can't do that. Nor can your muscles, no matter how hard you train. Chuck Norris is among the most dangerous men alive (check out his martial arts record if you don't believe me), but he cannot fly, even though he is toned to an amazing degree.

Wizards are like fighters, in fact, they ARE fighters, just fighters that picked a different weapon: magic. Bob picked longswords, Bill picked spells. Bill's training let's him fly, cause that's what his weapon can do. Bob's let's him hit someone so hard, they go hurtling into a hill. Guess what? Still awesome, and no one is worse off. Bill can teleport, Bob can pulverize dragons by slicing them on the nose. Bill can shoot fire, Bob can leap forward 50 ft and cut someone in half in one swing. These things are pretty damn awesome. Why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that magic can do cool stuff, but so can a trained guy with a sword? Some tools are better than others, it happens. I'm not saying they are equal. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. They're both FUN, what the game is about. Did we all forget that?

Just agree to disagree. I'm sure someone will blow everything I've said out of proportion, and get all pissed off, but really, I don't even care. It's a game people, one that we all enjoy (or we wouldn't be here, defending it so virulently), so let's get back to talking about fun things to do in the game, and stop arguing semantics about magic v. swords and rather talk about a dual-sai wielding sorcerer with angel wings who breathes fire and poops rainbows, or whatever. These arguments are getting old, and they're going nowhere.

Sorry for the rant there folks. Just had to get it out. Note that it's not directed against anyone, hope no one takes offense.

-argus

[Kompera]

2. In my mind, someone with a sword will, eventually, reach a point at which he can no longer improve at swordplay without crossing into the realm of the supernatural. I don't care how long you train at swinging that longsword, you will never split atoms with it. Ever. If you don't believe me, go try it. You can be a master of your art, but there are things that will remain beyond your skill. You might be able to wade through armies, cause you are just that damn skilled with your sword, but you will never gain the power to fly because of your weapon training, because your weapon just can't do that. Nor can your muscles, no matter how hard you train. Chuck Norris is among the most dangerous men alive (check out his martial arts record if you don't believe me), but he cannot fly, even though he is toned to an amazing degree.That's one way to look at it. It's a fairly European way of thinking, as most European martial artists (and I mean that in the dictionary definition of 'martial') were merely very skilled combatants. But there are other way of looking at this also. D&D is a fantasy game. So limiting your conception of what is possible to what I can do with a sword in real life is not a very imaginative option. King Arthur could wound the land of Briton itself by plunging Excalibur into the ground in a rage at discovering the infidelity of his queen. I could not wound the USA no matter how hard I tried. See how that works? Fantasy realm, fantasy rules. So yeah, a good fighter might indeed be expected to be able to fly once he is good enough with his sword. Or to accomplish other fantastic feats which a swordsman in the real world could never hope to accomplish. Because there's magic in his world, and he is a part of the world.


Wizards are like fighters, in fact, they ARE fighters, just fighters that picked a different weapon: magic. Bob picked longswords, Bill picked spells. Bill's training let's him fly, cause that's what his weapon can do. Bob's let's him hit someone so hard, they go hurtling into a hill. Guess what? Still awesome, and no one is worse off. Bill can teleport, Bob can pulverize dragons by slicing them on the nose. Bill can shoot fire, Bob can leap forward 50 ft and cut someone in half in one swing. These things are pretty damn awesome. Why is it a bad thing to acknowledge that magic can do cool stuff, but so can a trained guy with a sword?The problem is that your description does not encompass the reality as defined by the D&D 3.x rules. Magic can do anything. It's not just another way to wage war,m it's a trump card. It's not that Bill the caster can teleport and Bob the warrior can pulverize dragons. It's that Bill the caster can teleport and pulverize dragons[/i]. Bill the caster can also duplicate every other ability of Bob the warrior, plus Bill the caster can do a great many things which Bob the warrior can never hope to do. So when your kids are born, be sure to name the Bill, because Bob is a poor option.

[arguskos]

I see where you're coming from Kompera, but where I have issues with it is when it is attempted to be rationalized, WITHOUT resorting to magical means.

Which was my whole point, actually. ToB was great about this. It gave the magical schools to the magical guys, and left the Warblade with JUST things that a martial character could rationally do, without resorting to magical means.

Really, I'd like to see a rational, completely non-magical, non-psionic, explanation of how a fighter with a longsword could fly, using just his skill with the sword. If you can give me a really convincing explanation, then you'll make a believer out of me. :smallbiggrin:

-argus

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The air knows that if it lets him fall, he'll kill it? That always works for Chuck Norris. :smallwink:

[arguskos]

The air knows that if it lets him fall, he'll kill it? That always works for Chuck Norris.
Had I asked for the same explanation from roundhouse kicks, then DAMN RIGHT. Also, doesn't Chuck have Divine Rank?:smallwink:

-argus

[Kompera]

Really, I'd like to see a rational, completely non-magical, non-psionic, explanation of how a fighter with a longsword could fly, using just his skill with the sword. If you can give me a really convincing explanation, then you'll make a believer out of me. :smallbiggrin:
I can't provide that explanation. I don't think it is possible.

But...

I also can not provide a rational explanation of how a wizard with a wand could fly, using just his skill with spells. And I don't think that is possible either.

See how that works?

There is nothing except a preconception or a willing acceptance which obviates magic being able to do things which muscle can not. Magic can be small, and still be unique and interesting. There is no reason magic can't be excellent at small things and poor at great things. But this isn't how the D&D 3.x rules define it, and here is where the imbalance begins. Instead of making magic be great at doing things no other character could do, in D&D 3.5 magic is great at doing everything that any other character can do. So where the Fighter might be great at climbing, the Wizard can fly. Where the Rogue might be great at unlocking doors, the Wizard can Knock. Where the Bard might be able to sway opponents to your side, the Wizard can Charm. Casters can do everything that non-casters can do, plus a huge array of abilities which the non-casters can not hope to do. And so balance is out the window by default.

4e brings this better in line, by eliminating a huge array of spells and by making rituals cost a lot and take a lot of time to cast.

[arguskos]

I can't provide that explanation. I don't think it is possible.

But...

I also can not provide a rational explanation of how a wizard with a wand could fly, using just his skill with spells. And I don't think that is possible either.

See how that works?

There is nothing except a preconception or a willing acceptance which obviates magic being able to do things which muscle can not. Magic can be small, and still be unique and interesting. There is no reason magic can't be excellent at small things and poor at great things. But this isn't how the D&D 3.x rules define it, and here is where the imbalance begins. Instead of making magic be great at doing things no other character could do, in D&D 3.5 magic is great at doing everything that any other character can do. So where the Fighter might be great at climbing, the Wizard can fly. Where the Rogue might be great at unlocking doors, the Wizard can Knock. Where the Bard might be able to sway opponents to your side, the Wizard can Charm. Casters can do everything that non-casters can do, plus a huge array of abilities which the non-casters can not hope to do. And so balance is out the window by default.

4e brings this better in line, by eliminating a huge array of spells and by making rituals cost a lot and take a lot of time to cast.
Once again, I see where you are coming from.

In fact, in my first post I was originally going to make mention that this is all about personal assumptions about the system. I could debate this topic with you until doomsday, and may in fact do so, but I'd like to make note that if you dislike the assumptions inherent to D&D, go play a different game.

Now, on to the debate! I agree that 3.5 magic was deeply flawed. I disagree that 4e's solution was the correct one. Frankly, I think that the way to fix something is to refine it until perfected, not replace it with an untested system of dubious usefulness. Of course, time will tell if 4e's system will endure, though I personally foresee some issues (I'd elaborate, but they're vague and hard to define right now. When I get my feelings down pat, I'll be sure to share them).

-argus

[Kompera]

Now, on to the debate! I agree that 3.5 magic was deeply flawed. I disagree that 4e's solution was the correct one. Frankly, I think that the way to fix something is to refine it until perfected, not replace it with an untested system of dubious usefulness. Of course, time will tell if 4e's system will endure, though I personally foresee some issues (I'd elaborate, but they're vague and hard to define right now. When I get my feelings down pat, I'll be sure to share them).
I'd agree in priciple, but I'd also remind you that in 1e spell casters had a spell list of (from memory) about 12 spells of 1st level, and that list grew shorter as the spell level grew higher. Casters also needed more EXP to level up. Much, much more EXP as the levels increased. And they had fewer Hit Points (since stat bonuses started at a higher point) and monsters saved vs. their spells easier (since there was no such thing as a difficulty level nor any Feats or stat bonuses to increase it. The save was a straight reference of a chart which was only based on the monsters Hit Dice, and monsters had a more favorable table than any character class. Again, this is from memory. I could easily be wrong on a few details and yet the overall point would remain the same.

So where the "replace it with an untested system of dubious usefulness" came about was in the power creep of the Magic User through successive editions, until in 3.x it was a bloated and unbalanced monstrosity. Add splat books to Core and the power level increased exponentially via PrCs, Feats, and more and more spells.

4e does replace even the 1e system with a very different mechanic, it's true. But do you really think the 3.x player base would have been any happier with a 4e which had only 12 1st level spells, used Vancian casting, and which made Wizards earn hundreds of thousands more EXP to gain a level? In other words, a 1e style Wizard?

My gut instinct is that no, those who hate 4e would still hate it in that case. Almost every one of their objections would apply to a 1e MU class just as neatly as they do to the 4e Wizard.

1 - ZOMG! Wizards got nerfed! (Damn straight they did)
2 - Where did all the 'utility' (read: Overpowered) spells go?
3 - They eliminated all of the cool concepts! (read: Overpowered specializations, etc)
4 - Multi-classing sucks in this version (Hehe, go ahead, take a few more levels in Fighter, Rogue, or Priest. Those are all that are available to you. :smallbiggrin:)
5 - Etc, etc.

Yeah, I've got my money down on 1e Magic Users being just as hated as 4e Wizards, if not more so.

[arguskos]

Interesting stuff.
Yes, most, if not all, of this is true. Mind that I don't think 3.5 had the best way of casting spells, nor was it even remotely balanced. However, what I am advocating is refinement, not replacement (what 4e did wrong, IMO).

From 1e all the way to 3.5's last splatbook, Vancian spellcasting (HORRIBLE name, BTW) was becoming more and more refined, more fitting to the game, and overall, a better system. What I would have LOVED in 4e is if WoTC finally dealt with the glaring issues 3.5 introduced in terms of balancing, that is to say, the spells themselves.

Rather, they replaced a system that could have been improved with 30+ years of gaming experience and testing behind it with a completely untested and untried system that feels like it wasn't really completely thought-out. I would have preferred they use a much improved Vancian system, built with an eye towards reducing overpowered cheese (not cutting all utility mind you, that's not the answer) for casters, and use the power system in 4e for martial characters. That way, there is still a well-defined divide between casters and non-casters, but there is no real power gap. Everyone is balanced, and everyone feels unique. It's the best of both worlds, in my opinion.

I'd also like to make a note that you are an excellent debate partner Kompera. It's nice to have a reasoned, civil discussion with someone on the internet. :smallwink:

-argus

[Talic]

It's probably been noted, but from a damage standpoint, fighters still lose out. Let's look at it this way.

Fighter charges with pounce, and lands 8 hits. 5 of these hits are for 80 damage each, from a 2 handed weapon. 3 of those hits are off hand, from armor spikes, and deal 20 damage each.

460 damage. Not bad.

Now wizard? casts a single spell, and gives its target 22 negative levels, followed by a second, quickened spell for another 22.

Those negative levels provide -5 hp each, so if the target has 44hd or less, it dies. If the target has 45 hd or more, it takes the following penalties.
-44 to attacks
-44 to saving throws
-44 to skill checks
-220 hp.

Alternately, the wizard could do a pair of orb spells in a similar manner, for 290 damage each, with 2 negative levels.

Now, total wizard damage is 580, with 4 negative levels. Effectively 600 damage. As a touch attack, with no save or SR.

[Kompera]

I'd also like to make a note that you are an excellent debate partner Kompera. It's nice to have a reasoned, civil discussion with someone on the internet. :smallwink:
I've enjoyed our discussion as well. Thank you.

But don't let the mods see this, or I'll be banned.

[arguskos]

I've enjoyed our discussion as well. Thank you.

But don't let the mods see this, or I'll be banned.
Hmm?

Also, do you have any thoughts about my most recent points? Agreement, disagreement, total rage?

-argus

[Emperor Tippy]

Alternately, the wizard could do a pair of orb spells in a similar manner, for 290 damage each, with 2 negative levels.

Now, total wizard damage is 580, with 4 negative levels. Effectively 600 damage. As a touch attack, with no save or SR.

And that is minimum. Average is over 400 per orb (around 460). And if you really know what you are doing and use all the cheese and tricks you can add another 285 damage (average).

At level 20 you can be throwing out upwards of 3,000 points of damage (average).

[Shosuro Ishii]

1 - ZOMG! Wizards got nerfed! (Damn straight they did)
2 - Where did all the 'utility' (read: Overpowered) spells go?
3 - They eliminated all of the cool concepts! (read: Overpowered specializations, etc)
4 - Multi-classing sucks in this version (Hehe, go ahead, take a few more levels in Fighter, Rogue, or Priest. Those are all that are available to you. :smallbiggrin:)
5 - Etc, etc.



See, I think this is an oversimplified version (read: strawman) of the pro-wizard crowd. I'm gonna let you in a little secret, not everyone who plays a Batman caster is doing it to destroy the party and ruin everyones time. In fact, I would wager that the number of games ruined by a Batman wizard is inconsequintally small.

I love playing a debuffer (playing a Dread Witch with 0 damage spells at the moment), and 4ed wizards/warlocks really fail to allow me to play such an archetype. Just because someone is playing a Batman wizard doesn't mean their intention is to lord over the rest of the party with an ironfist and remind everyone how useless they are in comparison (Not accusing you in paticualr of making that point, but it seems to be thrown around a lot). Some of us just think that the archetype of the spellcaster who considers using magic to bludgeon or burn someone to death to be unappealing.

There is a way to keep caster utility without making them overpowered gods of all they see. Nerfing Wizards into the ground was not the way to go. They went from a system where you could break them and turn them into an overpowered badass (in a complete vaccuum, there will still be situations where a wizard alone cannot solve the problem, up until very, very high levels) to a system that turns them into glorified AoE blasters, with no room to advance.

Neither system is preferable, there needs to be a graceful median for the two.

[Kompera]

Hmm? Also, do you have any thoughts about my most recent points? Agreement, disagreement, total rage?
I went to bed. :)

From 1e all the way to 3.5's last splatbook, Vancian spellcasting (HORRIBLE name, BTW) was becoming more and more refined, more fitting to the game, and overall, a better system. What I would have LOVED in 4e is if WoTC finally dealt with the glaring issues 3.5 introduced in terms of balancing, that is to say, the spells themselves.

Rather, they replaced a system that could have been improved with 30+ years of gaming experience and testing behind it [snipped]
We disagree on most if not all of your points. Spell casting mechanics had changed with each successive edition, but I'd disagree with you that they were becoming more refined, fitting, or better.

Adding spells isn't a refinement, and the huge array of spells is one of the main unbalancing issues. With a huge array of spells casters can find a spell to do almost anything that needs doing, allowing casters to overshadow the non-casters who have a much more limited set of abilities. The mechanics changes for saving throws introduced in v3 gave yet another huge boost in power. And then every splat book published added Feats, PrCs, and other nifty things for casters.

I do agree with you that the spells themselves are a, as you say, glaring balance issue. But how would you have preferred that this be addressed, in some hypothetical 4e where the casting system was kept mostly the same, still Vancian, but would achieve the same balance offered with the published 4e rules?

[Kompera]

See, I think this is an oversimplified version (read: strawman) of the pro-wizard crowd.
It's no straw man. You can find these exact objections to the 4e Wizard class in a huge amount of posts on this forum. I may have summarized and used some colorful language, but none of my points haven't been made by one if not several people who dislike 4e or dislike what 4e did to Wizards.

I'm gonna let you in a little secret, not everyone who plays a Batman caster is doing it to destroy the party and ruin everyones time. In fact, I would wager that the number of games ruined by a Batman wizard is inconsequintally small.Ruined is a strong word. And it's a bit of a straw man all by itself. The game doesn't have to be "ruined" to be poorly balanced. It doesn't have to be "ruined" for the greater potency and utility of the Wizard in comparison with the non-casters to become very apparent.

I love playing a debuffer (playing a Dread Witch with 0 damage spells at the moment), and 4ed wizards/warlocks really fail to allow me to play such an archetype.
They fail how? Please be specific. Even most damaging spells apply some kind of other penalty, status effect, or other "debuff", and plenty of spells are straight forward "debuffing" spells if you don't have too narrow a definition of "debuff".

Just because someone is playing a Batman wizard doesn't mean their intention is to lord over the rest of the party with an ironfist and remind everyone how useless they are in comparison (Not accusing you in paticualr of making that point, but it seems to be thrown around a lot).Again, it doesn't require that the person playing the Wizard be a jerk for the inherent imbalance of the game to become very apparent. So I'll ask a question I've asked many times before: Since the casting classes are the best at overcoming game challenges, why would anyone want to play a non-casting class? The only answer I've received which made any sense at all was that a person might simply prefer to role play some different class. And that's a valid reason. But it still begs the question: Why should making the selection of a non-casting class for a role playing purpose in a role playing game bear with it an intrinsic penalty to the character's effectiveness in the game?

There is a way to keep caster utility without making them overpowered gods of all they see.Not in the 3.x rules, there isn't.

Nerfing Wizards into the ground was not the way to go. They went from a system where you could break them and turn them into an overpowered badass (in a complete vaccuum, there will still be situations where a wizard alone cannot solve the problem, up until very, very high levels) to a system that turns them into glorified AoE blasters, with no room to advance.I'd restate what you said somewhat.

They went from a system where you could break Wizards and turn them into an overpowered bad ass, where in a complete vacuum there will be almost no game challenge where a Wizard alone cannot solve the problem unless the other characters also can not solve, to a system that balanced them against the other classes while still retaining the full flavor of being a Wizard.

[Saph]

You can't have both of your statements be true...

Yes I can.


If "The level 5-10 range is fairly balanced between casters and meleers" is true, than "At these levels it comes mostly down to player skill" isn't true.

This is false. See below.


And vice versa. If balance relies on ignorance than it's also true that balance is destroyed by a non-ignorant (in the dictionary meaning of that word, not as a pejorative) player. And if player knowledge or whimsy can destroy the balance of the game, then the game is not balanced. And that makes your assertion of balance false by definition.

I honestly have no idea where you're getting this. By your definition chess isn't balanced, either, since a non-ignorant player (ie, a more experienced one) will beat a newbie.

I'll explain it in more detail:

D&D 3.5 is fairly balanced between levels 5-10, because it mostly comes down to player skill. That's how you can tell if a system is balanced in the first place; in a balanced game, the more skilled player will win regardless of class/team/faction/character choice.

You seem to be saying that the only way for a game to be balanced is if every class is equally powerful, regardless of the player's skill. If this is the case, then the only way to make a balanced game is to take skill out of it completely. I'll leave it to you to explain what this hypothetical game system would look like, since it sure as hell doesn't describe 3.5, or 4e, or GURPS, or any other fantasy RPG I know of. Paranoia, maybe.

Look, I appreciate that you're disagreeing with me without insulting me (which is fairly rare nowadays in these 3.5/4e fights) but you're really not making any sense. As far as I can tell, you seem to be taking the attitude that as long as it's theoretically possible to be stronger than everyone else, then the game is hopelessly unbalanced no matter what it's actually like to play.

There are two problems with this. One I've already addressed; taken to the extreme that you're taking it to, you end up with the conclusion that any game that requires skill is unplayable, since a better player will use his knowledge to be stronger than a newbie.

The second problem is that you're not paying attention to empirical evidence. Hundreds of thousands of people play D&D 3.5 without the game-destroying problems that you insist must happen. I know, from personal experience, that an even moderately competent GM can run a 3.5 game just fine, and that in the majority of games the issues you're hung up on just aren't . . . well, issues.

In short, if it's your theory about what's supposed to happen against my own, quite varied experience about what does happen, then your theory is going to get tossed out the airlock. Sorry. :)

- Saph

[Telonius]

Chuck Norris is among the most dangerous men alive (check out his martial arts record if you don't believe me), but he cannot fly, even though he is toned to an amazing degree.

Chuck Norris can't fly. But he can make the ground so scared that it runs away from him.

(Sorry, couldn't let that opportunity pass by :smallbiggrin:)

[Kompera]

Yes I can.No, you can't. Works for me, too.

I honestly have no idea where you're getting this. By your definition chess isn't balanced, either, since a non-ignorant player (ie, a more experienced one) will beat a newbie.I got it from you. And your chess analogy is a poor one, because you are conflating the definitions of "skill" and "knowledge".

In chess two players with equal knowledge of the rules can have different skill levels. But in D&D 3.5 two players with equal knowledge of the rules will have a difference in power, not skill, simply because one wrote "Wizard" down on their character sheet when the game began and the other wrote "Fighter".

Now, if you want to say that given any two players of a hypothetically high and equal knowledge level, both would select Wizard as their character class, because their knowledge of the game rules has led them to the conclusion that they'll have a more potent character if they select Wizard, then I'd agree with you.

D&D 3.5 is fairly balanced between levels 5-10, because it mostly comes down to player skill.You are blurring the definitions of knowledge and skill again. There is no skill in selecting Wizard as your character class. There is no skill in choosing Glitterdust once you reach 3rd level. These choices give the Wizard more power, not via skill but via the knowledge that the game is unbalanced towards Wizards and via the knowledge that there are certain spells at each spell level which have a higher potency than some other spell at that same level.

You seem to be saying that the only way for a game to be balanced is if every class is equally powerful, regardless of the player's skill.No, I'm not at all saying that. A skillful player will make better choices in the game. She will attack monster A rather than monster B, because one more hit against monster A will kill it, while monster B is fresh and unwounded. That skilled choice of action will eliminate its ability to deal any more damage to her group. She will cast spell X rather than spell Y, because casting spell X will set up a situation where he friend the Fighter can gain a combat advantage or have a better chance to hit with his Encounter power.

This is skill, and it will always be in the game, regardless of any two classes being equally powerful. Player skill would impact games even if all the players had carbon copies of the same character, just like it impacts chess games even though the players have carbon copies of the same pieces.

Look, I appreciate that you're disagreeing with me without insulting me (which is fairly rare nowadays in these 3.5/4e fights) [...]
Please stop. You will get me banned if you and arguskos keep this up.

[Akimbo]

Since the casting classes are the best at overcoming game challenges, why would anyone want to play a non-casting class? The only answer I've received which made any sense at all was that a person might simply prefer to role play some different class. And that's a valid reason. But it still begs the question: Why should making the selection of a non-casting class for a role playing purpose in a role playing game bear with it an intrinsic penalty to the character's effectiveness in the game?

They shouldn't which is why those other classes should be made cool and awesome, instead of turning all the classes into crap.

See when I am faced with this situation:

DM: Okay guys, D&D.
Player 1: I want to be a Rogue.
Player 2: I want to be a Wizard.
Player 3: I want to be a Cleric.
Player 4: I want to be a Druid.
DM: I just wish someone would want to play a fighter!

I say, "Hey, lets make the fighter cooler and better."

Some people come up with: "Hey, lets nerf every class people actually enjoy playing until all classes are at the same level of fun as the least fun class."


Not in the 3.x rules, there isn't.

Yes, but if you are going to change those rules, why make all the good classes worse, why not make the bad classes better?


I'd restate what you said somewhat.

They went from a system where you could break Wizards and turn them into an overpowered bad ass, where in a complete vacuum there will be almost no game challenge where a Wizard alone cannot solve the problem unless the other characters also can not solve, to a system that balanced them against the other classes while still retaining the full flavor of being a Wizard.

You missed something here, they completely stripped the Wizard of the full flavor of being a Wizard, and also made him less fun.

[Saph]

No, you can't. Works for me, too.

Yes, brilliantly . . .


In chess two players with equal knowledge of the rules can have different skill levels. But in D&D 3.5 two players with equal knowledge of the rules will have a difference in power, not skill, simply because one wrote "Wizard" down on their character sheet when the game began and the other wrote "Fighter".

Look, Kompera, I'm honestly curious. What is your problem with 3.5? Did you have a bad campaign, or something? Every time I try to explain how we manage to play 3.5 and still have fun, you respond with more 'proof' of how terrible and horrible and unplayable 3.5 is, which mostly comes down to long theoretical arguments of questionable relevance. It's actually counterproductive if anything. Telling someone over and over and over again that their game system sucks is NOT a good way to convince them to switch to your one. Do you want people to dislike 4e? Because you're going the right way about it.

- Saph

[Starbuck_II]

Yes, brilliantly . . .



Look, Kompera, I'm honestly curious. What is your problem with 3.5? Did you have a bad campaign, or something? Every time I try to explain how we manage to play 3.5 and still have fun, you respond with more 'proof' of how terrible and horrible and unplayable 3.5 is, which mostly comes down to long theoretical arguments of questionable relevance. It's actually counterproductive if anything. Telling someone over and over and over again that their game system sucks is NOT a good way to convince them to switch to your one. Do you want people to dislike 4e? Because you're going the right way about it.

- Saph

Um, Saph, he may not be trying to convert you.
He may just disagree that balance in 3.5 is that easy.

[arguskos]

We disagree on most if not all of your points. Spell casting mechanics had changed with each successive edition, but I'd disagree with you that they were becoming more refined, fitting, or better.

Adding spells isn't a refinement, and the huge array of spells is one of the main unbalancing issues. With a huge array of spells casters can find a spell to do almost anything that needs doing, allowing casters to overshadow the non-casters who have a much more limited set of abilities. The mechanics changes for saving throws introduced in v3 gave yet another huge boost in power. And then every splat book published added Feats, PrCs, and other nifty things for casters.

I do agree with you that the spells themselves are a, as you say, glaring balance issue. But how would you have preferred that this be addressed, in some hypothetical 4e where the casting system was kept mostly the same, still Vancian, but would achieve the same balance offered with the published 4e rules?
Perhaps my point wasn't quite clear enough. I feel that the spells, themselves, are the issue, much like Gavin Sage has said in several other threads.

What 4e did was replace the SYSTEM. It also replaced the spells, but not because they were balancing the spells themselves, but because the new system demanded new spells (due to the nature of the system change). I'm saying that wasn't the right approach, or more precisely, it wasn't a needed change. Vancian spellcasting was FINE. It didn't hurt anyone, and many players loved it. It's been a staple, and it wasn't the issue.

What I would have liked to see happen is some common sense apply to spell descriptions. For example, the perennial offender, Grease. Yes, it's powerful. However, it didn't have to go away completely. Just rewrite it so it can only be used, by RAW, as intended. Groups that want it to do more can invoke Rule 0 and let it, and groups that don't aren't required to. Do this for all the problem spells. There, wizards keep their utility, but aren't overshadowing everyone at everything now.

This is my main complaint against 4e. It is an unneeded system change, and doesn't show that WoTC really understood why 3.5 was unbalanced. If they had ACTUALLY addressed the root causes, while keeping the things that made 3.5 great (class diversity, near-limitless options, etc), I would be a staunch 4e supporter. As it is, I'm really not interested.

-argus

[Starbuck_II]

What 4e did was replace the SYSTEM. It also replaced the spells, but not because they were balancing the spells themselves, but because the new system demanded new spells (due to the nature of the system change). I'm saying that wasn't the right approach, or more precisely, it wasn't a needed change. Vancian spellcasting was FINE. It didn't hurt anyone, and many players loved it. It's been a staple, and it wasn't the issue.

I disagree that many loved it.
I would only go as far as say many didn't hate it. Because I did dislike it.



What I would have liked to see happen is some common sense apply to spell descriptions. For example, the perennial offender, Grease. Yes, it's powerful. However, it didn't have to go away completely. Just rewrite it so it can only be used, by RAW, as intended. Groups that want it to do more can invoke Rule 0 and let it, and groups that don't aren't required to. Do this for all the problem spells. There, wizards keep their utility, but aren't overshadowing everyone at everything now.

-argus

Explain what you mean.
What about Grease is intended? What about Grease is unintended?

If the spell allows A and B; aren't they intended?
It isn't like Grease does A or B and everyone uses it for C. The problem was it did both A or B which follows RAW.

[Saph]

Um, Saph, he may not be trying to convert you.
He may just disagree that balance in 3.5 is that easy.

But he's just said that he's seen melee types dominate at low levels. But he's then said that this doesn't count, because the players weren't sufficiently 'knowledgeable'.

In other words, his problem isn't about whether balance in 3.5 is easy - he's claiming that it's unacceptable if it's even possible for the game to be unbalanced, regardless of whether it actually happens or not.

- Saph

[Diamondeye]

The game doesn't have to be "ruined" to be poorly balanced. It doesn't have to be "ruined" for the greater potency and utility of the Wizard in comparison with the non-casters to become very apparent.

According to one definition of balance. Another definition of balance is whether the party is balanced against the challanges it faces.

I don't see why it would matter if the classes are balanced against each other if the game isn't ruined. I wouldn't want to play a game that balanced the classes against each other just for the sake of balance.

[Kletian999]

DM: I just wish someone would want to play a fighter!

I say, "Hey, lets make the fighter cooler and better."

Some people come up with: "Hey, lets nerf every class people actually enjoy playing until all classes are at the same level of fun as the least fun class."

Yes, but if you are going to change those rules, why make all the good classes worse, why not make the bad classes better?
You missed something here, they completely stripped the Wizard of the full flavor of being a Wizard, and also made him less fun.

When the wizard performs at a level that every story can be resolved by "Teleport, Instant Kill, Teleport": bringing every class to that level means it's not much of a game anymore. You can't balance challenges for a party where someone can do everything and someone else just hits things within the normal rules of combat.

That said: they "did not" nerf all classes so they were full attacking fighter clones. They gave all classes the ability to do interesting things on a limited basis. The flavor and uniqueness is retained in what those interesting things are. Some of the worst offending "things" like charm and save or die were removed to preserve the integrity of the game and the narritive tension of the story. There are still a lot of powers the wizard has that are unmatched by the other classes: a large percent of the old "flavor and fun spells" can be covered by the cantrip system.

By shifting from vancian to power system, not only did this give martials a system of resource management, but it also fixed the weakness of low level casters that didn't have enough spells to function.

To shift posters, with Saph's Chess analogy playing a Wizard in 3e was like having the optional ability to have some/all your pawns start as queens. Kompera was stating at low levels (with fewer pawns replaced as queens to start) a less knowledgable wizard player "might" not trounce a knowledgable fighter. If however both players were equally knowledgable to a reasonable degree, the wizard would pick the right spells (all queens) and clean up.

[Akimbo]

When the wizard performs at a level that every story can be resolved by "Teleport, Instant Kill, Teleport": bringing every class to that level means it's not much of a game anymore. You can't balance challenges for a party where someone can do everything and someone else just hits things within the normal rules of combat.

I'm sorry, no. Very very few stories, and none worth telling can be solved by teleport/instakill/teleport. If you cannot tell stories appropriate to high level D&D characters, then you should just play at a lower level.

If on the other hand you want to deal with stories that can only occur with such characters, then the martial characters need to contribute towards those stories as well.

Level (should) measure(s) power. That a level 15 Fighter is fundamentally incapable of contributing to a story told for a level 15 Wizard is a failure of the Fighter. A fighter in D&D, is made for the same stories at level 1 and level 20. That is wrong, the fighter needs to gain abilities that are worthy of the name.


That said: they "did not" nerf all classes so they were full attacking fighter clones. They gave all classes the ability to do interesting things on a limited basis. The flavor and uniqueness is retained in what those interesting things are. Some of the worst offending "things" like charm and save or die were removed to preserve the integrity of the game and the narritive tension of the story. There are still a lot of powers the wizard has that are unmatched by the other classes: a large percent of the old "flavor and fun spells" can be covered by the cantrip system.

1) As a side note, Flavor and fun is also measured by things such as teleport, Shape Stone, and Overland Flight, none of which can be even remotely covered by the cantrip system.

2) They nerfed all characters down to an unacceptable level as far as the things the character can reasonably expect to accomplish.

Let's take a level 6 Fighter. This is not the craziest thing in the world.

Built a certain way, he can have Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Exotic Weapon (Spiked Chain), Shock Trooper, Combat Reflexes and another feat for something else.

He can charge at someone, push them into someone else, trip them both, get free attacks against both of them, and juggle his AB/damage/AC as he likes.

This is more interesting then a 4e fighter. At nearly any level, and that's a fighter, imagine if you could actually cast spells.


By shifting from vancian to power system, not only did this give martials a system of resource management, but it also fixed the weakness of low level casters that didn't have enough spells to function.

1) I do not recall having such a weakness at any point as a caster.

2) Having a "resource management system" that does not require any actual resource management and in which a player can be replaced by a dice function is not my idea of a good one.

[Talic]

Firstly: YES, 3.5 is unbalanced. So is chess. So is monopoly. So is any game, whatsoever, where there is an advantage to going first (or second, for that matter). In fact, almost every game in existence is imbalanced. Some are moreso than others, but almost every game in existence is imbalanced.

That does not ruin them. For a game to be ruined, it must be incapable of fulfilling its primary goal. The primary goal of a game is to have fun. Thus, despite each of these imbalances, chess, monopoly, and 3.5 are all valid, and good games.


SECOND: I don't like how 4ed has taken mages. I'm reserving outright judgement for now, as the splatbooks haven't come out yet, and they have always added versatility and class options. Perhaps one will allow rebuilding of different classes to do different things. Perhaps a wizard who has encounter power options to turn his skin into stone, and another that allows him to do close range damage, and combat intercepting. Poof, wizard tank. Perhaps one will allow wizards to debuff enemies. Time will tell. I do feel that if such abilities are added, as much as possible, they should come at the cost of other abilities. I.E. The 3.5 caster's main focus is versatility, incongruous as it sounds. Allow options, but remove some of the versatility, so a wizard can't do EVERYTHING.

Perhaps different schools of magic, only one of which may be travelled. Thus, it's easier to limit imbalance, as you only have to check the other powers in a single school, rather than referencing every ability out there.

[Kletian999]

I'm sorry, no. Very very few stories, and none worth telling can be solved by teleport/instakill/teleport. If you cannot tell stories appropriate to high level D&D characters, then you should just play at a lower level.

If on the other hand you want to deal with stories that can only occur with such characters, then the martial characters need to contribute towards those stories as well.

Level (should) measure(s) power. That a level 15 Fighter is fundamentally incapable of contributing to a story told for a level 15 Wizard is a failure of the Fighter. A fighter in D&D, is made for the same stories at level 1 and level 20. That is wrong, the fighter needs to gain abilities that are worthy of the name.



I agree with you, stories need conflicts that don't get completely circumvented by overpowered wizard spell X. Given the 3e mechanics however, this proved challenging without DM fiating a counter to every spell you could find in splatbooks. Removing problematic spells allowed challenges ranging from sealed doors to Big Bad Evil Guys to be viable again.

Fighter needed more interesting abilities and it got them. Ultimately though, the idea was instead of saying "this challenges a level 15 wizard" we now say "it challenges a level 15 party" spells that let the wizard overperform in this regard were adjusted or removed- note that they may return someday once they've been ruled to better fit the system: like how the bag of tricks lets you control a minion without being an overpowered animal companion from a 3e druid.



1) As a side note, Flavor and fun is also measured by things such as teleport, Shape Stone, and Overland Flight, none of which can be even remotely covered by the cantrip system.

2) They nerfed all characters down to an unacceptable level as far as the things the character can reasonably expect to accomplish.

Let's take a level 6 Fighter. This is not the craziest thing in the world.

Built a certain way, he can have Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Exotic Weapon (Spiked Chain), Shock Trooper, Combat Reflexes and another feat for something else.

He can charge at someone, push them into someone else, trip them both, get free attacks against both of them, and juggle his AB/damage/AC as he likes.

This is more interesting then a 4e fighter. At nearly any level, and that's a fighter, imagine if you could actually cast spells.


Flight's a spell, level 22. (Long range) Teleport is a ritual, and some powers have short range as well. I'm not sure what shape stone does, but would illusions or chiseling a rock with magic missles cover it?

A "level 1" 4e fighter can Trip (spinning sweep), bullrush (or shield push with Tide of Iron), charge, gets opportunity attacks if they try to run, cleave to hit them both, or reaping strike to damage even on missed swings. Adjusting AC/damage is a function of weapon+shield vs. 2hander and positioning for flanking/being flanked. Later on he can draw enemies into his whirling blades (Come and get it), regenerate his own health (boundless endurance), disarm (exorcism of steel) and more. Even better, there is no such thing as monsters immune to trip/prone by RAW.



1) I do not recall having such a weakness at any point as a caster.

2) Having a "resource management system" that does not require any actual resource management and in which a player can be replaced by a dice function is not my idea of a good one.

I've heard the "wizard has 1 spell then shoots crossbows at low level" problem echoed by others.

"Player replaced by a dice function"? I'm not sure what you mean; did you mean that powers could be chosen/used strictly at random? Couldn't a 3e spellcaster randomly chose spells and fail too?

Edit@ Talic: Going first can be an advantage, as can being able to react to the first move, or getting a bonus drawn card in a Collectable Card Game for going second, but
-There's a reason why it's doled out randomly amoung players- the car doesn't ALWAYS get to go before the thimble or dog because it's the car.
-The effect of going first in a board game becomes less and less important the longer and more complex the game. The descrepancy between wizards and others gets worse.

[Akimbo]

I agree with you, stories need conflicts that don't get completely circumvented by overpowered wizard spell X. Given the 3e mechanics however, this proved challenging without DM fiating a counter to every spell you could find in splatbooks. Removing problematic spells allowed challenges ranging from sealed doors to Big Bad Evil Guys to be viable again.

You misunderstand, making those same challenges that were challenges at level 1, or level 5, be the only challenges possible is not a good thing. As you gain levels, things that were once challenges should stop being so, and you should face different challenges.


Fighter needed more interesting abilities and it got them. Ultimately though, the idea was instead of saying "this challenges a level 15 wizard" we now say "it challenges a level 15 party" spells that let the wizard overperform in this regard were adjusted or removed- note that they may return someday once they've been ruled to better fit the system: like how the bag of tricks lets you control a minion without being an overpowered animal companion from a 3e druid.

No, see controlling a minion is a joke, just like the bag of tricks in 3.5. Having an actual companion that is kinda awesome and serves a purpose is something that is beyond the 4e rules. The AC is only overpowered because it comes in addition to the Druid, if full progression was given to the Ranger, the Ranger would stop being such a worthless class. Similarly the Paladin's mount was never overpowered. In fact Paladins are kind of weak despite the mount.

But these options were still stripped in 4e.


Flight's a spell, level 22. (Long range) Teleport is a ritual, and some powers have short range as well. I'm not sure what shape stone does, but would illusions or chiseling a rock with magic missles cover it?

Flight and Teleport are neat abilities in combat. But they also served a fun flavor purpose in game in 3.5. This is completely removed by the flight power and the teleport ritual.

I have used my constant flight to have a character who would never touch the ground, seeing it as dirty, and infectious. And Teleport can be used to show off, or to represent someone who cannot stand the being away from home for more then a day (but who still adventures with the best of them).

A temporary fly power is not the equal of that, nor a 10 minute ritual that only takes you to designated portals and permanently burns large chunks of money every time you use it.

And no, neither Illusions nor chiseling replace Shape Stone.


A "level 1" 4e fighter can Trip (spinning sweep), bullrush (or shield push with Tide of Iron), charge, gets opportunity attacks if they try to run, cleave to hit them both, or reaping strike to damage even on missed swings. Adjusting AC/damage is a function of weapon+shield vs. 2hander and positioning for flanking/being flanked. Later on he can draw enemies into his whirling blades (Come and get it), regenerate his own health (boundless endurance), disarm (exorcism of steel) and more. Even better, there is no such thing as monsters immune to trip/prone by RAW.

I am well aware of what a 4e fighter can do, and these things are frankly pathetic.

The fact that he can't trip someone twice in a row, or charge and do anything else decent on the end, or combine anything in any way at all, or do anything decent with an AoO is fairly sad. Nor does "hitting on a miss" or "regenerating" represent anything at all in fact. Come and Get It is the best example I've ever seen of something decent a 4e fighter can do (I've read the whole class entry don't think this is because I'm ignorant) and it's frankly, okay.

As for adjusting AC/AB/Damage, you might have missed this, but I can have whatever value I want and then have a different one next round and still do things. That is far superior to "a function of weapon type."

And this is a fighter, that is doing more cool things in one round, then a 4e one in a whole fight.


I've heard the "wizard has 1 spell then shoots crossbows at low level" problem echoed by others.

Then you must be dealing with some pretty bad Wizard players because I generally look at 4 level 1 spells a day as a minimum for a level 1 Wizard. Not to mention if I'm actually forced to play a level 1 Wizard, I'll be using the Fire Bolt Cantrip for Colossal bolts. And that's still better then Magic Missile.


"Player replaced by a dice function"? I'm not sure what you mean; did you mean that powers could be chosen/used strictly at random? Couldn't a 3e spellcaster randomly chose spells and fail too?

Yes, but a 4e character can have his choices governed by dice and be a highly useful contributer to the party.

[ericgrau]

And I think I know the answer...No one ever does their math in these cases. Speaking from a strictly damage standpoint at this very moment, a +5 Greataxe (totally reasonable at level 20) wielding fighter with 22 base strength and a belt of ogre strength +6 MASSIVELY out-damages a same level spell caster against a single target. How you ask? Well consider this, the fighter gets 4 attacks, +20/+15/+10/+5, assuming weapon focus and greater focus are taken, that means +37/+32/+27/+22 with given equipment/stats. Those 4 attacks deal 1d12+5+15+4. So he could miss you say. Well, not really, since about the highest AC in the game is 42(great wyrm gold dragon), the only instance in which he would have to roll a 20 is on the last hit. So in most cases he will be doing 4d12+20+60+16. 96 free damage on any round, with 4-48 extra damage being the variance. The fighter can do this every single turn if he wishes to, and can score critical hits on enemies not immune to them. A fighter is only up against AC, where as a mage has to deal with spell resistance, concentration checks, god awful saving throw modifiers, evasion, and so many others. All of this doesn't take power attack into account, or the fact that a fighter's HP is going to dwarf a mage's of the same level. If you want to get into technicalities the damage range is 100-432(all crits & max damage about 1/3billion chance of happening) but for all purposes necessary the damage range is 100-144.

Contrast that to a 20th level sorcerer with 22 cha, a +6 cha cloak, casting meteor swarm (24d6), the damage variance is very wide, 24-144 as opposed to 100-144 making it inferior other than the fact that it can hit a wide area. Also, the reflex saving throw for that spell would be a 29, high, but not impossible to make, a high level rogue or paladin with decent gear for example, would scoff at making that save.

Fighters/barbs/rangers get a bad reputation that they don't deserve, sure they don't have the utility that rogues or many spellcasters have at higher levels, but spells like bull's strength and stoneskin were practically invented to bolster a fighter's utter awesomeness in combat. Just remember when your little spellcaster runs out of spells, there is still a fighter there on the front lines ready to smash someone's face in repeatedly.

You can tell this guy hasn't been on the internet very long. Everyone thinks spellcasters destroy martial guys because there are people who feel an uncontrollable urge to bash anyone who dare say otherwise. Any attempt is quickly met with several pages of posts which drown out any rational discussion to the contrary. Some may use reason, some may not; but point is there are enough (doesn't even need to be everybody) that type a heck of a lot longer than most have patience for b/c of the inner need to restate the popular opinion repeatedly until they "win".

If you take a look at the caster optimization guides, the best things a caster can do are control the battlefield so the martial guys can pick off the baddies easier and buff the martial guys so they can do more damage. The caster simply cannot dish out or receive damage better. So every party needs both a caster and a martial guy.

A common counter-argument is to say the druid's animal companion out-fights the fighter. Well, he has similar HP... but lower AB, lower AC with barding and lower damage. Even with barding and 100% of the druid's wealth used to buy magic items for his companion. So while you can have a party without a martial guy, a mix is almost always better. In core at least; I can't say what kind of crazy cheese someone will soon post.

I once posted a challenge to see if anyone could beat a simple fighter in a duel, with nothing but direct damage allowed. The only ones who could do it were: the same fighter with one slight tweak, a wildshaped druid using armor (I didn't know that's not allowed), a ghost (I didn't know magic weapons still have a 50% chance of hitting ghosts) and a cleric with quickened inflicts (I didn't know you still need to burn an attack action to discharge a touch spell regardless of casting time). So in short the only legal method of beating him at his own game was another fighter.

Someone might still say the caster is "better" based not on damage, but on what I said in the 2nd paragraph. But you still need a martial guy in the party to pull that off, and the best parties - that don't make the DM throw his PHB at you anyway - are still mixed parties.

[Kletian999]

You misunderstand, making those same challenges that were challenges at level 1, or level 5, be the only challenges possible is not a good thing. As you gain levels, things that were once challenges should stop being so, and you should face different challenges.

Agreed, challenges should scale, but the concern was the very concept of some challenges would break down. If you have to stop an evil necromancer's plans and the wizard can just kill him on a whim with an irresitable death spell regardless of the necromancer's level it doesn't work out.



No, see controlling a minion is a joke, just like the bag of tricks in 3.5. Having an actual companion that is kinda awesome and serves a purpose is something that is beyond the 4e rules. The AC is only overpowered because it comes in addition to the Druid, if full progression was given to the Ranger, the Ranger would stop being such a worthless class. Similarly the Paladin's mount was never overpowered. In fact Paladins are kind of weak despite the mount.

But these options were still stripped in 4e.


Guess what, the druid is eventually coming back with shapeshifting instead of a companion and the ranger is eventually getting a companion specialization path just like archer vs. 2blade. Just give em time.

The rules, even now, allow you to have "helpers" and mounts as long as the DM budgets the encounter to fit an additional PC (see the DMG): it's just no longer tied to any specific class because that's more fluff/story dependant.



Flight and Teleport are neat abilities in combat. But they also served a fun flavor purpose in game in 3.5. This is completely removed by the flight power and the teleport ritual.

I have used my constant flight to have a character who would never touch the ground, seeing it as dirty, and infectious. And Teleport can be used to show off, or to represent someone who cannot stand the being away from home for more then a day (but who still adventures with the best of them).

A temporary fly power is not the equal of that, nor a 10 minute ritual that only takes you to designated portals and permanently burns large chunks of money every time you use it.

And no, neither Illusions nor chiseling replace Shape Stone.


A cleric has a flying chariot that lasts all day if sustained (reflavor it to self flight if you wish), and any combat power can be used out of combat for a short term effect (showing off teleports). If you are just using flight for a character trait (being ground adverse) then it doesn't need to consume your mechanic powers. Mordenkaine's mansion can just as easily be a portal home as it is a pocket dimension.

So what does Shape stone do anyway?



I am well aware of what a 4e fighter can do, and these things are frankly pathetic.

The fact that he can't trip someone twice in a row, or charge and do anything else decent on the end, or combine anything in any way at all, or do anything decent with an AoO is fairly sad. Nor does "hitting on a miss" or "regenerating" represent anything at all in fact. Come and Get It is the best example I've ever seen of something decent a 4e fighter can do (I've read the whole class entry don't think this is because I'm ignorant) and it's frankly, okay.

As for adjusting AC/AB/Damage, you might have missed this, but I can have whatever value I want and then have a different one next round and still do things. That is far superior to "a function of weapon type."

And this is a fighter, that is doing more cool things in one round, then a 4e one in a whole fight.


So you don't like that Trip can't be spammed (in exchange for nothing being immune to it and it doing heavier damage)(though it can be spammed as a Demigod) and that many of these actions are single target, standard actions and normally done once a round (sans action points- did 3e have longer than 6 seconds rounds?).

The "combination" is using your powers with your allies- pushing the monster into firewalls, tripping him so the rogue's attack hits better or the wizard gets away, etc (or using sustained effects between your own turns). A fighter can use any At will power on Opportunity attacks with Heavy Blade opportunist, and all fighter opportunity attacks cancel enemy move actions, a Paragon level warforged can follow up charges with other actions besides basic attack or bull rush within the same turn (don't forget using charge as your standard action basically doubles your movement for a turn as it lets you use a move action as well).

I don't think tripping enemies (that hopefully aren't immune) over and over every round of every fight is "doing more cool things" that what 4e can do.




Yes, but a 4e character can have his choices governed by dice and be a highly useful contributer to the party.

Half of 4e combat is positioning and inter-party dynamics, if you let a dice decide what power you use you'll get some mileage but it'll fall flat in most cases. I don't see how 3e with it's "full attack this round", or "trip every round" is somehow not worthy of the same condemnation.

[Akimbo]

Agreed, challenges should scale, but the concern was the very concept of some challenges would break down. If you have to stop an evil necromancer's plans and the wizard can just kill him on a whim with an irresitable death spell regardless of the necromancer's level it doesn't work out.

Luckily there is no such thing as an irresistible death spell regardless of level. But even if there was, (and even though there isn't) it behooves the Necromancer to not allow just anyone to find him.


Guess what, the druid is eventually coming back with shapeshifting instead of a companion and the ranger is eventually getting a companion specialization path just like archer vs. 2blade. Just give em time.

Guess what, I won't care. Because the animal companion will require his standard action to attack, and therefore won't be a real companion, and whatever the Druid will do will be exactly the same thing every other character does.


The rules, even now, allow you to have "helpers" and mounts as long as the DM budgets the encounter to fit an additional PC (see the DMG): it's just no longer tied to any specific class because that's more fluff/story dependant.

Yeah, you could do that in any game, it's called playing two characters. And no one cares.


A cleric has a flying chariot that lasts all day if sustained (reflavor it to self flight if you wish), and any combat power can be used out of combat for a short term effect (showing off teleports). If you are just using flight for a character trait (being ground adverse) then it doesn't need to consume your mechanic powers. Mordenkaine's mansion can just as easily be a portal home as it is a pocket dimension.

So in other words:
1) Change the power to be something completely different.
2) Use teleports out of combat, even though I'm talking about long distance teleports not 15ft.
3) Lie some more.
4) Blow boatloads of cash and still be lieing to myself and everyone else at the table.

So in otherwords, just ignore all the rules of the game. Or I can play a game that's more fun and allows me to do all those things without playing magical tea party.

Which will I choose?


So what does Shape stone do anyway?

What does it sound like it does? It's a very descriptive spell name.


So you don't like that Trip can't be spammed (in exchange for nothing being immune to it and it doing heavier damage)(though it can be spammed as a Demigod) and that many of these actions are single target, standard actions and normally done once a round (sans action points- did 3e have longer than 6 seconds rounds?).

3.5 never hand longer then 6 second rounds, action points didn't give extra actions in 3.5, and there were several ways to get more actions then the minimum allotment.

I don't like that doing something requires forgetting how to do it for the rest of the fight. It's a stupid metagame convention that actually takes away from strategic choice and resource management with no real gain at all.

I don't like that nothing is immune to anything and so you it matters even less what power you use.

I don't particularly care if things are multi target or single target, that should fit the action.


The "combination" is using your powers with your allies- pushing the monster into firewalls, tripping him so the rogue's attack hits better or the wizard gets away, etc (or using sustained effects between your own turns). A fighter can use any At will power on Opportunity attacks with Heavy Blade opportunist, and all fighter opportunity attacks cancel enemy move actions, a Paragon level warforged can follow up charges with other actions besides basic attack or bull rush within the same turn (don't forget using charge as your standard action basically doubles your movement for a turn as it lets you use a move action as well).

The combination is not meaningful. I know all these things, stop pretending to yourself that I don't know anything and that if you just educate me I will worship the awesome that is 4e. I know all these things. They don't make 4e actually fun in any way.

I know about Heavy Blade Opportunist, and I know that it makes all non heavy blade weapons inferior choices for Clerics, Warlords, and Fighters.

One race out of how many can do something sort of decent after a charge. I am well aware of what charging does because it has done the same thing since the charge rule has been instituted.


I don't think tripping enemies (that hopefully aren't immune) over and over every round of every fight is "doing more cool things" that what 4e can do.

Thank you for not paying attention. The least interesting and fun character in the entire game can charge, push someone into someone else, knock them both over and then hit them both.

And doing that is more interesting then what most of 4e can do.


Half of 4e combat is positioning and inter-party dynamics, if you let a dice decide what power you use you'll get some mileage but it'll fall flat in most cases. I don't see how 3e with it's "full attack this round", or "trip every round" is somehow not worthy of the same condemnation.

Because that's not what characters do. They do cool things like comboing things, (at the worst) and casting spells.

And no, it really doesn't matter what you use, because you use all your encounter powers every time to immobilize someone, then you spam at wills.

There is no strategy because every attack does pretty much the same thing.

[Kyeudo]

You can tell this guy hasn't been on the internet very long. Everyone thinks spellcasters destroy martial guys because there are people who feel an uncontrollable urge to bash anyone who dare say otherwise. Any attempt is quickly met with several pages of posts which drown out any rational discussion to the contrary. Some may use reason, some may not; but point is there are enough (doesn't even need to be everybody) that type a heck of a lot longer than most have patience for b/c of the inner need to restate the popular opinion repeatedly until they "win".


Um, no. It's proven out time and again in both theory and practice that any caster who is actually trying can and will take down an equal level martial character without too much trouble.



If you take a look at the caster optimization guides, the best things a caster can do are control the battlefield so the martial guys can pick off the baddies easier and buff the martial guys so they can do more damage. The caster simply cannot dish out or receive damage better. So every party needs both a caster and a martial guy.


Several problems with this statement.
1) Battlefield Control reduces or elliminates the need to take damage. If your opponent can not reach you, he can't hurt you.
2) Only extremely optimized martial characters can match the damage output of a wizard actually trying to deal damage.
3) A save-or-die spell or a no-save-you-die spell trumps most forms of damage.
4) A cleric or druid is a better tank than any martial character.



A common counter-argument is to say the druid's animal companion out-fights the fighter. Well, he has similar HP... but lower AB, lower AC with barding and lower damage. Even with barding and 100% of the druid's wealth used to buy magic items for his companion. So while you can have a party without a martial guy, a mix is almost always better. In core at least; I can't say what kind of crazy cheese someone will soon post.


An animal companion is comparable in utility to a fighter, not equal to a fighter. The animal companion is a piece of meat that can deal a respectable amount of damage, soak up attacks so that the casters don't need to, and to make it more difficult to reach the casters. The animal companion is also cheaper to replace.

The druid himself is capable of being better at tanking, dealing damage, and controling the battle than a fighter, and needs no real optimization to do it. And he casts spells too.

A mixed party is better, yes, but that's a mix of divine and arcane casters, not a mix of martial characters and casters.



I once posted a challenge to see if anyone could beat a simple fighter in a duel, with nothing but direct damage allowed. The only ones who could do it were: the same fighter with one slight tweak, a wildshaped druid using armor (I didn't know that's not allowed), a ghost (I didn't know magic weapons still have a 50% chance of hitting ghosts) and a cleric with quickened inflicts (I didn't know you still need to burn an attack action to discharge a touch spell regardless of casting time). So in short the only legal method of beating him at his own game was another fighter.


Wow. You chose the one thing that a fighter can do well, damage, and then challenged people to beat you without doing what they do well. Of course you won most of the fights, because everyone else was playing retarded spellcasters.

BTW, there are armors that do wildshape with the druid, and the touch attack for any touch range spell is always part of the casting time, even if that casting time is a swift action, so all of those builds that trashed yours were legal. It's not his fault you didn't remember the details of incorporeality.



Someone might still say the caster is "better" based not on damage, but on what I said in the 2nd paragraph. But you still need a martial guy in the party to pull that off, and the best parties - that don't make the DM throw his PHB at you anyway - are still mixed parties.

Damage is irrelevant. Hit dice on monsters go up too fast for damage to matter beyond low levels, and even at low levels a Color Spray or Sleep will drop more enemies in a single round than a fighter can kill with damage.

If you want a mixed party in 3.5, go with a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Artificer. Maybe switch one of those out for an Archivist. The fighter's contribution (what there is of it) can be handled by either the Cleric, the Druid, the Druid's animal companion, or the Artificer.

[Draco Dracul]

Thank you for not paying attention. The least interesting and fun character in the entire game can charge, push someone into someone else, knock them both over and then hit them both.

And doing that is more interesting then what most of 4e can do.



Wait, a 4e fighter being able to do everything a 3.x fighter can do and more somehow makes it less interesting? That seems a little odd.

[Akimbo]

Wait, a 4e fighter being able to do everything a 3.x fighter can do and more somehow makes it less interesting? That seems a little odd.

A 4e fighter can do four things, once an encounter. He will do every one of these things in every encounter. They are all pretty much the same, in that they all do about the same amount of damage, and all have an additional effect that does something pretty similar based on level.

Hell, half of those additional effects are bull **** like: increase attack, or sacrifice attack for damage. These are not special. The fact that you can do each things a fighter can do doesn't actually mean anything when you can only do them once, and you always use them first.

[Starbuck_II]

Guess what, I won't care. Because the animal companion will require his standard action to attack, and therefore won't be a real companion, and whatever the Druid will do will be exactly the same thing every other character does.

Stop pretending you can see the future. We already know they are playtesting the Animal Companion as a minor action, look at the bag of tricks. Each is a minor action to do an action (like give up your minor action for it to attack, charge, move, etc).




[quote]
Because that's not what characters do. They do cool things like comboing things, (at the worst) and casting spells.

And no, it really doesn't matter what you use, because you use all your encounter powers every time to immobilize someone, then you spam at wills.

There is no strategy because every attack does pretty much the same thing.
Um, no, you won't.

I've had many battles when the players didn't use their encounter power. They don't spam them. You might by the way you make it sound, but not everyone will.

[ericgrau]

Post

I'm afraid you did not address my points nor back up yours. Please refrain from repeating well known claims and reply according to what's posted.
It's annoying when I take the time to test things instead of repeating popular opinions myself.

For example:

Making an argument that supports something else entirely
Arguing against something that wasn't even said. Or changing what was said slightly in your favor, hoping that it won't get noticed.
Trying to use some "authority" as a basis of evidence, or using some other form of "evidence" other than testing.


These are common mistakes and I don't really blame you, though you might find pointing them out offensive.

[Akimbo]

I'm afraid you did not address my points nor back up yours. Please refrain from repeating well known claims and reply according to what's posted.
It's annoying when I take the time to test things instead of repeating popular opinions myself.

So in other words. If you disagree with me you are totally just parroting popular opinion, because I am the only person who can have a real opinion and everyone else is a shill.

So on this "damage only" test. Where they not allowed to cast buffs or something? Did you try a Barbarian? I bet I could kill you with a Rogue, you'd whine that I was cheating and not following the rules, but I would be and you'd still be dead.

Do you really think the Armor matters? Cause when a Druid comes up and hits you with his pounce, and turns that into a grapple, and then his AC comes and does the same thing, I bet you'd have quite an issue.

Seriously, I could make you Fighter Cry with a Wizard that doesn't cast spells and just hits you, but I'm fairly certain you banned all spellcasting that didn't deal direct damage, cause otherwise you'd cry.

I could also build a CL focused build that would probably just cast Evard's Black Tentacles and out grapple you.

See there is absolutely nothing a party of Rogue/Druid/Cleric/Wizard could gain by replacing the Druid with a Fighter. Nothing.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Check out the Arena. They run at a few specific levels, with the best optimizers, and even at level one, Spellcasters, especially Wizards, are far more likely to win than the non-casters.

Edit: And don't forget that, while melee damage builds are the record(thanks to 1d2 Crusader), most of them rely on magic potions, short-term buffs, and polymorph, while Tippy has a Wizard that can do 700+ damage in a round, with touch attacks, at level 18, no buffing. Of course, with buffs, he is Flying, invisible, mind-blanked, and has about 30 other persisted buffs up 24/7. Just my 2 CP.

[ericgrau]

So in other words. If you disagree with me you are totally just parroting popular opinion, because I am the only person who can have a real opinion and everyone else is a shill.

So on this "damage only" test. Where they not allowed to cast buffs or something? Did you try a Barbarian? I bet I could kill you with a Rogue, you'd whine that I was cheating and not following the rules, but I would be and you'd still be dead.

Do you really think the Armor matters? Cause when a Druid comes up and hits you with his pounce, and turns that into a grapple, and then his AC comes and does the same thing, I bet you'd have quite an issue.

Seriously, I could make you Fighter Cry with a Wizard that doesn't cast spells and just hits you, but I'm fairly certain you banned all spellcasting that didn't deal direct damage, cause otherwise you'd cry.

I could also build a CL focused build that would probably just cast Evard's Black Tentacles and out grapple you.

See there is absolutely nothing a party of Rogue/Druid/Cleric/Wizard could gain by replacing the Druid with a Fighter. Nothing.

The contest mentioned was to see if any class could replace the fighter entirely and make him obsolete; to simply do his job. The duel allowed you to both make hits and take them. Many tried, none could pull it off without things that I later found out were illegal. While the tactics seemed cheap I gave kudos to them at the time. Note that I actually did this, rather than claiming what would happen. Buffs were allowed IIRC, but the contest allowed no buffing round before combat so it was usually impractical.

See, I never made the claim that one class was better than the other, only that neither makes the other obsolete and you need both in a party.

I've also cracked open the MM and looked at the actual stats of summonable/animal-companion/etc. monsters vs. the stats of the simple core no-tricks-at-all w/ accurate WBL fighter builds I keep in my notes. Rather than claiming what would happen.

That's what I mean about the difference between testing and repeating popular opinions.

[Stupendous_Man]

sample size to small, no conclusive conclusion can be drawn from your test. better luck next time, larger testing group advised.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

You want to compare a Level 10 Druid to a Fighter? Or even a Warblade to a Fighter? I'm busy, but I'm sure someone here, me maybe, could make one up.

[Inhuman Bot]

so, ericgrau, want to back up the claim that a fighter is better then a wizard at damage? While you are elimiating the largest abiliteds of a wizard for this challabge, it can be done.

[Sholos]

Then you must be dealing with some pretty bad Wizard players because I generally look at 4 level 1 spells a day as a minimum for a level 1 Wizard. Not to mention if I'm actually forced to play a level 1 Wizard, I'll be using the Fire Bolt Cantrip for Colossal bolts. And that's still better then Magic Missile.

Why do you feel a first level Wizard should have 4 spells minimum? Is that some sort of "If you don't play a race/class combination that gets you 4 spells you're doing it wrong" comment? And Colossal bolts? I'd love to see how you manage to lug them around at first level.

[Stupendous_Man]

oeraps it involves a cart and several donkies.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

+1 spell for wizardry, +1 for specialization, +2 for 20 Int. Any less Int, and they're forced down to 3 spells, though Focused Specialist is very good at low levels, as is the Extra Slot or Precocious Apprentice feat. I wouldn't recommend any of those if you're going past 10, and wouldn't recommend Extra Slot or PA past 5, but there are many ways to get 4+ spells at first, and it's almost impossible to get less than 3, in which case you should have a feat or something to make your cantrips useful.(I like Cloudy Conjuration+Caltrops, myself)

[tyckspoon]

Why do you feel a first level Wizard should have 4 spells minimum? Is that some sort of "If you don't play a race/class combination that gets you 4 spells you're doing it wrong" comment? And Colossal bolts? I'd love to see how you manage to lug them around at first level.

That's a pretty good question, considering that 4 spells is also the *maximum* for a first level wizard- you get that if you have both a 20 Int and specialize. I would say 3 1st level slots would be the reasonable expectation, as that's what you get with 16-18 Int and a specialization.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

That's a pretty good question, considering that 4 spells is also the *maximum* for a first level wizard- you get that if you have both a 20 Int and specialize. I would say 3 1st level slots would be the reasonable expectation, as that's what you get with 16-18 Int and a specialization.Do people just not see my posts? I could make a perfectly playable first-level Wizard with 5 first level spells, one second level spell, and Cantrips that sicken and lay down a 5-ft square of caltrops. I could also use one feat to add a Reserve feat that does 2d6 damage each round. A good wizard always has exactly as many spells as are needed. And those feats wouldn't even start to suck until level 5, and even then only 2 of them are weak.

[tyckspoon]

Do people just not see my posts?

Yes, you just ninja'd me. And that's far more resources invested in getting more spell slots than I personally (and I suspect many others, although I can't speak for them) consider rational, especially at a point in the game where plugging somebody with a crossbow can be as effective as throwing a spell at them.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

But it is playable, and a Malkonverter I'm staring at level 4 did some of that. I considered going Gray Elf, which would have given her 5 first level slots at level one, and I wasn't even optimizing. Focused Specialist is great at low levels, though it's weaker past 10. Precocious Apprentice is weak past level 4, but at level one it's king. 20 Int is nearly vital at low levels, as # of slots is important when most are cantrips, and a Conjurer at any level could use Caltrops+Cloudy Conjuration to deal battlefield control easily.

[Thrawn183]

The point isn't whether or not a fighter is better than a druid's animal companion or not. The point is that an animal companion is good enough.

If you're willing to wade through 40 something pages of thread, on the gauntlet from the wizards boards Meyer Williams started to run a warrior to solo on CR opponents. Clearly a warrior is good enough.

The fighter gets more combat ability than a warrior but it just isn't really needed. Sure you can optimize your fighter to do even more damage than normal, but who cares? Wizards optimize so that they can kill opponents using fewer spell slots leaving more for utility spells (which the fighter gets none of).

The fighter got a lot of bonus feats that it just didn't need rather than things like skill points and a decent skill list.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I remember seeing a combat on these boards that showed statistically, that a Druid's AC at first level would take 5 rounds to kill a Fighter, while the Fighter could take it out in 3. If the Druid flanked, doing nothing else, casting no spells, taking no actions, it came down to the Initiative roll. Yes, a straight combat isn't traditional D&D, but that is one class feature, killing another class. not good, IMHO, for the strength of the Fighter. He gets no skills and nothing to do out of combat, so in-combat he should be king. The mere fact that debates take this long should show that he's not king. So why play one, when you can be almost as good with a Druid, and do other stuff too?

[Akimbo]

Yes, you just ninja'd me. And that's far more resources invested in getting more spell slots than I personally (and I suspect many others, although I can't speak for them) consider rational, especially at a point in the game where plugging somebody with a crossbow can be as effective as throwing a spell at them.

No, shooting a Crossbow cannot be as casting an intelligent spell. Hell, I can do 6d6 damage with a cantrip at the same attack roll.

Or I can kill 5 guys with a single spell with a 70-90% chance of hitting.

Compare that to 1d8 damage and not moving.

Honestly, despite playing at nearly every level, I've never played a single game that has leveled more then 5 times, so if I'm starting at level 1, I will gladly play a Gray Elf, Focused Specialist Illusionist with Precocious Apprentice.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

No, shooting a Crossbow cannot be as casting an intelligent spell. Hell, I can do 6d6 damage with a cantrip at the same attack roll.

Or I can kill 5 guys with a single spell with a 70-90% chance of hitting.

Compare that to 1d8 damage and not moving.

Honestly, despite playing at nearly every level, I've never played a single game that has leveled more then 5 times, so if I'm starting at level 1, I will gladly play a Gray Elf, Focused Specialist Illusionist with Precocious Apprentice.See, I'd go with Conjurer and Cloudy Conjuration, to get useful Cantrips without the cheese and RAW issues of Launch Bolt. Either way, it's the best you can do at first level.

edit:maybe Kobold(for flavor and AC), rather than Elf. That could be worth a slot.

[Akimbo]

The contest mentioned was to see if any class could replace the fighter entirely and make him obsolete; to simply do his job. The duel allowed you to both make hits and take them. Many tried, none could pull it off without things that I later found out were illegal. While the tactics seemed cheap I gave kudos to them at the time. Note that I actually did this, rather than claiming what would happen. Buffs were allowed IIRC, but the contest allowed no buffing round before combat so it was usually impractical.

See, I never made the claim that one class was better than the other, only that neither makes the other obsolete and you need both in a party.

I've also cracked open the MM and looked at the actual stats of summonable/animal-companion/etc. monsters vs. the stats of the simple core no-tricks-at-all w/ accurate WBL fighter builds I keep in my notes. Rather than claiming what would happen.

That's what I mean about the difference between testing and repeating popular opinions.

See this is your problem. You start from the (incorrect) assumption that no one else has ever tested these things, and that you have thought of everything.

Of course there is not a doubt in my mind that the first thing you would do given such a situation is to limit options to solely Core, despite that somewhere between very very very very few, and no games at all are pure Core.

Otherwise, your statements about Druids with Armor and quickened spells would be even stupider then they already are.

[Sholos]

But it is playable, and a Malkonverter I'm staring at level 4 did some of that. I considered going Gray Elf, which would have given her 5 first level slots at level one, and I wasn't even optimizing. Focused Specialist is great at low levels, though it's weaker past 10. Precocious Apprentice is weak past level 4, but at level one it's king. 20 Int is nearly vital at low levels, as # of slots is important when most are cantrips, and a Conjurer at any level could use Caltrops+Cloudy Conjuration to deal battlefield control easily.

Now make me a 28 point buy character from Core only that won't get absolutely slaughtered without a party dedicated to keeping him alive.

Next I want to ask why everyone just assumes that anyone who plays D&D has almost every book outside of Core and every DM allows these books.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I was using Spell Compendium, SRD, Complete Mage, and Complete Arcane to get that. Some of the most basic books out there for casters. It's doable without SC, and Complete Arcane only gives Precocious Apprentice. No one plays core-only but Giacomo.

[Dode]

Fighters vs. Wizards: this time, with no prep & no non-damage related spells

truly a completely accurate representation of how classes are played in D&D 3.5

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Fighters vs. Wizards: this time, with no prep & no non-damage related spells

truly a completely accurate representation of how classes are played in D&D 3.5Sadly, though not at level one, that is probably doable for a skilled Wizard. Gimme a minute to think about it for level one. I can't promise core, but I'll assume 14 HP, and 17 AC(12 touch).

[Sholos]

I was using Spell Compendium, SRD, Complete Mage, and Complete Arcane to get that. Some of the most basic books out there for casters. It's doable without SC, and Complete Arcane only gives Precocious Apprentice. No one plays core-only but Giacomo.

So you're saying that anyone who plays casters needs to spend around $160 (American) to play correctly? No thank you. As for other people that play Core only? Unless I run a campaign that heavily uses dragons, I always play Core only. Why? Because I'm not rolling in discretionary funds like apparently everyone else.

So, I'll reiterate. Make a 28-point core-only wizard that can have 4 or 5 spell slots that doesn't depend on the party being absolutely dedicated to keeping him alive.

[tyckspoon]

Now make me a 28 point buy character from Core only that won't get absolutely slaughtered without a party dedicated to keeping him alive.

Next I want to ask why everyone just assumes that anyone who plays D&D has almost every book outside of Core and every DM allows these books.

You want that at first level? Because every class dies alone at first level. First level 3.5 characters are dangerously, almost laughably fragile. Even a raging Con 18 Barbarian (so effective Con 22) has only 18 hp at 1st level, and 6 of those are temp hp that go away at the end of his rage. Which he can do exactly once. A couple of orcs can still kill him easily.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So you're saying that anyone who plays casters needs to spend around $160 (American) to play correctly? No thank you. As for other people that play Core only? Unless I run a campaign that heavily uses dragons, I always play Core only. Why? Because I'm not rolling in discretionary funds like apparently everyone else.

So, I'll reiterate. Make a 28-point core-only wizard that can have 4 or 5 spell slots that doesn't depend on the party being absolutely dedicated to keeping him alive.Core-only? Focused Specialist, 16 Int, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Str, 8 Wis, 8 Cha. Be a Kobold. Your stats become 16, 16, 12, 8, 8, 8, you have an AC of 15, and if you went Focused Specialist(I own the book, I'm using it), 4 spell slots. 3 otherwise, but you still should have a good spell or 2 each battle. And that's going for survivability over power. Going fully for core-only things, Grey Elf, with 18 Int(20), 14 dex(16), 14 Con(12), 8 Str(6), 8 Wis, 8 Cha. Still 4 spell slots, 5 hp, and 13 AC. A Fighter at that level probably has 14 HP and 19 AC, if optimized for both. Rogue? 18 AC at best, probably 17, and 8 HP. Any of them dies from a lucky orc crit without a Cure Minor.

Also, I made 170 American weekly while working in a Subway after school. It's not that hard to buy gaming supplies.

[Stupendous_Man]

{Scrubbed}

[Akimbo]

So you're saying that anyone who plays casters needs to spend around $160 (American) to play correctly? No thank you. As for other people that play Core only? Unless I run a campaign that heavily uses dragons, I always play Core only. Why? Because I'm not rolling in discretionary funds like apparently everyone else.

So, I'll reiterate. Make a 28-point core-only wizard that can have 4 or 5 spell slots that doesn't depend on the party being absolutely dedicated to keeping him alive.

No, anyone who wants to play a Wizard with 6 spells of level 1 and above, and Cantrips that are more effective then most classes level 1 spells needs to spend that much.

So that's about 2 rounds of Instantly killing a large group for each encounter. Not to mention back up in case of a 5th. In other words, such tremendous Overkill that you will never ever spend all your slots in one day.

In order to make a Wizard with 4 spells a day, every one of which is an AoE death spell, not to mention a bunch of pitiful cantrips can do so by spending no money at all and using just the SRD.

As for "depending on the party for survival" build a level 1 anything that doesn't depend on the party for survival. It might be possible with a non-core Druid, but I doubt it.

[Talic]

Assuming 28 point buy:

Fighter 1:

Str 16
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 8

Assuming The above, the Fighter, with a greatsword, will be making an attack roll at +4 to hit (+5 with weapon focus - suboptimal feat without non-core retraining options, but let's go with it), assuming a chain shirt, an AC of 17 (13 touch), and 12 HP.

Wizard 1:

Str 8
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 16
Wis 10
Cha 8

Assuming the above, a wizard will have, when needed for rolls, an attack bonus of +3. AC of 13 base, and 6 HP (9hp with a toad familiar). The fighter's attack will likely slay him outright.

However, he also has Sleep and Color spray. Both will be DC 14 (up to 16 with spell focus and greater spell focus, which are almost always good options for a caster).

Now, if the characters start off within 30 feet of each other, then the fighter on a charge, has a +7 to hit vs AC 13, or 75% hit chance, with a 10 damage average, or a better than average chance of dropping the wizard in 1 hit. Total average chance of win: 60%. (odds of hitting combined with odds of dealing enough damage)

If the wizard wins, Move + Color spray. DC 14 base, requires a roll of 14 or higher by the fighter. 65% chance of knockout dor 2d4 rounds. Coup de grace with a heavy pick every round for 2d6-2 and a DC 10+damage will end about 99% of fights before the spell ends.

With greater spell focus? 75% chance.

Thus, while all level 1 characters are rather frail, the wizard has a greater chance to win in direct conflict, assuming similar stat distribution and no prep time.

NOTE: The above is core only.

[Colmarr]

Not really. You can 1 hit drop pretty much any CR appropriate challenge. And you have other party members to help as well.

Although it sounds great on paper, I just don't see this happening in play. There are no spells at low level with a large enough area and debilitating enough effects that allow a wizrd to "1 hit drop" a CR-appropriate combat made up of multiple foes.


Besides, who ever said my HP would be low? One of my feats would be Faerie Mysteries Innate which gives me Int to HP instead of Con to HP. I can take it at level 1 and be just fine.

I'm not familiar with the feat, so I'll leave the hp discussion alone.


And the simple fact is that aginst a properly built fighter type you will die if he hits you, no matter your HP (unless you are going for something like 30+ con). If you are a fighter type and aren't forcing a save for massive damage on every hit at levels 15+ then you are doing something wrong.

I wasn't suggesting that a wizard needed to be able to survive a hit from a well-built fighter type. My concern was that the wizard needed to be able to remain conscious after the occasional javelin from a bored orc or a 1-round grapple from a choker. Until FMI was mentioned, your Con 6 wizard had 2hp and could likely do neither.


Even without FMI it stops being a problem as soon as you get poymorph (level 7).

You'll note that I specifically referred to surviving to 5th level. I'm well aware of what Polymorph does to wizards :smallsmile:

[Colmarr]

Really? And what kind of Wizard do you think *would* survive? 20 Int and specializing means the wizard really *has* four spells, so he can drop a first-level spell for every encounter if he needs to.

Of which he has used at least one on defensive spells (Mage Armour) and presumably another on initiative boosters (I assume Nerveskitter is a spell).

That leaves him with 2 per day.

[Sholos]

Now, where do the masses of Collosal Bolts come from, and how does one carry them?

[Talic]

Initiative boosting?

Without a game ender, it's usually the path of failure, at level 1.

I can see maybe a defensive spell, but even that, not so much at low level.

Face it. 1 hit kills at level 1. +4 to AC will make you harder to hurt, true. But with a duration of 1 hour, it's not yet cost effective. Better to use spells such as grease, Sleep, Color Spray, heck, even magic missile. At least that offers some long range clout.

So yes, against multiple opponents, all lower level, and spread out, a wizard won't one shot them, any more than a fighter would. For a wizard 1 to solo a level 1 encounter, he's expected to use 75% of his resources, and have a 50/50 shot of dying.

Several scattered enemies could do just that.

So, yes, argument flawed. Now, in a 2 creature combat, comprised of CR 1/2 creatures, could a wizard, with just one spell, remove 1 from combat? Easily. Most of the above spells I listed would suffice. Would that suddenly mean the other 3 could try for more difficult tactics, such as live capture, more safely? Absolutely. Thus, said wizard using 1 of his daily 4 spells can 1 shot anything he can be expected to solo. At higher levels, the mage gets more effective at dealing with multiple foes at once.

[Shosuro Ishii]

It's no straw man. You can find these exact objections to the 4e Wizard class in a huge amount of posts on this forum. I may have summarized and used some colorful language, but none of my points haven't been made by one if not several people who dislike 4e or dislike what 4e did to Wizards.


No one is angry that they can't be overpowered broken wizards anymore. No one is angry that the broken spels are gone. People are complaining that the flavorful and unique spells are gone or thrown into the ritual pile.



Ruined is a strong word. And it's a bit of a straw man all by itself. The game doesn't have to be "ruined" to be poorly balanced. It doesn't have to be "ruined" for the greater potency and utility of the Wizard in comparison with the non-casters to become very apparent.


Wizards are only broken in a system in which the Wizard is allowed to become broken. In a total vacuum, with a wizard designed to overcome any encounter with a non-changing GM, a wizard is more unbalanced than any other class. This situation only exist in theoritical discussions in the forums and CharOp boards. Is it plausible to make a wizard, who in the proper situation is broken? Yes. But the same can be said of a lot of things that people don't claim need to be nerfed into the ground.



They fail how? Please be specific. Even most damaging spells apply some kind of other penalty, status effect, or other "debuff", and plenty of spells are straight forward "debuffing" spells if you don't have too narrow a definition of "debuff".


A spell that does 3d6 damage and stuns for a round with a 50/50 chance to save does not a de-buff spell make. That's a damage spell with a minor debuff attached. That is 90% of the Warlock/Wizard spells. A quick glance through of non-utility powers (which rarely if ever harm your opponents) of the warlock/Wizard that aren't primarly damage spells: 6 for the warlock, 3 for the wizard.

If you think my opinion of a debuff is too small, than we may have a disagreement, but I don't think you can really say that damage dealing is the most important part of powers in 4ed.



Again, it doesn't require that the person playing the Wizard be a jerk for the inherent imbalance of the game to become very apparent. So I'll ask a question I've asked many times before: Since the casting classes are the best at overcoming game challenges, why would anyone want to play a non-casting class? The only answer I've received which made any sense at all was that a person might simply prefer to role play some different class. And that's a valid reason. But it still begs the question: Why should making the selection of a non-casting class for a role playing purpose in a role playing game bear with it an intrinsic penalty to the character's effectiveness in the game?


The same reason that a five Jedi party would fail in old Star Wars Systems (not sure if it's changed with Living Force). The wizard system means that a group full of wizards would be useless at level 1, gimped at levels 2-7 and a smart DM would still be able to handle it. A wizard can not burn a spell at every avaliable opportunity and expect to be able to survive in a game. A group of wizards would be forced to burn magic to get past every single problem they encounter, and until they get teleport/MMM, they would be unable to reliably work as a party.




They went from a system where you could break Wizards and turn them into an overpowered bad ass, where in a complete vacuum there will be almost no game challenge where a Wizard alone cannot solve the problem unless the other characters also can not solve, to a system that balanced them against the other classes while still retaining the full flavor of being a Wizard.

I'll argue that the full-flavor of the wizard has been retained. I'll also argue that game balance should ever be judged in 'a vacuum'. If you are judging in a vacuum, than you are eliminating the primary drawback of being a wizard. Yes, with advance knowledge of a situation and have time to prepare the right spells, and that is the only situation you have to deal with, a wizard is very unbalanced, and will ruin your game. However, on an average of 4+ encounters a day, factor in a few spell slots for general utility spells, with a few unused (misguessed) spell slots and a wizard isn't all that powerful. It's the Schroeigdner's wizard belief. A wizard doesn't have access to every spell at all times.

[Kletian999]

Luckily there is no such thing as an irresistible death spell regardless of level. But even if there was, (and even though there isn't) it behooves the Necromancer to not allow just anyone to find him.

I'd have to check some of the "ultra wizard threads" to recall details on what kind of spells I was considering (as well as the mechanics of scrying to find him), but in the end my core issue on this point is the same: when a specific class can dispatch foes easily unless the foe is outclassing the rest of the party, you have to hide him- which kind of deflates having a Xykon-esque reoccuring charismatic villian.



Guess what, I won't care. Because the animal companion will require his standard action to attack, and therefore won't be a real companion, and whatever the Druid will do will be exactly the same thing every other character does.

Yeah, you could do that in any game, it's called playing two characters. And no one cares.

How is having a "real companion" any different from playing two characters? (except that we could expect the second character to be slighter weaker but with syngergistic effects with the first) The reason you'll probably have to give up your standard action to attack with a companion is so that you don't count as two characters in terms of combat viability and time in control- then again, maybe they'll do something similiar as twin strike where you can both attack but it's about half the power of a normal at will: we'll have to see.
If previews to this point are accurate, the Druid will be able to change combat role mid fight with forms (similiar to Diablo Druids) which we'll be a pretty unique mechanic. Not to mention the utility powers for druids can have all manner of potential effects in and out of combat we can't predict.




So in other words:
1) Change the power to be something completely different.
2) Use teleports out of combat, even though I'm talking about long distance teleports not 15ft.
3) Lie some more.
4) Blow boatloads of cash and still be lieing to myself and everyone else at the table.

So in otherwords, just ignore all the rules of the game. Or I can play a game that's more fun and allows me to do all those things without playing magical tea party.

Which will I choose?

Reflavor the power to fit the character and setting, as teh game encourages you to do, without altering any of it's mechanics: you get unlimited flight and the added bonus of cover.

If you want to teleport really far, you use teleport rituals or "Party traveled to other country without incident." If you want to teleport to impress somebody, I don't see how 30 feet (default range of eladrin teleport) doesn't get the message across. There's a new magic item coming out that lets you teleport your walk speed at will.



What does it sound like it does? It's a very descriptive spell name.

If it's just "Change shape of a rock" then chiseling it down magically will cover any case you want it smaller and illusions will cover when you only care about appearences. The only case this doesn't cover is making a rock larger than it is when it's structure matters: an artificer's conjured force bridges and stairs would fit those purposes. Part of taking powers "away" from wizards was in order to give them to other classes so they had more to do.

I'm asking what enamoured use of Shape Stone are you decrying is irreplacable so I can work with you to find a replacement.



3.5 never hand longer then 6 second rounds, action points didn't give extra actions in 3.5, and there were several ways to get more actions then the minimum allotment.

If I do 6 actions a round and the fight is over than 5 rounds, is that better than doing 3 actions a round for 10 rounds- when every other class and monster is performing similiarly? If I make 5 swings that average for 5 damage each is that better than 1 swing for 25 average damage (barring weirdness with minimum damage of dice, vorpals, etc)? I am under the impression 4e has switched to consolidating actions for easier bookkeeping and more fluid conflict resolution.



I don't like that doing something requires forgetting how to do it for the rest of the fight. It's a stupid metagame convention that actually takes away from strategic choice and resource management with no real gain at all.

I don't like that nothing is immune to anything and so you it matters even less what power you use.

I don't particularly care if things are multi target or single target, that should fit the action.


It doesn't have to be flavored as "forgetting": I always preferred the convention "The enemy provided the opportunity to pull this off" then "The enemy has seen the trick and won't fall for it again", and similiar narritive explanations that fit for each power. The daily powers are the major exercise in resource management: encounter powers are supposed to be more free but there's a wealth of difference between using them on enemies you've flanked with buffs on versus trying them on protected enemies while hindered.

Immunities/vulnerabilites for monsters to things beyond elements and status effects were a relic of "how can we encourage class/role diversity." That motivation is less required now and the mechnic itself is a an exercise in frustration to have your primary functions rendered worthless, so it was greatly reduced. For example: I remember back playing FFXI they had "bone monsters resistant to piercing damage" which rendered Dragoons (spear use only) useless for the levels that bone monsters were prevelant.

I brought in the point of single target because there's a power progressing theme that if X class can trip 1 enemy at level 1-10, he'll probably be able to trip more than one enemy a round with a higher level power (Like Thunder Smite compared to Resounding Smite). Some of the reason why the level 6/20 (9/30 in comparison) Fighter can trip many things a turn is because the 4e fighter doesn't have that power yet at level 1/30.



The combination is not meaningful. I know all these things, stop pretending to yourself that I don't know anything and that if you just educate me I will worship the awesome that is 4e. I know all these things. They don't make 4e actually fun in any way.

I know about Heavy Blade Opportunist, and I know that it makes all non heavy blade weapons inferior choices for Clerics, Warlords, and Fighters.

One race out of how many can do something sort of decent after a charge. I am well aware of what charging does because it has done the same thing since the charge rule has been instituted.

Teaming up with your party members is supposed to be meaningful in 4e: if it's not fun for you though all I can say is sorry. HBO is a great feat, but only if you are the kind of character that gets lots of opportunities. Mauls and Axes outperform for causing damage, spears offer improved pushing, and in general more feats will come out to balance the effectiveness of all weapon types.



Thank you for not paying attention. The least interesting and fun character in the entire game can charge, push someone into someone else, knock them both over and then hit them both.

And doing that is more interesting then what most of 4e can do.
Because that's not what characters do. They do cool things like comboing things, (at the worst) and casting spells.


I will maintain that 4e increases the importance of movement and positioning and team/past turn's power synergy while making individual actions more potent to replace the fact that many small things can be done at once in 3e. Beyond this point I think it's a matter of taste as to what's more interesting- so I'll stop there.




And no, it really doesn't matter what you use, because you use all your encounter powers every time to immobilize someone, then you spam at wills.

There is no strategy because every attack does pretty much the same thing.

When you consider any special (resource limited) attack in any RPG EVER has been either
1. Hit much harder than usual
2. Cause some special effect
3. Some combination of the two.

Only then can you say everything does the same thing. Considering your feelings so far I think this is another point that's no longer fruitful discussing with you.

[Akimbo]

Most of this isn't even worth discussing like your insistence that just ignoring the game makes it an awesome game, but this just shows an inability to understand what I am talking about due to being constrained by 4e thinking.


If you want to teleport really far, you use teleport rituals or "Party traveled to other country without incident." If you want to teleport to impress somebody, I don't see how 30 feet (default range of eladrin teleport) doesn't get the message across. There's a new magic item coming out that lets you teleport your walk speed at will.

One does not do things to impress people, one does things in impressive ways.

Look Ma I can teleport is pathetic.

But when you need something right now, having someone who can teleport to their house, grab it, and then teleport back in 9 seconds, no matter what it is you need is impressive.

Being able to teleport in order to do things is cool. Being able to teleport a distance that doesn't even get you over the average chasm is pathetic.


Now, where do the masses of Collosal Bolts come from, and how does one carry them?

You buy them for 1gp, then you put them on a pack horse, or hand them to someone else, or carry them. Colossal bolts are fit for a Colossal creature firing a Crossbow, not actually Colossal size.

[Kompera]

Yes, brilliantly . . .You did start it, snide "compliments" issued sarcastically is a fine way for you to end it, I suppose.

Look, Kompera, I'm honestly curious. What is your problem with 3.5? Did you have a bad campaign, or something? Every time I try to explain how we manage to play 3.5 and still have fun, you respond with more 'proof' of how terrible and horrible and unplayable 3.5 is, which mostly comes down to long theoretical arguments of questionable relevance. It's actually counterproductive if anything. Telling someone over and over and over again that their game system sucks is NOT a good way to convince them to switch to your one. Do you want people to dislike 4e? Because you're going the right way about it.
- Saph
So lovely. You give a grudging praise in your prior post "I appreciate that you're disagreeing with me without insulting me", and then follow up with a huge pile of straw man arguments completely misrepresenting anything I've said and designed to try to make me look bad. Starting out with the word "honestly" is another fine tactic. Bravo.

There went the comity of the thread...

Every time I try to explain how we manage to play 3.5 and still have fun, you respond with more 'proof' of how terrible and horrible and unplayable 3.5 is, which mostly comes down to long theoretical arguments of questionable relevance.
If you have explained how you manage to play 3,5 and have fun, and I've replied that this is impossible because 3.5 is terrible and horrible and unplayable, I'd like to see that post. Or I'd like an apology from you for this rank misrepresentation.

I like 3.5, or at least a heavily modified and limited version of 3.5. I've said so many times, in many different posts. I'm playing in a game of it now, and have been for the past several years (we are all adults with jobs, spouses, most with kids, and all with many other interests other than D&D, so we meet once per month only). It's going fine. But it's going fine not because the game is balanced out of the box. It's going fine because the GM has looked at some things some players wanted to do and had to say "Nope". It works because the GM is experienced and is able to judge what will throw his campaign out of balance. These things are not universal, unfortunately, and they don't come in any 3.x game "out of the box".

But liking this campaign it doesn't make 3.5 a good system. The game system does suck , because it requires a huge amount of GM house ruling to make it work. So for those who have made it work for them, my accolades. You're not playing 3.5, even if you're enjoying a game loosely based on the 3.5 printed rule set. For those who would prefer a game they could play by the printed rule set (you know, the reasonable expectation of anyone who sits down to play a game with a group of friends) and not have it thrown off balance because the GM isn't named Oberoni, you might want to look at 4e.

What is your problem with 3.5? Did you have a bad campaign, or something?Yes. Several, in fact. Although the word "campaign" does not apply, because I don't stick around bad games due to the aforementioned time constraints. I haven't seen Pun Pun, but I've seen plenty of Wizard cheese and overpowered domination of games by casters, and huge imbalances between the players of the same levels. All in 3.x. In years past and AD&D campaigns, once the player level reached 8th or so, casters pulled ahead noticeably. But without the vast array of splat books and metamagic Feats and other mechanics changes brought about by 3, the Wizards were never able to completely replace the class roles of the other players.

Telling someone over and over and over again that their game system sucks is NOT a good way to convince them to switch to your one. Do you want people to dislike 4e? Because you're going the right way about it.Another fine set of misrepresentations.

I have never started a forum topic called "Why you hate 3.x", "Flaws with 3.x", or anything like that. And I've never tried to convince anyone that they should be playing 4e over 3.5 or any other version of D&D.

But look at the topics of this thread. "Why does everyone think spellcasters destroy martial classes?" I didn't make this thread. I didn't pay the OP to post it. But I know the answer to his question. It's because 3.x is demonstrably unbalanced towards spellcasters. You will not find this forum topic: "[4e] Why does everyone think spellcasters destroy martial classes?" Can you explain to me why? I think you can. If you can't, I refer you to the posts in this thread where some other posters demonstrated it using 3.5 mechanics.

You try to make it sound like I'm crusading against 3.x, when in fact all of my posts are reactive, not proactive. If anything, I'm crusading in defense of 4e. I don't attack 3.x unless it is in reply to attacks on 4e, pointing out the flaws in the attackers positions. And I have said many times before in many threads that I am completely comfortable and accepting of any person who says "I just don't like 4e". I only think it's appropriate to reply if they say "I don't like 4e because of X", and I think that X is better represented in 4e, or more poorly represented in 3.5 and I can point that out using the mechanics differences between the two game systems and other facts.

[Kompera]

They shouldn't which is why those other classes should be made cool and awesome, instead of turning all the classes into crap.
That would be a fine solution, except you'd still have to convince those who feel that non-magical characters shouldn't be able to do extraordinary things that your version of 4e doesn't suck.

[Akimbo]

That would be a fine solution, except you'd still have to convince those who feel that non-magical characters shouldn't be able to do extraordinary things that your version of 4e doesn't suck.

I object to you calling it my version of 4e, since 4e is largely unsalvageable if you want to play powerful characters.

My version of 3.5 in which the Fighter/Barbarian/Monk are redone to not suck already largely exists.

[Kompera]

According to one definition of balance. Another definition of balance is whether the party is balanced against the challanges it faces.

I don't see why it would matter if the classes are balanced against each other if the game isn't ruined. I wouldn't want to play a game that balanced the classes against each other just for the sake of balance.You're correct, of course.

But his brings us back to the oft asked, never answered question:

If the game has imbalance between the classes as a default, and if that's supposed to be ok because in some way the party as a whole is balanced against the challenges it faces, why would any player choose to play the less powerful classes? Why wouldn't all the players select the more powerful class, which, as you describe it, would only mean that the GM would have to balance the game challenges against this new level of character potency?

Why would anyone select to play a character class with less potency and thus a lesser ability to do meaningful things in the game?

I think the forums needs a new trope/theorem/whatever. That way instead of typing this out all the time people can just reference the trope.

Just as "3.5 is not a broken system, because my GM manages to control all the possible ways that Wizards would dominate just fine!" can simply be replied to with "Oberoni fallacy", "The game can be balanced even if the players/characters are not" can simply be replied to with "<foo> fallacy."

[Sinfire Titan]

So you're saying that anyone who plays casters needs to spend around $160 (American) to play correctly? No thank you. As for other people that play Core only? Unless I run a campaign that heavily uses dragons, I always play Core only. Why? Because I'm not rolling in discretionary funds like apparently everyone else.

So, I'll reiterate. Make a 28-point core-only wizard that can have 4 or 5 spell slots that doesn't depend on the party being absolutely dedicated to keeping him alive.

He's saying anyone with the right resources {Scrubbed} can play an optimized and solid character.

As for 1st level Mage VS Fighter: Sleep, Color Spray, and Grease. You lose over 70% of the time to those spells unless you are a Ranger, in which case Grease doesn't hit as often, or you are an Elf (which negates Sleep).

[Kletian999]

One does not do things to impress people, one does things in impressive ways.

Look Ma I can teleport is pathetic.

But when you need something right now, having someone who can teleport to their house, grab it, and then teleport back in 9 seconds, no matter what it is you need is impressive.

Being able to teleport in order to do things is cool. Being able to teleport a distance that doesn't even get you over the average chasm is pathetic.


Well, I had misread your intention thinking you were trying to impress NPCs for some kind of intimidate bonus or just for fun- I apoligize for that. I will say that free long range teleporting is a story wrecking power, which is why it's high level, expensive, and "usually" portal regulated, but I think we can leave this one to personal disagreement as well.

I will close (thank you for the debate by the way) with a restatement that reflavoring a power without changing it's mechanical effect is not ignoring the system, but a benefit of the system's flexibility. Maybe with future expansions 4e can fit into what you want from an RPG. See you around the forum.

[Kompera]

I object to you calling it my version of 4e, since 4e is largely unsalvageable if you want to play powerful characters.

My version of 3.5 in which the Fighter/Barbarian/Monk are redone to not suck already largely exists.
Not in any sense of "redone to the point where class balance has been established" does this exist.

That's why I called it "your version of 4e", because any remake of 3.5 which establishes class balance is no longer 3.5, and is the next version. So your version of 4e isn't referring to you making changes to the existing 4e, it is a hypothetical 3.5 revision which has changed the game to the point where a new version number should be applied.

[Jayabalard]

Why would anyone select to play a character class with less potency and thus a lesser ability to do meaningful things in the game?Why wouldn't they? Less potency and lesser ability doesn't mean that they can't contribute at all, and as long as they can contribute I don't see a problem.

Not everyone wants to be Superman, some people would prefer to play Aquaman or Batman. Plenty of people would rather play Chewbacca or Han Solo than Luke Skywalker. There are people who'd rather play Karrin Murphey than Harry Dresden, or would rather play Kheldar than Belgarion, and so on.

[Kompera]

Why wouldn't they? Less potency and lesser ability doesn't mean that they can't contribute at all, and as long as they can contribute I don't see a problem.

Not everyone wants to be Superman, some people would prefer to play Aquaman or Batman. Plenty of people would rather play Chewbacca or Han Solo than Luke Skywalker. There are people who'd rather play Karrin Murphey than Harry Dresden, or would rather play Kheldar than Belgarion, and so on.
Yeah, this has been gone over again and again also. I need to make a Wikki of answers to frequently made fallacious arguments, so I can just cut and paste.

Unless a person is playing with their little brother and still gets to beat him up and dominate over him in anything they do together, D&D is played by a group of peers.

While a person might freely choose to play a lesser character, one with little impact on the game, this should be a choice they opt for consciously. But unless the player knows in advance that by writing "Fighter" on their character sheet that this will, after months of play and many invested hours, result in them being far less capable compared to the other players sitting around the table with them, this is not their choice. It is an end result thrust upon them by a horribly unbalanced game system.

Also, you give many nice examples. But they fail to capture the essence of the situation as it is relevant to D&D 3.5. Someone might enjoy playing Chewbakka or Han Solo rather than Luke Skywalker, because in that setting both Chewbakka and Han Solo have abilities which Luke does not. In out of the box D&D 3.5 the Wizard has all of his own powers, and can duplicate or exceed any power of any non-casting class, in effect if not in deed. Far fewer people are interested in playing a complete non-entity than are interested in playing a character with an interesting niche role which no other member of the party can best them at.

The Oberoni GM can prevent this by expending many hours of work or by making many arbitrary decisions which attempt to curb the potency of the casters. The players playing casters can try to prevent this by dumbing down their actions in the game and scaling back their capabilities deliberately. Yes, yes, I've heard all those responses also. But that does nothing to counter the fact that the game is broken out of the box, and requires a lot of very careful management to make work fairly for all of the players.

[Akimbo]

Not in any sense of "redone to the point where class balance has been established" does this exist.

That's why I called it "your version of 4e", because any remake of 3.5 which establishes class balance is no longer 3.5, and is the next version. So your version of 4e isn't referring to you making changes to the existing 4e, it is a hypothetical 3.5 revision which has changed the game to the point where a new version number should be applied.

Except that it is not a new edition because I have never made a first edition, nor is it 4e, because it explicitly uses the 3.5 Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Spellcasting mechanics/Item rules/Rules Compendium/ect.

It is a 3.5 supplementary product with a variant class features for fighters, Monks, Barbarians, Paladins, Knights, ect. It still uses all the 3.5 rules, and is perfectly compatible with all 3.5 material. Why you would want to play a PHB Fighter instead of the variant is beyond me, but you could.

I it is not different enough to be a new edition, unless you think that Core 3.5 and 3.5 with ToB are different enough to be a different editions.

[Jade_Tarem]

Yeah, this has been gone over again and again also. I need to make a Wikki of answers to frequently made fallacious arguments, so I can just cut and paste.

Unless a person is playing with their little brother and still gets to beat him up and dominate over him in anything they do together, D&D is played by a group of peers.

While a person might freely choose to play a lesser character, one with little impact on the game, this should be a choice they opt for consciously. But unless the player knows in advance that by writing "Fighter" on their character sheet that this will, after months of play and many invested hours, result in them being far less capable compared to the other players sitting around the table with them, this is not their choice. It is an end result thrust upon them by a horribly unbalanced game system.

Also, you give many nice examples. But they fail to capture the essence of the situation as it is relevant to D&D 3.5. Someone might enjoy playing Chewbakka or Han Solo rather than Luke Skywalker, because in that setting both Chewbakka and Han Solo have abilities which Luke does not. In out of the box D&D 3.5 the Wizard has all of his own powers, and can duplicate or exceed any power of any non-casting class, in effect if not in deed. Far fewer people are interested in playing a complete non-entity than are interested in playing a character with an interesting niche role which no other member of the party can best them at.

The Oberoni GM can prevent this by expending many hours of work or by making many arbitrary decisions which attempt to curb the potency of the casters. The players playing casters can try to prevent this by dumbing down their actions in the game and scaling back their capabilities deliberately. Yes, yes, I've heard all those responses also. But that does nothing to counter the fact that the game is broken out of the box, and requires a lot of very careful management to make work fairly for all of the players.

I am quite obviously not the Oberoni GM, but I had a long-running campaign that featured the following characters, played from level 1 to 16:

Initial Set (Additions and Deaths not listed in chronological order - the ranger was actually last to die, for instance):

Rogue
Ranger (Died in battle with a death knight)
Barbarian

Added over the course of the campaign:

Rogue II
Barbarian II (Died spectacularly from natural 1 on save vs. massive damage)
Rogue III
Wizard (Tortured to death for repeated transgressions against Lord Highfire)
Wizard II
Ninja (Mauled to death by greater demon)
Druid (Recalled by Gaia)
Cleric (Written out of existance by Astral Imprisonment)

Some of these were played by the same people, obviously. The final party included:

Barbarian (Bear Warrior/ Frenzied Berserker)
Rogue (Gunslinger-type)
Rogue II (Melee -Focused)
Rogue III (Legendary Leader. Had followers and everything!)
Wizard II (Straight Wizard, Specialized in Transmutation)

Of all of the above, can you guess which one zipped around, accomplishing everything and making the rest of the party useless? The correct answer is "none of them." In fact, Barbarian had most of the good highlights near the end. I did not force this on the party. I did not contrive plot elements to reign in the wizard. We played mostly by RAW, with almost everything allowed.

This doesn't prove that melee and casting are balanced - far from it. But if your caster players are willing to cooperate with you (The late-game wizard frequently stocked up on insane buff spells, then used magic jar and those buffs to enhance the party with horrifying results - had he *not* done that, if in the final fight he had tried to win it by himself by spell spamming, everyone would have died horribly), then everyone can be awesome, and have a great game experience. Those rogues, and the barbarian, were all extremely creative, both in terms of tactical thinking as well as roleplaying, and that lent extra vitality and power to the characters than no amount of iron-shod balance-driven nerfing will ever accomplish.

[Kompera]

No one is angry that they can't be overpowered broken wizards anymore. No one is angry that the broken spels are gone. People are complaining that the flavorful and unique spells are gone or thrown into the ritual pile.I find those two things to be equal in essence. I'd remove the word "angry" though. I don't claim that people are angry that there are less spells in 4e, but I haven't seen any arguments for those spells to remain in 4e which don't equate to "I enjoyed that level of power which they offer me in 3.5" Some folks call it "utility" or "flavor" or other similar other words. But distilled down it all means the same: My character, the Wizard, is less capable, and therefore I am unhappy. And since that capability is what sets the Wizard above the non-casting classes, then it does distill down again into (to use your words) I'm no longer overpowered and broken when I play my Wizard.

Wizards are only broken in a system in which the Wizard is allowed to become broken.That is an amusing statement. And I agree with you. the D&D 3.5 system is one in which Wizards are allowed to become broken. That system can be modified to attempt to prevent this, but that doesn't make the prior sentence untrue. Modify the system and you have a new system. It's not the same one. The people who say that they are playing in a fair and balanced D&D 3.5 game are probably not actually playing D&D 3.5. They are playing a game which is loosely based on D&D 3.5 but which has been highly modified from the rules as written.

A spell that does 3d6 damage and stuns for a round with a 50/50 chance to save does not a de-buff spell make. That's a damage spell with a minor debuff attached.You have a very narrow and specific definition of "debuff", then. And by adding the qualifier "minor" to the word debuff does it really make it different? I have a minor role in a Broadway play. According to you, I'm not in a Broadway play at all. But that's not how it works.
What is more of a debuff: A 10 minute -2 penalty to hit. This is probably within your definition of debuff, I hope. Or a one round stun effect?

Think about it a bit. Within a 8 round melee the -2 to hit penalty might make the foe miss once or twice. The stun makes him miss once, automatically. It also prevents him from moving. It lets your group surround him, or run away from him, as the situation warrants.

I'll take the stun every day. In fact this is one of the few valid complaints I have seen against 4e, which were based on mechanics rather than opinion. In 4e it is much easier to inflict a one round stun over and over on a foe, making solo encounters less challenging.

If you think my opinion of a debuff is too small, than we may have a disagreement, but I don't think you can really say that damage dealing is the most important part of powers in 4ed.Did you state that backwards or am I misunderstanding you? I thought you were lamenting the supposed lack of your debuff casting character in 4e, which would lead you to say instead that damage dealing is the most important part of 4e powers, and not that this can't be said. Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your point.

I'll argue that the full-flavor of the wizard has been retained. I'll also argue that game balance should ever be judged in 'a vacuum'. If you are judging in a vacuum, than you are eliminating the primary drawback of being a wizard. Yes, with advance knowledge of a situation and have time to prepare the right spells, and that is the only situation you have to deal with, a wizard is very unbalanced, and will ruin your game. However, on an average of 4+ encounters a day, factor in a few spell slots for general utility spells, with a few unused (misguessed) spell slots and a wizard isn't all that powerful. It's the Schroeigdner's wizard belief. A wizard doesn't have access to every spell at all times.No, you're right. The Wizard doesn't have access to all spells at all times. I haven't said any of that, or based any of my arguments on that. I haven't even gone to the lengths which some of the other posters have in describing their Wizard builds, with an array of races, Feats, and spells pulled together from many sources ending up with their 1st level Wizard having (as an estimation since I'm not going to look it back up) 5 1st level spells, 1 (or was it 2) 2nd level spells, and Cantrips which can hurl huge bolts or spread sickening caltrops. That is a possibility within the rules, but it's just as easy to show Wizard domination with PHB races and a standard stat array.

I would set a party of 5 "plain Jane" Wizards up against any typical set of 4 1st level encounters per day, and I'd wager, not that they would completely dominate and take no damage or casualties, but merely that they would perform better than any party of 5 "plain Jane" Fighters. Or even against a party of 5 mixed classes. 3 cantrips and 3 1st spells per day (very common assuming either specialization or an 18 INT) per Wizard makes for 15 1st level spells and 15 cantrips. Easily the equal of 4 standard encounters, and should outperform any other party composition soundly in either defeating or avoiding the encounters.

[Jade_Tarem]

I find those two things to be equal in essence. I'd remove the word "angry" though. I don't claim that people are angry that there are less spells in 4e, but I haven't seen any arguments for those spells to remain in 4e which don't equate to "I enjoyed that level of power which they offer me in 3.5" Some folks call it "utility" or "flavor" or other similar other words. But distilled down it all means the same: My character, the Wizard, is less capable, and therefore I am unhappy. And since that capability is what sets the Wizard above the non-casting classes, then it does distill down again into (to use your words) I'm no longer overpowered and broken when I play my Wizard.

Unless you've developed the ability to read the minds of people you don't know from hundreds of miles away, this statement makes no sense. There is (or at least can be) a definite difference between an interesting spell and an overpowered one. I think this statement stems from the common misconception that people who like to play wizards are all scheming, powergaming munchkins out to ruin the lives of other players by optimizing the bejeezus out of their build. This is not true. It's like the opposite of the Oberoni Fallacy - just because something can be made to be unbalanced doesn't mean that it will be every time, or that everyone who disagrees with you wants it to be. Trying to dismiss all of the arguments for making a more interesting wizard as just munchkin fanboys trying to be superior to everyone else is a rather weak debate tactic - and trying to tell me what I think is an even worse one. Maybe "utility" and "flavor" actually mean that they want the wizard to be different. Right now, the 4e wizard can't do much of anything that can't be easily replicated by another class. Damage? Everyone can do it. Ritual magic? Everyone can do it. Battlefield control? Closer, but a very weak premise for a class, especially when 90% of the spells have little or nothing to do with control.


That is an amusing statement. And I agree with you. the D&D 3.5 system is one in which Wizards are allowed to become broken. That system can be modified to attempt to prevent this, but that doesn't make the prior sentence untrue. Modify the system and you have a new system. It's not the same one. The people who say that they are playing in a fair and balanced D&D 3.5 game are probably not actually playing D&D 3.5. They are playing a game which is loosely based on D&D 3.5 but which has been highly modified from the rules as written.

And now you display remarkable clairvoyant powers to go with your telepathy. See my previous post. We were playing 3.5 DnD, and the only alterations were the banning of Candles of Invocation and Nightsticks - and I very slightly improved the Arcane Archer PrC. To say that that isn't 3.5 DnD is like saying that missing a note while performing Beethoven's 9th Symphony makes it your special version of Beethoven's work.


You have a very narrow and specific definition of "debuff", then. And by adding the qualifier "minor" to the word debuff does it really make it different? I have a minor role in a Broadway play. According to you, I'm not in a Broadway play at all. But that's not how it works.
What is more of a debuff: A 10 minute -2 penalty to hit. This is probably within your definition of debuff, I hope. Or a one round stun effect?

Think about it a bit. Within a 8 round melee the -2 to hit penalty might make the foe miss once or twice. The stun makes him miss once, automatically. It also prevents him from moving. It lets your group surround him, or run away from him, as the situation warrants.

I'll take the stun every day. In fact this is one of the few valid complaints I have seen against 4e, which were based on mechanics rather than opinion. In 4e it is much easier to inflict a one round stun over and over on a foe, making solo encounters less challenging.

I think his actual lament is the more common one: "I don't care if it's balanced or not, but why the hell am I being pigeonholed into Blaster Casting? What if I wanted to use my magic to put a curse on you, or, like, summon something? You're telling me that I have lots of neat ways to blow things up, but what can I use my magic to do that's magical?"



No, you're right. The Wizard doesn't have access to all spells at all times. I haven't said any of that, or based any of my arguments on that. I haven't even gone to the lengths which some of the other posters have in describing their Wizard builds, with an array of races, Feats, and spells pulled together from many sources ending up with their 1st level Wizard having (as an estimation since I'm not going to look it back up) 5 1st level spells, 1 (or was it 2) 2nd level spells, and Cantrips which can hurl huge bolts or spread sickening caltrops. That is a possibility within the rules, but it's just as easy to show Wizard domination with PHB races and a standard stat array.

I would set a party of 5 "plain Jane" Wizards up against any typical set of 4 1st level encounters per day, and I'd wager, not that they would completely dominate and take no damage or casualties, but merely that they would perform better than any party of 5 "plain Jane" Fighters. Or even against a party of 5 mixed classes. 3 cantrips and 3 1st spells per day (very common assuming either specialization or an 18 INT) per Wizard makes for 15 1st level spells and 15 cantrips. Easily the equal of 4 standard encounters, and should outperform any other party composition soundly in either defeating or avoiding the encounters.

Honestly, I think that at level 1, 5 Rangers would outperform 5 wizards. It's the whole "pincushion effect" thing. Also, 5 rangers would be able to outlast them as well.

[Occasional Sage]

You want that at first level? Because every class dies alone at first level. First level 3.5 characters are dangerously, almost laughably fragile. Even a raging Con 18 Barbarian (so effective Con 22) has only 18 hp at 1st level, and 6 of those are temp hp that go away at the end of his rage. Which he can do exactly once. A couple of orcs can still kill him easily.

Everyone dies alone. Always.

[Shosuro Ishii]

You have a very narrow and specific definition of "debuff", then. And by adding the qualifier "minor" to the word debuff does it really make it different? I have a minor role in a Broadway play. According to you, I'm not in a Broadway play at all. But that's not how it works.
What is more of a debuff: A 10 minute -2 penalty to hit. This is probably within your definition of debuff, I hope. Or a one round stun effect?

Think about it a bit. Within a 8 round melee the -2 to hit penalty might make the foe miss once or twice. The stun makes him miss once, automatically. It also prevents him from moving. It lets your group surround him, or run away from him, as the situation warrants.

I'll take the stun every day. In fact this is one of the few valid complaints I have seen against 4e, which were based on mechanics rather than opinion. In 4e it is much easier to inflict a one round stun over and over on a foe, making solo encounters less challenging.


Adressing this key issue:

A De-buff is a spell that first and foremost debilitates my opponent and does damage as a secondart or tertiary effect. Such spells are few and far between in 4ed. 90+% of spells are deal XdX damage to a number of targets and apply a minor or non-unique status penalty to the monster for a short period of time. Interestingly enough almost all controller and striker powers follow that exact formula as well.

A stun effect can be a de-buff eqsue spell, but a spell that is 'cha vs. AC, 3d8 damage plus stun the target for one round, saving throw ends' is not a de-buff spell, it's a blaster spell with a minor status effect thrown on so it can pretend like it isn't identical to every other blaster spell that does 3d8 damage.

In 4ed, I can not play a de-buffing caster. I can play a blasting caster and if I choose my powers wisely, I can get access to a number of minor, tacked on de-buffs. To adress your anaolgy, it's more like you're a used car salesman who happens to get a walk on role in a broadway musical. You're technically on broadway, but it's a minor thing at best and when it comes down to it, you're a used car salesman first and foremost.

In regards to my point on damage. To be clear, my view: 'In 4ed combat, as a striker/controller class, your first and most important concern when choosing powers is how much damage will it deal. Everything else (de-buffs, stuns, marks, etc.) is of secondary importance. I personally dislike this aspect of the game'

[ericgrau]

In regard to the wizard having no need for the other party members, see also latest comic and the discussion thread on it.

[Knaight]

If it's just "Change shape of a rock" then chiseling it down magically will cover any case you want it smaller and illusions will cover when you only care about appearences. The only case this doesn't cover is making a rock larger than it is when it's structure matters: an artificer's conjured force bridges and stairs would fit those purposes. Part of taking powers "away" from wizards was in order to give them to other classes so they had more to do.

Stone shape lets you move a rock beyond its normal dimensions, while retaining the same volume. Its one of the cool spells taken away, along with grease(which admittedly was pretty powerful, but thats because of the whole 5 ranks in balance or flat footed thing, which if taken away makes the spell reasonable.). Spells like that made the wizard interesting, but they also made the wizard too powerful, and since possible magical backfire that screws the wizard up(stun, damage, whatever) wasn't used, they were balanced differently.

[Kyeudo]

In regard to the wizard having no need for the other party members, see also latest comic and the discussion thread on it.

First, OotS is a comic that repeatedly bends the rules for the purposes of comedy. Not relevant to a discussion of the power of casters by the RAW.

Second, V is a blaster mage specialized in Evocation, who apparently banned Conjuration and Enchantment. In other words, V is playing the opposite of an optimized caster.

[BRC]

In regard to the wizard having no need for the other party members, see also latest comic and the discussion thread on it.

Repost from another thread

Invisibility makes hide checks obsolete, Disguise Self makes anything but disguise-speced rouges obsolete in terms of disguise, Knock makes open lock obsolete, Summon Monster makes finding and removing traps obsolete, Detect secret doors, Find Traps, and detect snares and pits makes the search skill kinda pointless, Discern Lies makes Sense Motive pointless, Charm Person and suggestion handle most times diplomacy would be useful.

[Kletian999]

Adressing this key issue:

A De-buff is a spell that first and foremost debilitates my opponent and does damage as a secondart or tertiary effect. Such spells are few and far between in 4ed. 90+% of spells are deal XdX damage to a number of targets and apply a minor or non-unique status penalty to the monster for a short period of time. Interestingly enough almost all controller and striker powers follow that exact formula as well.

A stun effect can be a de-buff eqsue spell, but a spell that is 'cha vs. AC, 3d8 damage plus stun the target for one round, saving throw ends' is not a de-buff spell, it's a blaster spell with a minor status effect thrown on so it can pretend like it isn't identical to every other blaster spell that does 3d8 damage.

In 4ed, I can not play a de-buffing caster. I can play a blasting caster and if I choose my powers wisely, I can get access to a number of minor, tacked on de-buffs. To adress your anaolgy, it's more like you're a used car salesman who happens to get a walk on role in a broadway musical. You're technically on broadway, but it's a minor thing at best and when it comes down to it, you're a used car salesman first and foremost.

In regards to my point on damage. To be clear, my view: 'In 4ed combat, as a striker/controller class, your first and most important concern when choosing powers is how much damage will it deal. Everything else (de-buffs, stuns, marks, etc.) is of secondary importance. I personally dislike this aspect of the game'

The idea behind giving all debuff spells at least some damage was to improve cooperation between the debuffers and damage dealers. If X character can only debuff without damage, then the logical end state for combats is that either resisted debuffs meant he did nothing a turn or eventually he's cast all his debuffs and now has the wait for the monsters to die. By causing at least some (normally under level appropriate) damage it helps bring about the victory condition faster. In the old ways, since various wizard spells were basically instant kills, HP damage was irrelevant to them and any "striker damage" done the wizard's target would be wasted once the kill effect landed.

[Akimbo]

In regard to the wizard having no need for the other party members, see also latest comic and the discussion thread on it.

{Scrubbed}

You do realize that everyone in the world recognizes that V is the exact opposite of a well played Wizard, since he has never once cast a single offensive spell that didn't deal damage, banned conjuration, and plays largely like a 2e Wizard, where damage was actually a decent specialty.

[Jayabalard]

I find those two things to be equal in essence. I'd remove the word "angry" though. I don't claim that people are angry that there are less spells in 4e, but I haven't seen any arguments for those spells to remain in 4e which don't equate to "I enjoyed that level of power which they offer me in 3.5" Some folks call it "utility" or "flavor" or other similar other words. But distilled down it all means the same: My character, the Wizard, is less capable, and therefore I am unhappy. And since that capability is what sets the Wizard above the non-casting classes, then it does distill down again into (to use your words) I'm no longer overpowered and broken when I play my Wizard.Perhaps you should stop overgeneralizing people's arguments so that they're easier to dismiss. When you do that, of course it looks like no one actually has a point.

I dislike the fact that wizards have lost that utility and flavor. It doesn't have anything to do with my character losing power (since I don't play wizards).

[Knaight]

That and there are lots of ways to balance stuff without taking out all the cool spells. Magic backfire is always fun, although it requires some GM adjudication. But the thought of a spellcaster with a wand of grease, screwing up the spell and trying to hold onto the wand, as it keeps slipping, accidentally throwing it across the room when they wave it(and cast), and such is hilarious.

[Jade_Tarem]

Repost from another thread

Invisibility makes hide checks obsolete, Disguise Self makes anything but disguise-speced rouges obsolete in terms of disguise, Knock makes open lock obsolete, Summon Monster makes finding and removing traps obsolete, Detect secret doors, Find Traps, and detect snares and pits makes the search skill kinda pointless, Discern Lies makes Sense Motive pointless, Charm Person and suggestion handle most times diplomacy would be useful.

With the exception of Invisibility and Charm, I'd rather not have those spells cluttering up my spellbook when I could be filling it with better things and letting the rogue and bard do what their supposed to. Remember - in a party, the wizard's job isn't to make the rogue and the fighter obsolete, the wizard's job is to do what the rogue and the fighter can't.

I would rather have memorized Greater Mage Hand and a bonus Magic Missile, for instance, than Find Traps and Detect Secret Doors - I am quite content to let the party rogue find the traps and detect the secret doors. What the rogue can't do, however, is pull a chunk of valuable mithril from inside a pool of deadly acid, and with Greater Mage Hand, I can retrieve it without taking damage (and by the way, Kompera, that's an example of a spell that is interesting without being overpowered - and note that the entire party benefits when I cast it). I might memorize knock in case we run into a door that's just plain too high a DC for the rogue to pick, or if there's a door that we need to open in a hurry, but my 1 knock isn't going to make him superfluous...

[Kompera]

That and there are lots of ways to balance stuff without taking out all the cool spells. Magic backfire is always fun, although it requires some GM adjudication. But the thought of a spellcaster with a wand of grease, screwing up the spell and trying to hold onto the wand, as it keeps slipping, accidentally throwing it across the room when they wave it(and cast), and such is hilarious.This is yet another oft posed "solution" type to the issue of the overpowered nature of 3.5 magic which deserves a wiki entry to make it easy to cut and paste.

The drawback solution. I've heard "Wild Magic", "backfire", and a few other descriptions. They all use the same basic mechanic: Magic is too powerful, but rather than balance magic we'll give it some kind of drawback. Maybe the spell backfires. Maybe there is some kind of Wild Magic table the GM will roll on to see what happens. There are other similar options for this sort of thing.

Here is where the issue with this "solution" lies: You establish one of two results. Either the Wizard is lucky and his magic works as printed in the rules, which leaves magic as being overpowered (and this is implicitly admitted by those who offer up The Drawback Solution, as if magic were balanced just fine there would be no need for any such modification to the rules), or the Wizard is not lucky, and his brain explodes. Oversimplified, but that's what it comes down to. You create a binary situation: Wizard dominates as usual, or Wizard sucks it up somehow.

Not a good game design, not a good solution.

[turkishproverb]

With the exception of Invisibility and Charm, I'd rather not have those spells cluttering up my spellbook when I could be filling it with better things and letting the rogue and bard do what their supposed to. Remember - in a party, the wizard's job isn't to make the rogue and the fighter obsolete, the wizard's job is to do what the rogue and the fighter can't.

I would rather have memorized Greater Mage Hand and a bonus Magic Missile, for instance, than Find Traps and Detect Secret Doors - I am quite content to let the party rogue find the traps and detect the secret doors. What the rogue can't do, however, is pull a chunk of valuable mithril from inside a pool of deadly acid, and with Greater Mage Hand, I can retrieve it without taking damage (and by the way, Kompera, that's an example of a spell that is interesting without being overpowered - and note that the entire party benefits when I cast it). I might memorize knock in case we run into a door that's just plain too high a DC for the rogue to pick, or if there's a door that we need to open in a hurry, but my 1 knock isn't going to make him superfluous...

Wow. Quoted for truth. I've always wondered why people think a mage would waste his power doing some of those things if someone else could, leaving him where he didn't have to dirty his metaphysical hands.

[Jade_Tarem]

This is yet another oft posed "solution" type to the issue of the overpowered nature of 3.5 magic which deserves a wiki entry to make it easy to cut and paste.

As a mental excercise, instead of dismissing an entire concept and patronizing those talking about it, try and see if you can improve on it. Remember, unhelpful criticism like this proves nothing, costs nothing, requires no skill or effort, and does nothing to improve any situation.


Not a good game design, not a good solution.

No, it's not, but then, you didn't exactly try very hard to make it a good game design or a good solution. Also, your analysis includes an either/or falacy. Knaight is running on the principle of "additional randomness tends to hurt PCs" - a principle that is correct, most of the time. That in and of itself is not enough, however - because as you pointed out, a swing towards extremes doesn't really fix the problem. Then you gave up on the idea and started talking about how you wished that there was a tool to aid you (the messiah of correct rules interpretation) in educating the ignorant, unwashed masses (us, apparently) who so frequently waste your time with our laughable attempts at making a good thing better.

Perhaps magic features a cost associated with it - and maybe an inherent danger for volatile or rushed magic. The cost would be fixed, and perhaps even heavy.

For instance, let's say that virtually any non-"housekeeping" spell requires an expensive material component - and the higher level the spell, the more expensive it is. In fact, for the most egregious spells, the material component will be it's own magic item, which can be found as loot like any other magic item. We'll say that Time Stop not only requires a ninth-level spell slot, but also a "time crystal" - a major magic item, with it's own special abilities! In fact, the time crystal will also be a focus for slow and haste, allowing you to cast those spell as long as you have one, but once you cast time stop you'll need another one to cast any of those spells. Not so keen on casting it now, are you? Might want to save it for an emergency...

In fact, many of the spells in DnD could benefit from being made much more expensive and even more powerful - timestop as a party buff that allowed for physical attacks (no coup de grace) to be made against enemies is much more amusing, I think, and actually elevates the rest of the group in power with respect to the wizard, since they can kill things inside a friendly time stop and he can't.

And side effects can be fun too. Accumulated unfixable subdual damage. Contracting magical diseases. Perhaps shapechange has a chance to afflict you with a bad case of lycanthropy? Maybe ethereal jaunt sometimes just comes back at random for a day or so after you cast it? Maybe astral projection really pisses off the denizens of that plane? These things all limit abuse of magic, and make the game more interesting, not less interesting, for everyone.

[Sholos]

You buy them for 1gp, then you put them on a pack horse, or hand them to someone else, or carry them. Colossal bolts are fit for a Colossal creature firing a Crossbow, not actually Colossal size.

So, how big are they? Where exactly do you find anyone to make them for you? Basically, this is just such a ridiculous idea that I don't really see any DM allowing it except in a game where funniness is encouraged.

________________________

I love Jade_Tarem's idea of expensive components.

[Thurbane]

*stuff*
...but obviously your experiences don't count, because in EVERYONE else's games, Batman Wizards are lurking around every other corner. :smalltongue:

I tried to make a similar point earlier in this thread (or was it another?), that in my near 3 decades of D&D I'd never seen a Wizard seriously dominate play, or seen a party of all (most) Wizard types.

Apparently if your own experiences contradict the experiences of the 3EWizHaters, they are merely an aberration, and do not reflect REAL play in any way...:smalleek:

Yeah, this has been gone over again and again also. I need to make a Wikki of answers to frequently made fallacious arguments, so I can just cut and paste.
I think you may need to revisit what the word "fallacious" actually means, because nothing in Jayabalard's post that you quoted seems to fit the bill.

[Akimbo]

So, how big are they? Where exactly do you find anyone to make them for you? Basically, this is just such a ridiculous idea that I don't really see any DM allowing it except in a game where funniness is encouraged.

You find anyone who can make regular bolts and buy them there. Though size is not exactly defined, each Crossbow bolt weighs about one and a half pounds.

[Eldariel]

Well, Colossal Heavy Crossbow deals 8d6 damage. To put it in perspective, a Ballista is merely a Huge Heavy Crossbow. A Colossal Crossbow would be two size categories larger. So the Bolts for such a Crossbow are going to be pretty effin' immense - even just Ballista "Bolts" are over a meter long. Two categories from that...they'll be longer than your horse.

[Thrud]

This is yet another oft posed "solution" type to the issue of the overpowered nature of 3.5 magic which deserves a wiki entry to make it easy to cut and paste.

The drawback solution. I've heard "Wild Magic", "backfire", and a few other descriptions. They all use the same basic mechanic: Magic is too powerful, but rather than balance magic we'll give it some kind of drawback. Maybe the spell backfires. Maybe there is some kind of Wild Magic table the GM will roll on to see what happens. There are other similar options for this sort of thing.

Here is where the issue with this "solution" lies: You establish one of two results. Either the Wizard is lucky and his magic works as printed in the rules, which leaves magic as being overpowered (and this is implicitly admitted by those who offer up The Drawback Solution, as if magic were balanced just fine there would be no need for any such modification to the rules), or the Wizard is not lucky, and his brain explodes. Oversimplified, but that's what it comes down to. You create a binary situation: Wizard dominates as usual, or Wizard sucks it up somehow.

Not a good game design, not a good solution.

Actually, this is the core mechanic for Mage, by White Wolf, my all time favorite RPG. The characters can do literally anything if they set their minds to it and have the appropriate knowledge (spheres of magic). But they suffer for breaking the laws of reality as the universe as a whole slaps them with paradox, which they pay dearly for. The characters can be virtually gods, and yet if they ever really flex their magical muscles they will be spanked by the universe. Hard. And yet you can get around it by doing things carefully and not outright breaking the laws of reality. Thus an extremely well thought out game system that is extremely fun to play, and balanced enough that Mage characters can be successfully integrated into other games in the WW family without the whole thing coming crashing to the ground.

It is an astonishingly well thought out game that has given me years of very fun game play. And it falls smack dab into the middle of something you casually dismiss as:


Not a good game design, not a good solution.

Just a thought.

[Thurbane]

Well, Colossal Heavy Crossbow deals 8d6 damage. To put it in perspective, a Ballista is merely a Huge Heavy Crossbow. A Colossal Crossbow would be two size categories larger. So the Bolts for such a Crossbow are going to be pretty effin' immense - even just Ballista "Bolts" are over a meter long. Two categories from that...they'll be longer than your horse.
Indeed - assuming a medium bolt is about 18 inches long, a colossal bolt would be 24 feet long!

[Selrahc]

Actually, this is the core mechanic for Mage, by White Wolf, my all time favorite RPG.

In fact further than that, pretty much every game by White Wolf carries drawbacks for using supernatural powers. So do many other games with a magic system(Dark Heresy or Paranoia for example have backfires for psykers and mutants).

To unilaterally dismiss the idea of magic with drawbacks as "Poor game design" is not supported by examples, since a number of very fun RPG systems do exactly that!

[Flawless]

While a person might freely choose to play a lesser character, one with little impact on the game, this should be a choice they opt for consciously. But unless the player knows in advance that by writing "Fighter" on their character sheet that this will, after months of play and many invested hours, result in them being far less capable compared to the other players sitting around the table with them, this is not their choice. It is an end result thrust upon them by a horribly unbalanced game system.

Hmmm, I don't think that's true for most people that play DnD. If you and your friends don't know about those huge imbalances your talking about and you play a fighter and your friend plays a wizard then there won't be any problems. Because wizards only become more powerful if the player has an excesive knowledge of the rules and how to use them in order to get obscenly powerful. If both of you have great knowledge of the rules then it's a concious choice ;)

Now, look at the OP. He's obviosly new here and what he thought about the balance of 3.5 is that martial classes - if anything - are more powerful than casters. That's the case with a lot of new forum members. There such threads as this one. And that has a reason: The vast majority of players (and that's the ones that don't write in forums like this one) doesn't know anything about the Batman wizard or CoDzilla. They don't see any great imbalances. Usually they tend to see the martial classes as more powerfull. It was the same for me. Before I joinded here I didn't think that wizards were any good in combat except for the occasional fireball or similar spell. But after reading here for a while I saw what's really possible to do with a caster. But that's only after reading the shared expierences and strategies of thousands of players that tries as hard as possible to make the most powerful characters in the game.

[Knaight]

The drawback solution. I've heard "Wild Magic", "backfire", and a few other descriptions. They all use the same basic mechanic: Magic is too powerful, but rather than balance magic we'll give it some kind of drawback. Maybe the spell backfires. Maybe there is some kind of Wild Magic table the GM will roll on to see what happens. There are other similar options for this sort of thing.

Here is where the issue with this "solution" lies: You establish one of two results. Either the Wizard is lucky and his magic works as printed in the rules, which leaves magic as being overpowered (and this is implicitly admitted by those who offer up The Drawback Solution, as if magic were balanced just fine there would be no need for any such modification to the rules), or the Wizard is not lucky, and his brain explodes. Oversimplified, but that's what it comes down to. You create a binary situation: Wizard dominates as usual, or Wizard sucks it up somehow.

Not a good game design, not a good solution.

First mild backfire would typically be a dramatically reduced version of the spell, along with a minor side affect. So the wizard throws his fireball, and it gets half the radius, is easier to dodge, and doesn't burn as hot. A wizard uses grease, and its much easier to balance on, not as slippery, and the wizard is going to have a bit more trouble holding on to their weapon(disarm penalty). Oh and they singed their robes with the fireball example, which would probably be noticed after throwing the grease. As for it not being good game design, it works fine when magic is supposed to be a powerful, risky force, as well as being balanced. Plus most of the wizard dominates as usual stuff comes from sequences of spells, which they won't try anyways. That and time stop, which they don't need anyways. It also works fine when magic isn't always used, and a magic character typically has magic in addition to some fighting skill, which is used for emergencies. I've seen it work really well, just because you haven't doesn't mean its not a good game design.

[Jade_Tarem]

Indeed - assuming a medium bolt is about 18 inches long, a colossal bolt would be 24 feet long!

And any weapon utilizing 24 foot long bolts brings to mind one unfortunate word: compensation. :smallamused:

[Akimbo]

Well, Colossal Heavy Crossbow deals 8d6 damage. To put it in perspective, a Ballista is merely a Huge Heavy Crossbow. A Colossal Crossbow would be two size categories larger. So the Bolts for such a Crossbow are going to be pretty effin' immense - even just Ballista "Bolts" are over a meter long. Two categories from that...they'll be longer than your horse.

Except you have no basis for the size comparison, whereas I am using the actual rules to determine it's weight.

And since a Colossal bolt weighs less then 2 pounds, you can bet it is less then 24 feet long.

Colossal creatures are 64ft tall at most, why would you think they would use a crossbow that is half their size? Are medium sized crossbows half the size of the user? No, of course not.

[Justin_Bacon]

Colossal creatures are 64ft tall at most, why would you think they would use a crossbow that is half their size? Are medium sized crossbows half the size of the user? No, of course not.

Actually, many crossbows were designed -- by necessity -- to be waist-high. They were drawn by holding one end on the ground, hooking the other to a waist-high belt, and then standing upright (using the strength of the legs to **** them).

So, yes, such crossbows would be half the height of the user.

[snoopy13a]

You do realize that everyone in the world recognizes that V is the exact opposite of a well played Wizard, since he has never once cast a single offensive spell that didn't deal damage, banned conjuration, and plays largely like a 2e Wizard, where damage was actually a decent specialty.

V is not an optimized wizard. That is true. However, "well-played" is a subjective term. Many people would argue that a traditional blaster wizard is how the wizard should be played and they agree with V's actions.

No one in the order is optimized (Durkon might have the potential but he doesn't perfom the actions). Elan forgets that he has spells. Haley has a build concentrated on shooting arrows instead of meleeing, flanking, and backstabbing. Roy is a fighter with good wisdom, charisma, and intelligence*. V is a blaster wizard. Belkar totally ignores many aspects of the Ranger class.

However, I'll bet that more groups are akin to the Order of the Stick and unoptimized then those which are. Additionally, not everyone wants to be optimized. Optimized players means optimized NPCs. It is a Red Queen scenario and thus how powerful ones characters are really means nothing. If someone plays a "Batman" wizard then the DM can come up with a "Batman" wizard NPC and the game devolves into an argument over whose Batman wizard killed the other one first :smalltongue:

*Of course, Roy may have simply rolled very well and not have had a point buy

[AKA_Bait]

*Of course, Roy may have simply rolled very well and not have had a point buy

Or inherited those characteristics from his wizard father and sexy mother. :smallwink:

[Akimbo]

V is not an optimized wizard. That is true. However, "well-played" is a subjective term. Many people would argue that a traditional blaster wizard is how the wizard should be played and they agree with V's actions.

But a low order blaster Wizard with nary a hint of optimization needing help from a Paladin provides zero insight (actually, negative insight in that it misleads) on the question of whether a well played optimized Wizard gains from martial support (which is to say, nothing).

Proving that casters need fighters based on a comparison against the stupidest possible Wizard is a lie.


If someone plays a "Batman" wizard then the DM can come up with a "Batman" wizard NPC and the game devolves into an argument over whose Batman wizard killed the other one first

And you'll note that the fighter doesn't come in to play in that at all.

How optimized the characters are is in fact crucial to the discussion at hand, because the argument has always been that Fighters start off moderately useful at the very lowest end of optimization, but plateau and can never even be useful, much less equal to a highly optimized party.

I have seen parties so high up that adding a Fighter to them would actually hamper them incredibly, and slow them down. There is absolutely no reason for such a party to even tolerate the presence of such a character.

[Starbuck_II]

V is not an optimized wizard. That is true. However, "well-played" is a subjective term. Many people would argue that a traditional blaster wizard is how the wizard should be played and they agree with V's actions.

No one in the order is optimized (Durkon might have the potential but he doesn't perfom the actions). Elan forgets that he has spells. Haley has a build concentrated on shooting arrows instead of meleeing, flanking, and backstabbing. Roy is a fighter with good wisdom, charisma, and intelligence*. V is a blaster wizard. Belkar totally ignores many aspects of the Ranger class.

However, I'll bet that more groups are akin to the Order of the Stick and unoptimized then those which are. Additionally, not everyone wants to be optimized. Optimized players means optimized NPCs. It is a Red Queen scenario and thus how powerful ones characters are really means nothing. If someone plays a "Batman" wizard then the DM can come up with a "Batman" wizard NPC and the game devolves into an argument over whose Batman wizard killed the other one first :smalltongue:

*Of course, Roy may have simply rolled very well and not have had a point buy

Elan did optimize. Remember his Prc? Dashing Swordsmen. That was pure optimism.

[Gavin Sage]

However, I'll bet that more groups are akin to the Order of the Stick and unoptimized then those which are. Additionally, not everyone wants to be optimized. Optimized players means optimized NPCs. It is a Red Queen scenario and thus how powerful ones characters are really means nothing. If someone plays a "Batman" wizard then the DM can come up with a "Batman" wizard NPC and the game devolves into an argument over whose Batman wizard killed the other one first :smalltongue:

I never encountered a Batman or CoDzilla until coming online. There's a reason why there are words like "powergamer" and "munchkin" in the rpg world. And why they are at best neutral descriptors. The way the internet talks though its like everyone plays that way, while forgetting that people commenting online generally only make up a fraction of an actual fanbase.

Nevermind how much optimizing is merely hypothetical and DM breakable to begin with. Careful analysis of how save-or-die is better then throwing fireballs is rather hard to play out if you have a DM that "cheats" and say makes up extra save bonuses (or just silently declares his own win) without telling the players because he doesn't want the enemy to go down on the first turn. The biggest flaw of D&D is not putting the words "at DM discretion" all over the place.

[AKA_Bait]

I never encountered a Batman or CoDzilla until coming online. There's a reason why there are words like "powergamer" and "munchkin" in the rpg world. And why they are at best neutral descriptors. The way the internet talks though its like everyone plays that way, while forgetting that people commenting online generally only make up a fraction of an actual fanbase.


Ok, here's the thing though, a batman or a CoDzilla are the far end of the spectrum. Even an unoptimized (read: not nerfed) Wizard, Druid or Cleric can beat the pants off of an optimized Fighter of equivalent level (at least past say, level 9). That individual GM's compensate for it in their games doesn't speak to the system, only the houserules in play there.

[Kyeudo]

I never encountered a Batman or CoDzilla until coming online. There's a reason why there are words like "powergamer" and "munchkin" in the rpg world. And why they are at best neutral descriptors. The way the internet talks though its like everyone plays that way, while forgetting that people commenting online generally only make up a fraction of an actual fanbase.


"Munchkin" is pretty much always an insult unless you are playing Munchkin. "Powergamer" discribes a play style, one that likes to make as strong a character as possible. Munckins are usually powergamers, but reverse is not true.



Nevermind how much optimizing is merely hypothetical and DM breakable to begin with. Careful analysis of how save-or-die is better then throwing fireballs is rather hard to play out if you have a DM that "cheats" and say makes up extra save bonuses (or just silently declares his own win) without telling the players because he doesn't want the enemy to go down on the first turn. The biggest flaw of D&D is not putting the words "at DM discretion" all over the place.

You have to understand that when we discuss the game online, we have no clue what GM you are going to play under, so we use the RAW so we have some common ground. We can usually agree on what that is and means. Your DM may have house rules that change how the game is balanced in your game and Fighters may be king there.

I think you are committing the Oberoni Fallacy there. Just because the GM can easily make a Batman Wizard less effective and the Fighter more effective does not make the game any less unbalanced. It may happen in a lot of games, but that doesn't mean that it should have to happen.

That said, I still play 3.5 and enjoy it. As long as you know the loopholes, you know how to fill them.

[Jayabalard]

"Munchkin" is pretty much always an insult unless you are playing Munchkin. "Powergamer" discribes a play style, one that likes to make as strong a character as possible. Munckins are usually powergamers, but reverse is not true.To most of the people that I know, these words are synonymous; powergamer carries the exact same negative connotation as Munchkin.


You have to understand that when we discuss the game online, we have no clue what GM you are going to play under, so we use the RAW so we have some common ground. Not really; we use raw because there's a segment of the online community that adheres to it in a manner that approaches fanaticism, and they tend to get a bit rabid if you try and talk about how people actually play their games instead of what the rules say.

[Stupendous_Man]

Not really; we use raw because there's a segment of the online community that adheres to it in a manner that approaches fanaticism, and they tend to get a bit rabid if you try and talk about something useful, like how people actually play their games, rather than thought experiments.

how do people actually play their games?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

To most of the people that I know, these words are synonymous; powergamer carries the exact same negative connotation as Munchkin.But not for the people I play with. Different groups are different.
Not really; we use raw because there's a segment of the online community that adheres to it in a manner that approaches fanaticism, and they tend to get a bit rabid if you try and talk about something useful, like how people actually play their games, rather than thought experiments.See, again you're wrong, and verging on flame-baiting. This ties back to the first part. When somebody asks a question, the only thing we know about their game is what they tell us. Every group is different, and some of them have house-rules that change everything, but the only thing that's consistent is that they're all playing D&D. We have to go by the rules unless there's a reason not to(drowning, diplomacy).

[Jade_Tarem]

how do people actually play their games?

Not by RAW. However, I'm not sure that Jaya is entirely correct about why people react that way to deviations from the RAW in debate.

For instance, sometimes I like a thought experiment that someone posts online, or someone challenges a typically held belief (Dude, 3.5 vorpal is the best thing ever! Seriously! Here's why...), and people post on it, ask questions about it, challenge ambiguity, and so forth. And then an argument arises on this or that. Eventually, something or another is proved to be overpowered or broken or what have you, and then the person who is flatly wrong simply states "well, because no one ever plays like that I'm still right and you're wrong lolololololololol!!!!1!! Rule Zero, b****es!" It's very childish and extremely annoying - the equivalent of throwing the chess board across the room right before you lose. You started participating in a discussion about a certain set of rules. Do not invoke rule zero in a RAW debate because you were shown to be mistaken. Just accept that you were wrong, stand corrected, and move on!

/rant over

[Jayabalard]

But not for the people I play with. Different groups are different.Agreed. The point is, explaining that you use the words powergamer and munchkin to mean something different isn't going to change anyone's opinion.


See, again you're wrong, and verging on flame-baiting. This ties back to the first part. When somebody asks a question, the only thing we know about their game is what they tell us. Every group is different, and some of them have house-rules that change everything, but the only thing that's consistent is that they're all playing D&D. We have to go by the rules unless there's a reason not to(drowning, diplomacy).There's also one more thing that's consistent; nearly everyone makes house rules to cover the things that they feel don't make sense; you even mention two of them, drowning and diplomacy. Those house rules are worth discussing, and in my opinion, they're often lead to more interesting discussions than the RAW itself does.


how do people actually play their games?Not by raw; different groups use different amounts but the vast majority use houserules or homebrewed materials of some sort.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

There's also one more thing that's consistent; nearly everyone makes house rules to cover the things that they feel don't make sense; you even mention two of them, drowning and diplomacy. Those house rules are worth discussing, and in my opinion, they're often lead to more interesting discussions than the RAW itself does.

Not by raw; different groups use different amounts but the vast majority use houserules or homebrewed materials of some sort.True. But unless the new rules are explained by the OP, or universal, we cannot assume anything. Just because my group feels safe resting in another dimension after a couple fights doesn't mean they all do.

[Jayabalard]

True. But unless the new rules are explained by the OP, or universal, we cannot assume anything. Just because my group feels safe resting in another dimension after a couple fights doesn't mean they all do.I'm not suggesting that you assume anything. I'm suggesting that it's silly to limit discussion to strictly raw, and it's rather absurd to shout down discussion just because someone is talking about house rules rather than The RAWtm.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I'm not suggesting that you assume anything. I'm suggesting that it's silly to limit discussion to strictly raw, and it's rather absurd to shout down discussion just because someone is talking about house rules rather than The RAWtm.But if we're thinking of a debate, it's not fair to assume houserules that are not universal. Monks have been houseruled to have any number of abilities, but that doesn't make Giacomo right. And if we're talking advice, then a lot of people don't like mentioning houserules because the GM may not use them, while RAW is generally acceptable.

[Jayabalard]

But if we're thinking of a debate, it's not fair to assume houserules that are not universal. If you don't account for them and discuss them, then you wind up with a discussion that isn't really meaningful of people.


And if we're talking advice, then a lot of people don't like mentioning houserules because the GM may not use them, while RAW is generally acceptable.That's just absurd; a good portion of the people who ask for advice are gms; take something like the threads like "why is polymorph broken" ... people discussing the house rules that they've added to make it unbroken is going to be far more useful than any amount of "this is why polymorph is broken, by RAW"

in my opinion, people saying "this is what my group does to make the situation fun and playable" is a valid any time someone is looking for advice regardless of whether it's a house rule or the RAW,

[Knaight]

There's also one more thing that's consistent; nearly everyone makes house rules to cover the things that they feel don't make sense; you even mention two of them, drowning and diplomacy. Those house rules are worth discussing, and in my opinion, they're often lead to more interesting discussions than the RAW itself does.


You are a master of understatement.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

If you don't account for them and discuss them, then you wind up with a discussion that isn't really meaningful of people.When we discuss by RAW, we don't go into stuff that's likely to be houseruled, but at the same time, it's nt fair to expect people to ignore Natural Spell in a discussion that mentions Druids just because some DMs ban it.
That's just absurd; a good portion of the people who ask for advice are gms; take something like the threads like "why is polymorph broken" ... people discussing the house rules that they've added to make it unbroken is going to be far more useful than any amount of "this is why polymorph is broken, by RAW"True, but those are different from people asking "How do I make my Fighter effective in a group with a Cleric", which is what I meant. Telling them that your group has house-ruled all spells to 1 action or more to cast really doesn't help, a statistical analysis of Power Attack does.
in my opinion, people saying "this is what my group does to make the situation fun and playable" is a valid any time someone is looking for advice regardless of whether it's a house rule or the RAW,True, if it's a GM asking, but a lot of GMs aren't amenable to houserules/homebrew, other than their own. Heck, look at how many people aren't allowed ToB, widely regarded as the most balanced Melee book to come out, your rules to boost the Barbarian are almost certainly not going to work.

[Jayabalard]

"How do I make my Fighter effective in a group with a Cleric", which is what I meant. Telling them that your group has house-ruled all spells to 1 action or more to cast really doesn't help, a statistical analysis of Power Attack does. Not so; as a player, someone telling me their houserule helps me FAR more than a statistical analysis of anything does.


True, if it's a GM asking, but a lot of GMs aren't amenable to houserules/homebrew, other than their own. Heck, look at how many people aren't allowed ToB, widely regarded as the most balanced Melee book to come out, your rules to boost the Barbarian are almost certainly not going to work.In most cases that I've seen, ToB is disallowed for flavor reasons, so that doesn't really have anything to do with houserules.

a lot of GMs are amenable to houserules/homebrew other than thier own. DM's have been getting and using other people's homebrew stuff for as long as D&D has existed; that's where alot of the stuff in the dragon came from, and way back in the day I got all kinds of things from usenet discussions.

[Kyeudo]

If you don't account for them and discuss them, then you wind up with a discussion that isn't really meaningful of people.


Except how do you account for the other person's house rules when he never mentions them? Telepathy?

Everyone interested in a topic has access to the RAW on the subject, so we can easily talk about it. Not everyone has the same house rules, so until we get filled in on those we can't discuss them.



That's just absurd; a good portion of the people who ask for advice are gms; take something like the threads like "why is polymorph broken" ... people discussing the house rules that they've added to make it unbroken is going to be far more useful than any amount of "this is why polymorph is broken, by RAW"

in my opinion, people saying "this is what my group does to make the situation fun and playable" is a valid any time someone is looking for advice regardless of whether it's a house rule or the RAW,

No one was saying that mentioning houserules is invalid in suggesting ways to fix things. We are saying they are invalid in a discussion about power disparity. The state of the game by default is what it is, and no amount of houseruling changes that default.

Go ahead and suggest ways to make a wizard less broken, but don't expect people to stop saying the wizard is broken just because you threw out a couple of houserules.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Not so; as a player, someone telling me their houserule helps me FAR more than a statistical analysis of anything does.See, I disagree, on the basis that I only rarely see my GM accept any houserules, on the basis that it is generally an attempt to get more power than you could normally. We had to hassle him to let the weakest player get Favored Soul/Warlock/Elderitch Disciple. Everyone has a different GM, and mentioning houserules is generally going to be of dubious use to a player who can't implement them.
In most cases that I've seen, ToB is disallowed for flavor reasons. So that doesn't really have anything to do with houserules.But that doesn't change the basic argument, which could be applied to quite a few balanced books. Nothing beyond core is universal!
a lot of GMs are amenable to houserules/homebrew other than thier own. DM's have been getting and using other people's homebrew stuff for as long as D&D has existed; that's where alot of the stuff in the dragon came from, and way back in the day I got all kinds of things from usenet discussions.Yes, but you can't assume that their specific DM is, especially given that I have never had a DM accept any houserule I asked for that would impact my own character, besides the most general(Giant Diplomacy).

[Jayabalard]

Except how do you account for the other person's house rules when he never mentions them? Telepathy?They discuss them; that's what I mean by "Those house rules are worth discussing, and in my opinion, they're often lead to more interesting discussions than the RAW itself does."


No one was saying that mentioning houserules is invalid in suggesting ways to fix things. We are saying they are invalid in a discussion about power disparity. The state of the game by default is what it is, and no amount of houseruling changes that default.Actually house ruling changes it quite nicely, since the default for each person who plays is their own game.

In this particular thread's case, the discussion on whether spellcasting characters destroy martial character by raw isn't more valid than discussing how people actually deal with those imbalances in real games.


See, I disagree, on the basis that I only rarely see my GM accept any houserules, on the basis that it is generally an attempt to get more power than you could normally. That's more than a little absurd; are you seriously disagreeing with my statement about what's more useful to me? because that's what you quoted.


Nothing beyond core is universal!The core isn't universal either, because a good number of people houserule away significant portions of it.

Heck, on a forum like this they might not even be playing D&D, let alone the specific edition that you're talking about. Sometimes rules and information from other games is useful; quick example, I seem to recall that someone running a D&D game set in an ancient china based setting picked up GURPS China on my suggestion because it's a good general resource on games in that setting.


Yes, but you can't assume that their specific DM is, especially given that I have never had a DM accept any houserule I asked for that would impact my own character, besides the most general(Giant Diplomacy).Likewise, you can't assume that thier specific DM is not; the best solution is to discuss both and let people make their own decisions on what's most useful to them.