I have a question. Why is magic being better than mundane so bad?

[druid91]

I mean really. I mean look at gandalf, the stereotypical wizard, he barely did anything "on screen" but he still was more powerful than everyone in the hobbit.

And in Lord of the rings it took ancient horrors, and another wizard to even put up a fight.

Really? Why is magic just being better than the other guy's sword-fighting so horrible?

Does the fact that the wizard blinded the whole room with glitterdust before you ran in and lopped everyones heads off matter?

Does it matter if he could reduce the dragon to ash if he could get a good spell in?

Really, if the wizard is dominating to the point where noone else is getting anything done that is more a sign of a bad DM to me than the class itself being bad.

Yes the wizard is powerful, It's supposed to be. Just like a fighter is supposed to stab things. And so on.

Yet I keep seeing people insist it's broken? Personally I think the fighter is more broken than the wizard. Looking at what the old fighter got compared to the new fighter? Yeah the wizard got a bit of a power boost... but still. The fighter got cut down to nothing.

So It is my opinion, that the fighter, not the wizard, is broken.

[Kylarra]

That's the mentality that went into the creation of Frank and K's Tomes. Some people would rather lower the overall power of the game and others would rather raise the bar to where everyone has their rockets and counter-rockets. Both are valid playstyles.

[Kaiser Omnik]

So being able to do almost anything in the game, including being better than the fighter at his own role with the right spells, is not broken? Wow, that's first.

Nobody is arguing that the fighter as it appears in 3rd edition doesn't need a power boost. Doesn't mean that the wizard is at the right power level compared to all but Tier 1 and 2 classes.

Some players of fighters don't care if the wizard has an incredible amount of options compared to them; they like their class simple and it's their choice. But it seems to me that you've never been in a game where a wizard or a druid or a cleric outshined the entire party, making everyone else's choices look meaningless. It's not a case of bad DMing, because the rules allow this playstyle. If a DM was to constantly negate the wizard's powers to make sure he doesn't have an answer for everything...that would be bad DMing.

I just don't see what your post accomplishes, besides explaining your preference for spellcasters being stronger than martial classes, which is fine in itself but doesn't change the fact that people have been feeling cheated with Tier 6 to Tier 4 classes for years. It's all in the balance...and everyone having fun at the table, whatever their prefered class is.

[Erom]

The only problem with class imbalance is that the system isn't up front with them. If the system just said, flat out "These are the powerful classes" then 80% of players would say "Cool, let's play that." and the other 20% would say "I'm playing this other thing cause I want a challenge, and I know I'm playing a weaker class." and life would go on just peachy.

The problem is, the game claims to be balanced and then does a terrible job of actually doing it.

This is all 3e of course.

[The Rose Dragon]

Yes the wizard is powerful, It's supposed to be. Just like a fighter is supposed to stab things. And so on.

The problem is, at least in D&D, wizards work as intended (or even more powerful than intended). Warrior-types don't. They don't get enough options and counter-options to be viable in most places they are supposed to be viable in. And D&D is not modeled after Lord of the Rings, either. It is modeled after a modified Greyhawk, where the ability to cast spells is not the end-all be-all talent, and where wizards are still mortal men, not demigods.

Basically, it's false advertising.

[Ranos]

This is a level based game. The assumption is that no matter what class you are, two characters at the same level wield similar amounts of power.

If you want magic-users being better than everyone as an assumption of the game and not an error in design, you'll have to look up point-buy games.

[druid91]

So being able to do almost anything in the game, including being better than the fighter at his own role with the right spells, is not broken? Wow, that's first.

Nobody is arguing that the fighter as it appears in 3rd edition doesn't need a power boost. Doesn't mean that the wizard is at the right power level compared to all but Tier 1 and 2 classes.

Some players of fighters don't care if the wizard has an incredible amount of options compared to them; they like their class simple and it's their choice. But it seems to me that you've never been in a game where a wizard or a druid or a cleric outshined the entire party, making everyone else's choices look meaningless. It's not a case of bad DMing, because the rules allow this playstyle. If a DM was to constantly negate the wizard's powers to make sure he doesn't have an answer for everything...that would be bad DMing.

I just don't see what your post accomplishes, besides explaining your preference for spellcasters being stronger than martial classes, which is fine in itself but doesn't change the fact that people have been feeling cheated with Tier 6 to Tier 4 classes for years. It's all in the balance...and everyone having fun at the table, whatever their prefered class is.

Ok situation A.) The Team faces a horde of tough monsters, the wizard has them all dead within a couple of rounds. A case of bad DMing and what you describe.

Situation B.) A little more work is put in and each of the party has a job to do, for the wizard this is keeping the goblin horde at bay, while the fighter and rogue take on the trolls, tougher but less of them to worry about, And the cleric fights a dragon. A really tough threat that could easily turn the battle.

Now in what way could the wizard do the others job without an insane amount of prep-time? Or even worse allowing the goblins to join in the proper fray instead of being cut down by the cave entrance?

Proper fights are more than, you are over here the enemy is over there.

[Eorran]

There's nothing inherently wrong with magic being just better than mundane. A lot of games are built around that. The problem crops up when magic's superiority is an unintended consequence; that seems to be the case in 3.X.

There's an implicit assumption in a level-based system that equal level is (roughly) equal power. Hence the concept of Challenge Rating (admittedly, the CR system doesn't always get it right, but the intent is there).

I agree that the Fighter seems to have lost more than the Wizard gained when compared with 2e though.

[The Rose Dragon]

Ok situation A.) The Team faces a horde of tough monsters, the wizard has them all dead within a couple of rounds. A case of bad DMing and what you describe.

No, it's a case of the DM trusting the system works as the books say it works.

Situation B.) A little more work is put in and each of the party has a job to do, for the wizard this is keeping the goblin horde at bay, while the fighter and rogue take on the trolls, tougher but less of them to worry about, And the cleric fights a dragon. A really tough threat that could easily turn the battle.

Now in what way could the wizard do the others job without an insane amount of prep-time? Or even worse allowing the goblins to join in the proper fray instead of being cut down by the cave entrance?

Proper fights are more than, you are over here the enemy is over there.

Why is the cleric taking on the dragon? The books say that clerics are support casters, designed to make warrior-types more powerful and keep them alive. Why is not the warrior taking on the dragon? That's his cliche, after all - killing huge beasts with swords and living to tell the tale.

Except the game doesn't work that way, despite the fact that it tells you it does. It's a case of the sale pitch of a class not having anything remotely to do with the truth of the class.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Ok situation A.) The Team faces a horde of tough monsters, the wizard has them all dead within a couple of rounds. A case of bad DMing and what you describe.

That's not bad DMing...that's the Wizard being able to end any given encounter in 2-3 rounds. As per following the rules, and not tailoring encounters to specifically invalidate the Wizard.

Situation B.) A little more work is put in and each of the party has a job to do, for the wizard this is keeping the goblin horde at bay, while the fighter and rogue take on the trolls, tougher but less of them to worry about, And the cleric fights a dragon. A really tough threat that could easily turn the battle.

The Wizard casts Celerity, then Time Stomp. 2 Delayed Blast Fireballs wreck the Goblin Horde, the Trolls are trapped in Forcecages for 16 hours, and then, when Time Stop ends, the Dragon is vaporized by DPS from a bunch of elemental spells, followed by Power Word (Kill). And this is just using core spells (aside from Celerity), and not the most optimal of them at that. It's reasonable to assume that the Wizard could do this to 2-4 encounters each day.

Now in what way could the wizard do the others job without an insane amount of prep-time? Or even worse allowing the goblins to join in the proper fray instead of being cut down by the cave entrance?

With 2-3 rounds of buffing (i.e. Timestop during any given fight), the Wizard can do anything better than anyone else. Plus, Divination spells will mean he usually has the right tricks, or things that can approximate the right tricks.

Proper fights are more than, you are over here the enemy is over there.

Which is a shame, as that's the sort of fights the Fighter is best at. The Wizard has all the fancy battlefield control spells, ambush spells, awareness spells, predicting-the-future spells...everything that can turn a fight that's NOT "go around the corner and...surprise...a monster appears" into a trivial matter.

[druid91]

No, it's a case of the DM trusting the system works as the books say it works.



Why is the cleric taking on the dragon? The books say that clerics are support casters, designed to make warrior-types more powerful and keep them alive. Why is not the warrior taking on the dragon? That's his cliche, after all - killing huge beasts with swords and living to tell the tale.

Except the game doesn't work that way, despite the fact that it tells you it does. It's a case of the sale pitch of a class not having anything remotely to do with the truth of the class.

When you buy a videogame do you follow every single bit of advice the pamphlet gives and never deviate from that path?

Because while it can be a support caster it can also not be a support caster, and casting buffs during combat is rather silly.

That's not bad DMing...that's the Wizard being able to end any given encounter in 2-3 rounds. As per following the rules, and not tailoring encounters to specifically invalidate the Wizard.



The Wizard casts Celerity, then Time Stomp. 2 Delayed Blast Fireballs wreck the Goblin Horde, the Trolls are trapped in Forcecages for 16 hours, and then, when Time Stop ends, the Dragon is vaporized by DPS from a bunch of elemental spells, followed by Power Word (Kill). And this is just using core spells (aside from Celerity), and not the most optimal of them at that. It's reasonable to assume that the Wizard could do this to 2-4 encounters each day.



With 2-3 rounds of buffing (i.e. Timestop during any given fight), the Wizard can do anything better than anyone else. Plus, Divination spells will mean he usually has the right tricks, or things that can approximate the right tricks.



Which is a shame, as that's the sort of fights the Fighter is best at. The Wizard has all the fancy battlefield control spells, ambush spells, awareness spells, predicting-the-future spells...everything that can turn a fight that's NOT "go around the corner and...surprise...a monster appears" into a trivial matter.

Tailoring encounters to fit your players is exactly what a good DM does.

Now what about the second and third wave of goblins, and the elite soldiers after that? Rule #1 when fighting magic without it, have cannon-fodder. There is a reason I said keep the "goblins at bay" and not "kill the goblins." You also assume the three fights are within reasonable distance of each other that what was proposed is possible.

And which Divination spell is there that is an all the time win against appropriate threats? I mean lead stops most of them.

Besides the spells that give a vague, this will go badly or go well. What predicting the future spells are there?

[The Rose Dragon]

When you buy a videogame do you follow every single bit of advice the pamphlet gives and never deviate from that path?

Two different mediums. Widely different presentations and expectations. And even then, false advertising is still a bad thing in video games.

[druid91]

Two different mediums. Widely different presentations and expectations. And even then, false advertising is still a bad thing in video games.

Personally I like to think that the Base material is presented the most simple options for new players, expecting that the players would discover ways to warp those roles on their own.

It's not false advertising, because think about it, the game can work like that. If you want it to. If you don't it doesn't straightjacket you.

[Silva Stormrage]

When you buy a videogame do you follow every single bit of advice the pamphlet gives and never deviate from that path?

Because while it can be a support caster it can also not be a support caster, and casting buffs during combat is rather silly.



Tailoring encounters to fit your players is exactly what a good DM does.

Now what about the second and third wave of goblins, and the elite soldiers after that? Rule #1 when fighting magic without it, have cannon-fodder. There is a reason I said keep the "goblins at bay" and not "kill the goblins." You also assume the three fights are within reasonable distance of each other that what was proposed is possible.

And which Divination spell is there that is an all the time win against appropriate threats? I mean lead stops most of them.

Besides the spells that give a vague, this will go badly or go well. What predicting the future spells are there?

Thats still a bad argument. A summoner in my opinion is the type of wizard that renders the melee types the most because they summon things stronger than the Fighter. Have him summon (or even gate) in some tough monsters that can hold the line during a timestop. Than last round of the timestop dimensional door to right in front of the dragon celerity shivering touch to one hit ko the dragon. Now the goblins are held at bay dragons dead and thats in one round. Trolls will die to either force cage, irresistible dance, summons, enervation and there are a million other options.

Another question is why would the wizard try and fight the goblins? Simply casting a wall of force blocks them off forever basically than he can help the other groups. Also saying that the group isn't near each other isn't fair since most groups tend to stay together on purpose.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Tailoring encounters to fit your players is exactly what a good DM does.

I'm saying that, without designing an encounter to specifically gimp the Wizard's abilities, the Wizard will be able to beat it easily, if played optimally. Designing an encounter to negate a character is not good DMing.

Now what about the second and third wave of goblins, and the elite soldiers after that? Rule #1 when fighting magic without it, have cannon-fodder. There is a reason I said keep the "goblins at bay" and not "kill the goblins." You also assume the three fights are within reasonable distance of each other that what was proposed is possible.

Wall spells. Gating/Summoning more fodder to fight them off. Landscape-alteration spells. There are numerous ways to easily hold off large numbers of fodder. For that matter, use Fly or become incorporeal, and just ignore the fodder. Use Improved Invisibility. Give yourself DR sufficient to ignore them. Turn into something they can't hurt.

And which Divination spell is there that is an all the time win against appropriate threats? I mean lead stops most of them.

...and do my opponents plan their every move while by spending the morning encased in lead houses for some plotting and tea?

Besides the spells that give a vague, this will go badly or go well. What predicting the future spells are there?

They're not THAT specific, but most things that are imposing enough to be serious threats (that your normal arsenal can't handle) are things you'll know about in advance...BBEGs, armies, and the like. Those can be specifically targeted with detection spells to see their whereabouts, hear their plans, and so forth.

[drakir_nosslin]

Besides the spells that give a vague, this will go badly or go well. What predicting the future spells are there?

Contact other plane?

[druid91]

Thats still a bad argument. A summoner in my opinion is the type of wizard that renders the melee types the most because they summon things stronger than the Fighter. Have him summon (or even gate) in some tough monsters that can hold the line during a timestop. Than last round of the timestop dimensional door to right in front of the dragon celerity shivering touch to one hit ko the dragon. Now the goblins are held at bay dragons dead and thats in one round. Trolls will die to either force cage, irresistible dance, summons, enervation and there are a million other options.

Another question is why would the wizard try and fight the goblins? Simply casting a wall of force blocks them off forever basically than he can help the other groups. Also saying that the group isn't near each other isn't fair since most groups tend to stay together on purpose.

Why is shivering touch a one-hit KO? IIRC it does ability damage, what if the dragon can take it? Then you have a soft squishy wizard inside Antimagic field range...

Now what if the sterotypical goblin shaman banishes the summons? Or the dragon does to let his goblin allies in? And how does the wall of force fair when the dragon takes a round to get off the ground and hit it with a disintegrate? Or if banishing them seems unfair to you, simply have the multitudes of goblins dogpile with grapple attempts. with enough IIRC they should be able to overcome just about anything to let the rest through.

I'm saying that, without designing an encounter to specifically gimp the Wizard's abilities, the Wizard will be able to beat it easily, if played optimally. Designing an encounter to negate a character is not good DMing.



Wall spells. Gating/Summoning more fodder to fight them off. Landscape-alteration spells. There are numerous ways to easily hold off large numbers of fodder. For that matter, use Fly or become incorporeal, and just ignore the fodder. Use Improved Invisibility. Give yourself DR sufficient to ignore them. Turn into something they can't hurt.



...and do my opponents plan their every move while by spending the morning encased in lead houses for some plotting and tea?



They're not THAT specific, but most things that are imposing enough to be serious threats (that your normal arsenal can't handle) are things you'll know about in advance...BBEGs, armies, and the like. Those can be specifically targeted with detection spells to see their whereabouts, hear their plans, and so forth.

But I'm not specifically designing the encounter to gimp the wizard, you are designing an encounter to challenge him, and everyone else. Now if I said the whole place made magic act funny and used it to mess him up every time he tried to so much as use prestidigitation to tie his shoes, that would be gimping him, as it is I'm keeping him busy while the rest of the party does their thing.

And then the goblins can get in and the rest of the party is finished.. Wall spells can be peirced, the whole point is that the wizard is adequately challenged by this mob of goblins. So he walls the place off with stone and they blast it down with bombards, wall of force? the dragon notices and hits it with a disintegrate.

Now in any event can you honestly tell me that you would not be having fun in the above battle if it was actually played out at your table?

And the best threats are the ones whose tents are shielded from detection with lead sheets. There is no logical reason in a world with magic that a competent general would not have his war tent be lead-lined.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Why is shivering touch a one-hit KO? IIRC it does ability damage, what if the dragon can take it?

With meta-magic, NO dragon can.

Now what if the sterotypical goblin shaman banishes the summons?

If I'm not higher level than him by enough that this is impossible, the encounter is the DM throwing large numbers of FAR to high level opponents at us. An army of goblins with casters equal level to the PCs?

And how does the wall of force fair when the dragon takes a round to get off the ground and hit it with a disintegrate?

That's 1 round more I have to 1-shot the dragon.

Or if banishing them seems unfair to you, simply have the multitudes of goblins dogpile with grapple attempts. with enough IIRC they should be able to overcome just about anything to let the rest through.

Which holds them up...all I need is a round or two at most.

But I'm not specifically designing the encounter to gimp the wizard, you are designing an encounter to challenge him, and everyone else.

And I'm pointing out that a well-played Wizard can still solo said encounter.

And then the goblins can get in and the rest of the party is finished.. Wall spells can be peirced, the whole point is that the wizard is adequately challenged by this mob of goblins. So he walls the place off with stone and they blast it down with bombards, wall of force? the dragon notices and hits it with a disintegrate.

Now the Goblins suddenly have bombards that can destroy my spells in a single round? Regardless, I've bought myself time. You CAN basically kill everything else in 1-2 rounds...

Now in any event can you honestly tell me that you would not be having fun in the above battle if it was actually played out at your table?

Oh, it would be fun. But the Wizard COULD solo it without the rest of the party, if played optimally. And, as the Fighter, I'd feel rather irate that my only real contribution would be "smack some trolls," while the Wizard is decimating an army and taking down the dragon. Honestly, the Fighters would be better served to just hold off the army of mooks while the Wizard deals with the serious threats.

And the best threats are the ones whose tents are shielded from detection with lead sheets. There is no logical reason in a world with magic that a competent general would not have his war tent be lead-lined.

And now we're in the Tippy-verse argument of "because X can do Y, everyone in the entire world is prepared for Y at all times." And that sort of argument gets us nowhere.

[druid91]

With meta-magic, NO dragon can.



If I'm not higher level than him by enough that this is impossible, the encounter is the DM throwing large numbers of FAR to high level opponents at us. An army of goblins with casters equal level to the PCs?



That's 1 round more I have to 1-shot the dragon.



Which holds them up...all I need is a round or two at most.



And I'm pointing out that a well-played Wizard can still solo said encounter.



Now the Goblins suddenly have bombards that can destroy my spells in a single round? Regardless, I've bought myself time. You CAN basically kill everything else in 1-2 rounds...



Oh, it would be fun. But the Wizard COULD solo it without the rest of the party, if played optimally. And, as the Fighter, I'd feel rather irate that my only real contribution would be "smack some trolls," while the Wizard is decimating an army and taking down the dragon. Honestly, the Fighters would be better served to just hold off the army of mooks while the Wizard deals with the serious threats.



And now we're in the Tippy-verse argument of "because X can do Y, everyone in the entire world is prepared for Y at all times." And that sort of argument gets us nowhere.

Why not? Dragons are spellcasters, it's reasonable to assume they have defenses. That and it's a touch spell going by the name. Good luck getting within touch range without being shredded.

Either that or perhaps the goblin has a magic item? You get them so why wouldn't the goblins have one or two.

Which hasn't been proved that you can do...

A wall of stone would hold them off for a while, but go look at the damage on great bombards, a few rounds at most is what you'd buy. Easily enough time for the dragon to stop fighting the cleric and Nom you. Sure it might be suicidal but the goblins will be there in a moment and they can raise him.

Well why? Why would you be Irate?

Not really, your average goblin clan wouldn't be doing this. But you don't get to be the greatest goblin general in history by following others lead.

[Gavinfoxx]

{{scrubbed}}

[druid91]

{{scrubbed}}

{{scrubbed}}

As for escalation I will admit to not being entirely knowledgable about how to make a megaoptimized wizard. And so am adding things to counter proposed tactics. presumably in a long running campaign the DM would have seen most of the strategies at least once.

[MeeposFire]

Funny thing about magic is that in most stories either magic has a lot of restrictions on its use or power level (limited to blasting or certain types of effects) or there are certain costs involved (like draining your life force). In 3e this is not the case for virtually anything as most of the costs are trivial (money and XP and XP costs can actually help you in the long run). This is further subverted by the easy to make magic item system which allows casters to more easily get better resources at less cost. In 1e and 2e you could not just make a wand of knock easily as even if it was allowed (item creation rules were not really statted out the DM just decided what you had to do) as the permanancy spell was required to make items and that spell cost you a point of con to use.

3e has the most powerful casters relative to melee than in any other edition before and after.

[elpollo]

Why not? Dragons are spellcasters, it's reasonable to assume they have defenses. That and it's a touch spell going by the name. Good luck getting within touch range without being shredded.

Arcane reach, some sort of invisibility, or a DC 15 tumble check (none of which are particularly difficult to achieve) all stop the wizard being shredded, and then the dragon is down in one. The fighter can't match that (unless an ubercharger).

Either that or perhaps the goblin has a magic item? You get them so why wouldn't the goblins have one or two.

Ok, some enemies may be able to bypass some spells, but not all bypassing all spells, and that's effectively what the wizard has. Scrying allows you to prepare the right spells for the job beforehand.

Which hasn't been proved that you can do...

... actually, stating Shivering Touch does basically prove you can one shot a dragon. They have lousy touch AC and low Dex.

A wall of stone would hold them off for a while, but go look at the damage on great bombards, a few rounds at most is what you'd buy. Easily enough time for the dragon to stop fighting the cleric and Nom you. Sure it might be suicidal but the goblins will be there in a moment and they can raise him.

Where did the great bombards come from?

A few rounds is all a wizard needs.

Wizards have ways to stop being "nom"ed.

The goblins will almost certainly not be there to save him, and if a dragon thinks its life hangs in the balance and it has to rely on goblins to be brought back it's probably going to think twice about hanging around. They don't grow so old by being stupid.

Well why? Why would you be Irate?

Over here we have a thousand goblins, but uh... the wizard's taking care of them. Ooh, over here's a dragon... no, that's down too. Guess I'll hit this troll then (neither the most impressive or numerically largest threat present. Also the cleric is doing it better than him. So is the druid, and possibly even the druid's animal companion).

Not really, your average goblin clan wouldn't be doing this. But you don't get to be the greatest goblin general in history by following others lead.

Ok, you can set up situations to overcome each action the wizard does. It takes a lot less effort to completely stop the fighter, however, and the fighter has next to no ways to try and prevent being shut down. Saying "It's not bad because everything the wizard tries to do will specifically be stopped" does not mean it's not bad or that it's a good DMing technique.

[Strife Warzeal]

Really..? Could you please explain how believing that it is possible to play a game with optimized wizards makes me trolling?

As for escalation I will admit to not being entirely knowledgeable about how to make a mega-optimized wizards. And so am adding things to counter proposed tactics. presumably in a long running campaign the DM would have seen most of the strategies at least once.

Okay so you are trying to counter act the wizard, but he has a full party with him. The Cleric also just gates in X monster to fight the dragon and then he or the wizard just soul binds it. Or the wizard shapechanges into X monster that is stronger than a dragon and just destroys it. Seriously if you are playing with a tier 1 caster like cleric or wizard that is optimized, you can't really play the game with them unless if they back up a bit to allow you to.

[ffone]

I mean really. I mean look at gandalf, the stereotypical wizard, he barely did anything "on screen" but he still was more powerful than everyone in the hobbit.

And in Lord of the rings it took ancient horrors, and another wizard to even put up a fight.

Really? Why is magic just being better than the other guy's sword-fighting so horrible?

Being powerful should be represented by 'being higher level', not 'being more powerful at the same level.'

This is the same fallacy with justifying Jedi classes being more powerful by 'Jedis are the awesome dudes'. Well OK, great, their talent and intense training level them further.

That's the worldbuilding solution if you desire 'wizards to be powerful'. The distribution of their levels is higher. Perhaps because-

-Fighters are less likely to earn XP in nondangerous ways (like study). PCs generally earn XP the same way, but this isn't reflective of NPCs.

-Wizards have longer careers, due to mentality, and/or b/c aging categories can actually help them.

[Grogmir]

I don't want to get involved - it aint a debate - its just an arguement - you're not going to convince the OP of anything.

But I do love the idea he thinks telling the Wizard he's fighting the goblins, the Fighter the trolls and the Cleric the Dragon is good DMing. Talk about railroaded combats...

First thing every fighter player i've ever known would do; would be charge the dragon. CHARRGE!

[Jayabalard]

So being able to do almost anything in the game, including being better than the fighter at his own role with the right spells, is not broken? Wow, that's first.

No, it's not a first; it gets mentioned in some form in almost every "X class is broken" whether you're talking about wizards (at one end of the spectrum) or monks (at the other). It just isn't the majority view.

This is a level based game. The assumption is that no matter what class you are, two characters at the same level wield similar amounts of power.

That's simply not a valid assumption. Lots of level based games don't make any pretense that a level X of class Y is supposed to be the same power level as a level X of class Z. If you look at earlier editions of D&D, you can see that this is the case back at it's roots.

Palladium is another level based megasystem... and the level of power varies quite a bit even in the same RPG; in robotech, cyclone pilots vs Veritech pilots of the same level have widely differing capability, without even mixing in the non-pilot classes.

And Seriously, I'm not sure there are enough words in the English language to properly describe the variety in power levels in Rifts.

No, it's a case of the DM trusting the system works as the books say it works.

No, that's the DM blindly trusting it as if it were handed down by the RP Gods. The books quite clearly spell out that as a GM you need more than just what's in the book (that's why rule 0 is named as such).

[druid91]

I don't want to get involved - it aint a debate - its just an arguement - you're not going to convince the OP of anything.

But I do love the idea he thinks telling the Wizard he's fighting the goblins, the Fighter the trolls and the Cleric the Dragon is good DMing. Talk about railroaded combats...

First thing every fighter player i've ever known would do; would be charge the dragon. CHARRGE!

It's possible to convince me, just Djinn has gone a long way to convincing me that it's not the easiest thing to do.

Ok. that happens the cleric backs him up and the rogue keeps the trolls busy. The thing that matters is the situation of all three needs to be handled. And the wizard can't be everywhere at once.

[drakir_nosslin]

And the wizard can't be everywhere at once.

Project Image and Shades/Shadow Conjuration?

[MeeposFire]

Yea AD&D had different XP tables for different classes and the DMG stated that XP tables are related to class power. In 2e if you looked closely at the tables different classes require more or less XP at different levels. For instance clerics require a lot of XP at earlier levels but oddly are the second fastest at the highest levels. Wizards start and end slow but at the mid levels it is very fast. Thieves are always fast.

Unfortunately many people did not realize this and just had people make "a 5th level character" rather than a character at 89000 XP. Heck even the adventures are written like that which gimps the lower XP table classes like thieves and bards.