Power Creep much? (now yet another fighter vs. wizard thread)

[Skjaldbakka]

I'm starting to get annoyed with the trend to balance the fighter/caster power disparity is to make fighters more powerful. What's the point? A fighter can KO a balor in one freakin' shot by level 20 (insert two-handed power attack build here). A balor is supposed to be CR 20. Gettin' one-shotted isn't using up 20% af the parties resources. At least the wizard is burning 2-3 high level spells to take out the balor (although still taking it out in one round).

And now tome of battle- like we need fighters to be more powerful? Wizards are too powerful. Therefore everyone else needs to be more powerful?

Seriously, with the Complete Series, and Tome of Battle, you could probably take a Balor with a level 13-15 party, and use about 20% resources. Possibly with all fighter-classes.

I'm not a big fan of throwing out MM encounters, but sheesh. At least CRs are still valid for my encounters, since I tend to use villainous humanoids, who gain their CR from class levels.

[Matthew]

Hey, this again?

It's no big deal, really. Whether you up the power of Non Spell Casters or bring down the power of Spell Casters only affects the game relative to CR and ECL. It's the same sort of thing as allowing 60 Point Buy instead of 28 Point Buy or whatever. Sure, game balance long ago took a tumble, but that was a flaw inherent in the design.

Power Creep was always going to be part of Wizards' business plan. ever played Magic the Gathering? This set trumps that one!

It's no big deal, just use the original set and tweak things for balance or only allow X, Y and Z. Most Wizards adventures are balanced for a much weaker party than seems to be the average.

[Arbitrarity]

Not... really.

If you think about it, casters could always kill Balors, even core, so... fighters can too.

It's a combination of powergaming and the insufficiency of the CR system.

If I make gimpy the kobold, he doesn't adhere to CR. If I make Pun-Pun, he doesn't adhere to CR. If I make an IOTSOV, an Incantatrix, a Planar Shepard, or anything like that, they don't adhere to the CR system. Hell, if I make a cheesed out wizard with 44 intelligence for bonus spells, he doesn't adhere to the CR system.

It all depends on relative power of characters, and if you assume a wizard is slightly more powerful than what the average power should be, all melee falls in the dirt. What's the point of the fighter when the cleric does it as well?

And if you nerf the casting classes excessively, they die against CR appropriate encounters, cause the fighter does jack all.

Actually, what with new supplements, there is powercreep. But that's not homebrew fixes, that's WOTC making dumb classes and PrC's.

[Tokiko Mima]

I'm starting to get annoyed with the trend to balance the fighter/caster power disparity is to make fighters more powerful. What's the point? A fighter can KO a balor in one freakin' shot by level 20 (insert two-handed power attack build here). A balor is supposed to be CR 20. Gettin' one-shotted isn't using up 20% af the parties resources. At least the wizard is burning 2-3 high level spells to take out the balor (although still taking it out in one round).

And now tome of battle- like we need fighters to be more powerful? Wizards are too powerful. Therefore everyone else needs to be more powerful?

Seriously, with the Complete Series, and Tome of Battle, you could probably take a Balor with a level 13-15 party, and use about 20% resources. Possibly with all fighter-classes.

I'm not a big fan of throwing out MM encounters, but sheesh. At least CRs are still valid for my encounters, since I tend to use villainous humanoids, who gain their CR from class levels.

Well, what are you suggesting? When one type of class (full-casters) makes all other class types irrelevant, how do you fix the rather massive disparity?

Nerfing full casters is not as easy as it sounds, and other than raising fighter power levels to match wizards... what other option is there? What I do is trust and know my players, but if you have another solution I'd love to hear it.

[Skjaldbakka]

Kinda felt like ranting, is all.

Related Point:

How low level can you make a character that can take a Balor(solo)?

We will assume 32 point buy, pure average HP, standard wealth, All completes + tome of battle.

corollary- What build, at level 20, can single-handedly defeat the most Balor's consecutively (same rules, assume every 15 minutes a Balor appears in the room/arena.).

[Matthew]

Bah, reducing the power of Spell Casters is fairly easy, but it's case by case.

[ocato]

There's the answer we're looking for cats and kittens. WotC can put out all sorts of garbage if they see fit. In the end, they have absolutely 0 power over our individual groups and games except the power that we ourselves give them.

If casters make half your party unhappy, talk to your caster players. Say 'hey bob, let's trade time stop out for another spell, Jim is getting awfully annoyed at you winning encounters in the first round' or "Jill, sorry but we're not gonna allow any more divine metamagic persistant spell stuff. You're taking a temporary power boosting spell that gives you the ability to back the fighter up pretty well in harsh combat and using it to make him hate playing with you. For the sake of game balance and everyone having fun, please trade in those feats.'

Because if your players can't be responsible with their power, they can't have it. Rule 0. Wizards can write 50 books and each one can say Clerics can do this and wizards can do that. Rule 0 says those books don't exist in your game.

So, unfortunately, it seems the answer is not new books and rules that change the stuff, it's policing your own games so that they are fairly balanced. Because this is a game of improvisation, creativity, and teamwork, not Keanu Reeves style one man saves the day B.S.

[Ramza00]

for once I am in 100% agreement (and not some lesser number like normally) with Ocato

Well maybe not I am 100% agreement, Rule 0 should be used like this, well DMM isn't in our game, neither is RSoP but everything else in CD is fine. (or some other combination).

I am believer of free choice as long as it isn't hurting someone, thus an opening up of books and thus an opening up of options.

[Arbitrarity]

Yeah, I've had to voluntarily nerf myself recently.

Must... ignore... wizard....

Yeesh, we have a wannabe powergamer. He's playing a wiz2/sorc3 going into UM, and is venerable. With point buy. And human. So he has 2 dex, 2 str, 8 con...

*touch of fatigue*

I have a bard. We also have a full sorceror, and a half-dragon barbarian (Thog really smash!)

[Ramza00]

Yeesh, we have a wannabe powergamer. He's playing a wiz2/sorc3 going into UM, and is venerable. With point buy. And human. So he has 2 dex, 2 str, 8 con...

*touch of fatigue*

You made my day

[Ramza00]

Also this
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm

[Turcano]

Yeesh, we have a wannabe powergamer. He's playing a wiz2/sorc3 going into UM, and is venerable. With point buy. And human. So he has 2 dex, 2 str, 8 con...

*touch of fatigue*

I have a bard. We also have a full sorceror, and a half-dragon barbarian (Thog really smash!)

No kidding about the wannabe powergamer. It's very likely that your character will be more powerful.

[Starsinger]

Yeesh, we have a wannabe powergamer. He's playing a wiz2/sorc3 going into UM, and is venerable. With point buy. And human. So he has 2 dex, 2 str, 8 con...

*touch of fatigue*

In our group we've never had a problem with people being over powered, part of that is because my cousin is missing some screws, and thinks Fighter is the most powerful base class. "He gets Feats!"

Myself, I almost always play arcane spell casters, and when i'm not, I'm a divine spell caster. But I've never over powered the group, mostly cuz I... I like blasting. *prepares to be lynched by the community* But also, Timestop+ForceCage+Cheese doesn't appeal to me.

[Jorkens]

Power Creep was always going to be part of Wizards' business plan. ever played Magic the Gathering? This set trumps that one!

Oh, has that started power creeping now? Back when I used to play, the general complaint was that anything half decent was considered 'unbalancing' and would thus get left out of newer sets, meaning that each new edition or expansion seemed a little less exciting than the last...

[Ramza00]

blasting is fun, you roll more dice, and usually it sounds more exciting.

It is though a non optimal use of resources, but who cares, you had fun and thats the most important thing.

[MeklorIlavator]

Myself, I almost always play arcane spell casters, and when i'm not, I'm a divine spell caster. But I've never over powered the group, mostly cuz I... I like blasting. *prepares to be lynched by the community* But also, Timestop+ForceCage+Cheese doesn't appeal to me.

Ehh. I pretty much always play sub optimal. I mean, I once was going to go half-dragon warmage, then into elemental savant. Sure, I will debate the relative power of one class on the boards, but once the dice hit the table, I'm perfectly happy playing a duel-wielding halfling ranger.


@Skjaldbakka: On reason for the power levels to go up is that, in general, people don't complian when they get more powerful, but do when they are weakened. Also, even if you get people to agree that something needs to be weakened, people won't agree on the degree that it needs to be weakened. Thus, to avoid contreversy( and to better move their product, they are a buisness) Wizards tends to up the overall power level.

[SpiderBrigade]

Oh, has that started power creeping now? Back when I used to play, the general complaint was that anything half decent was considered 'unbalancing' and would thus get left out of newer sets, meaning that each new edition or expansion seemed a little less exciting than the last...

That must have been a while ago. I stopped playing for a while and then bought a few decks around the time Kamigawa came out...and it was like all my old cards were obsolete. Well, many of them anyway.

Actually, M: tG balance puzzles me. They take out old staples like Lightning Bolt because it's "too powerful." And then they introduce slivers. What!?

[Damionte]

Magic the gathering Sets actually got "LESS" powerful over time. Walk into a game shop where they guys are playing with current sets, with your cards from Alpha/Beta/antiquities/Legends and so on. You'll tear them up in a street fight without tournament rules.

[Ben_the_dragon]

i was trying out the incarnum classes, but in the setting and with the other people i was so overpowered that i decided to stop playing class becasue it was not as fun. but holy man, having a lvl. 4 with 24 ac and able to dimensional door at will from 10-40feet was fun...for about 4 fights and a prison break with no outside help or equipment, and one day to prepare, its like whats the point.

for those who are wondering, i was playing a totemist and he could put the x-man to shame...his nickname was nightcrawler, and my DM hated him

[ocato]

Ramza doesn't like me, but I love Final Fantasy Tactics so much. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE! *score from west side story*

Ahem!

Anyway, I agree. When we're here at our computers, thought excersizes are fun! However, when it's time to play together like good little boys and girls, teamwork and friendship 100%

[Matthew]

Oh, has that started power creeping now? Back when I used to play, the general complaint was that anything half decent was considered 'unbalancing' and would thus get left out of newer sets, meaning that each new edition or expansion seemed a little less exciting than the last...

That must have been a while ago. I stopped playing for a while and then bought a few decks around the time Kamigawa came out...and it was like all my old cards were obsolete. Well, many of them anyway.

Actually, M: tG balance puzzles me. They take out old staples like Lightning Bolt because it's "too powerful." And then they introduce slivers. What!?

Magic the gathering Sets actually got "LESS" powerful over time. Walk into a game shop where they guys are playing with current sets, with your cards from Alpha/Beta/antiquities/Legends and so on. You'll tear them up in a street fight without tournament rules.

Interesting, I quit after Ice Age came out (back in the day, I know...)and, by all reports, the trend for more and more powerful new sets was continued. I suppose they would have to scale back at some point in order to implement the business plan again. No idea what it's like now

[Ramza00]

Ramza doesn't like me, but I love Final Fantasy Tactics so much. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE! *score from west side story*

Ahem!

Anyway, I agree. When we're here at our computers, thought excersizes are fun! However, when it's time to play together like good little boys and girls, teamwork and friendship 100%

Oh I like you, I just disagree with you, just like I like Roy even though I am more Chaotic Good/Neutral Good/True Neutral and LG irk me

[Gavin Sage]

What I've found looking into what people consider optimal relies upon some basic assumptions. The most comprehensive guide I've seen on "optimizing" a Wizard relies unconciously upon the assumption that you have you the basic three other party members to go smack things for you. The fighter being chief among that. At the end of the day save-or-suck or Forcecage doesn't actually put enemies actually in the ground, and instant death isn't going to work on undead or creatures with the right save. And if you don't get to rest after every encounter? The fighter is still needed and without the fighter the mage would have been dead, if not now then five levels back.

I do think there need to be adjustments, but something like what Tome of Battle does is completely the wrong way. I don't think that book in anything but a complete ToB game (lacking the normal classes) should be allowed. Especially flavor wise. What the PHB II though does is much better, giving fairly cool but fairly hard to reach feats to give fighters more high level flavor. Without reworking the basics of the game.


Wizards don't need so much nerfing as a bit of limiting and/or exploitable weaknesses, like not being able to move and cast in the same round so that all you have to do to beat one is get a decent BAB in to force Concentration checks all day. Or have clerics loose their spontaneous healing so they have to devote more resources again to their basic role in the party. Don't make Domains a bonus spell. Or maybe not let clerics get to use metamagic. And never allow an open shop ever where character can just buy whatever they have gold enough for, and nothing over +3 or so is availible for sale without comission a wizard for strong reasons.

[Tor the Fallen]

What I've found looking into what people consider optimal relies upon some basic assumptions. The most comprehensive guide I've seen on "optimizing" a Wizard relies unconciously upon the assumption that you have you the basic three other party members to go smack things for you. The fighter being chief among that. At the end of the day save-or-suck or Forcecage doesn't actually put enemies actually in the ground, and instant death isn't going to work on undead or creatures with the right save. And if you don't get to rest after every encounter? The fighter is still needed and without the fighter the mage would have been dead, if not now then five levels back.

I do think there need to be adjustments, but something like what Tome of Battle does is completely the wrong way. I don't think that book in anything but a complete ToB game (lacking the normal classes) should be allowed. Especially flavor wise. What the PHB II though does is much better, giving fairly cool but fairly hard to reach feats to give fighters more high level flavor. Without reworking the basics of the game.


Wizards don't need so much nerfing as a bit of limiting and/or exploitable weaknesses, like not being able to move and cast in the same round so that all you have to do to beat one is get a decent BAB in to force Concentration checks all day. Or have clerics loose their spontaneous healing so they have to devote more resources again to their basic role in the party. Don't make Domains a bonus spell. Or maybe not let clerics get to use metamagic. And never allow an open shop ever where character can just buy whatever they have gold enough for, and nothing over +3 or so is availible for sale without comission a wizard for strong reasons.

I disagree almost completely.

A moderately well played wizard really only needs one good stat- intelligence, a postive dex and con score only helps, but isn't necessary. A fighter needs at least two good scores. This means that a fighter is far less likely to be getting the same amount of skill points as a wizard, since int is a suboptimal place to put good rolls, most of the time.
Wizards will virtually always have higher intelligence scores, and consequently more skill points, than a base fighter, AND much more useful places to put the skills- knowledge (whatever). Those skills let you know how to overcome the DR of demons, what undead are immune to, how to kill trolls, etc.

Wizards dominate in battle; if they've got the right spells. They also totally dominate outside of battle. Teleport, knock, rope trick, charm person, invisibility, fly, darkvision, waterbreathing, detect spells.... The wizard can pretty much mimic any class ability with a spell, not to mention boost skill checks by +10, +20, or even +30. A fighter gets feats.

Now, you may be saying a wizard gets limited spells (which is true), and has to prepare the right ones (also true). However, the wizard also gets scribe scroll, and doesn't need to spend his gold upgrading a weapon, which means purchasing scrolls. Not only can the wizard stay prepared by storing important, but highly situational spells in scrolls (jump, spider climb, knock, detect), he can also use divination spells to look into places that no other non-caster has access to. For instance, the future.

Simply making it so a wizard gets deaded in one hit doesn't really fix the problem with wizards. First of all, it doesn't at all limit their incredible usefullness OUTSIDE of battle. Second, at most levels, if anything gets near your wizard, you die anyway. Making wizards more fragile doesn't really fix the problem; it just makes them a glassier glass cannon. It also doesn't address the issue that a fighter is outclassed by the wizard in virtually every realm, and is only around to give the wizard enough time to work his magic.

For instance, I recently played a level 10-13 6 month campaign with mostly core classes. Every battle fell to "tankers block until sorceror casts hold monster". That was it. We were there as the sorceror's escort, really. When the sorc was out of spells, we stopped. Taking HP wasn't an issue for stopping, even without a cleric. Ride-by attack and a high AC kept my paladin from taking much damage. The troll barbarian had regeneration. It was just that vs. an enemy that did anything other than stand and swing weapons, we were helpless.

Most of my experiences with campaigns that don't allow a diverse amount of source material have been the same, once level 9 or 10 is broken. The casters are getting a ton of spells to throw around, some very powerful save-or-die, druids are turning into dinosaurs and trees and grizzly bears, and the fighter gets a new feat. Oh wow.

[Gavin Sage]

I disagree almost completely.

A moderately well played wizard really only needs one good stat- intelligence, a postive dex and con score only helps, but isn't necessary. A fighter needs at least two good scores. This means that a fighter is far less likely to be getting the same amount of skill points as a wizard, since int is a suboptimal place to put good rolls, most of the time.
Wizards will virtually always have higher intelligence scores, and consequently more skill points, than a base fighter, AND much more useful places to put the skills- knowledge (whatever). Those skills let you know how to overcome the DR of demons, what undead are immune to, how to kill trolls, etc.

Two of those skill points are going to go to Concentration and Spellcraft so it is somewhat lessened. A fighter could certainly use more skill point for their class, but given the Knowledge check rules its nice but not that important, that's why Rich has that upgrade to Knowledge in the gaming section.

Wizards dominate in battle; if they've got the right spells. They also totally dominate outside of battle. Teleport, knock, rope trick, charm person, invisibility, fly, darkvision, waterbreathing, detect spells.... The wizard can pretty much mimic any class ability with a spell, not to mention boost skill checks by +10, +20, or even +30. A fighter gets feats.

Now, you may be saying a wizard gets limited spells (which is true), and has to prepare the right ones (also true). However, the wizard also gets scribe scroll, and doesn't need to spend his gold upgrading a weapon, which means purchasing scrolls. Not only can the wizard stay prepared by storing important, but highly situational spells in scrolls (jump, spider climb, knock, detect), he can also use divination spells to look into places that no other non-caster has access to. For instance, the future.

Remember how I mentioned "don't run an open store" as a fix. That's what its for. If a wizard can't simply buy any scroll they want then they have to rely on what they find, and can't simply dive into the Spell Compendium for whatever they might need for whenever. A mage can still make them but thats going by what they already know. And while fighters are very reliant on equipment, they only need one major weapon at a time and its more sensible to find an excellent weapon in a treasure horde then just the one spell a mage is looking for.

And a fighter can use their feats generally speaking without expiration. The more encounters per day, the more important they fighters become.

Also outside of battle is incredibly situational as well. Many spell useful in battle are not going to be useful out of it. Which gets back into limiting spell selection, especially with Wizards.

Simply making it so a wizard gets deaded in one hit doesn't really fix the problem with wizards. First of all, it doesn't at all limit their incredible usefullness OUTSIDE of battle. Second, at most levels, if anything gets near your wizard, you die anyway. Making wizards more fragile doesn't really fix the problem; it just makes them a glassier glass cannon. It also doesn't address the issue that a fighter is outclassed by the wizard in virtually every realm, and is only around to give the wizard enough time to work his magic.

I don't have a problem with the basic idea of fighters as meatshields. That still makes them very damn important. Since if there not there the mage dies, and makes them able to counter enemy by breaking said glass canon.

Later levels are what the pay off for mages is, to balance their near complete impotence at low levels.

For instance, I recently played a level 10-13 6 month campaign with mostly core classes. Every battle fell to "tankers block until sorceror casts hold monster". That was it. We were there as the sorceror's escort, really. When the sorc was out of spells, we stopped. Taking HP wasn't an issue for stopping, even without a cleric. Ride-by attack and a high AC kept my paladin from taking much damage. The troll barbarian had regeneration. It was just that vs. an enemy that did anything other than stand and swing weapons, we were helpless.

Anecdotes can be horribly dependent. I mean honestly just Hold Monster, since that's one enemy a round and renews its Will Save each round. Something attacks in a group, is immune to mind effects, or heaven forbid can make its will saves its usefulness is going down quickly.

If HP wasn't an issue then why stop? Here's where a simple fix in style can solve this issue. If your dungeon crawling don't allow rest simply in any old corridor, and if PCs are running around there mages and the mages are using spells every encounter, throw some nasty on them before they can renew the spells so the caster has to keep some back and practice conservation. Or have a plot that requires haste. Yes in the big important fights the caster is going to own, but so what? Getting to the fight is more than half the battle.

Most of my experiences with campaigns that don't allow a diverse amount of source material have been the same, once level 9 or 10 is broken. The casters are getting a ton of spells to throw around, some very powerful save-or-die, druids are turning into dinosaurs and trees and grizzly bears, and the fighter gets a new feat. Oh wow.

Which is a reason to upgrade/expand the feats available to fighters. Like what the PHB II does, at least conceptually and we can debate whether they go far enought and what a fighter should get etc.

Remember though, at level 1 a fighter can actually kill goblins and keep his party alive. A mage can get lucky and make two fall asleep or chicken-fry a bug.

(And druids need work because shapeshifting in any form is broken worse then casters as a whole. No Natural Spell would be a good start.)

[Jack Mann]

Fighters have three basic problems.

One is their low will save, and their inability to guard against attacks that target it. This means that a lot of spells are going to put a real hurt on the fighter. Especially at higher levels, many creatures have supernatural and spell-like that force will saves, and have disastrous results for failure. Granted, spells like mind blank help, but that's an eighth level spell, and not everything that forces a will save is mind-affecting. Illusions, for example, or imprisonment, or repulsion. This is leaving aside spells and effects that don't allow saves.

Their other problem is mobility. Many high level monsters (dragons, pit fiends...) are mobile to an extent that it's virtually impossible for any melee-based fighter to hit them. Most means by which they can achieve flight don't give them sufficient speed to keep up. As well, most fighter builds require full attacks to get the most out of them. If they can catch up to the monsters, then oftentimes the monster can do more damage to them in a round than they can do to the monster. That leaves only the charge builds, using various methods to get maximum damage on a single attack, and praying that the enemy doesn't survive. Archers are better off, since they can stay well back and get their full attacks off even if the enemy is out of melee range, which is why ranged builds tend to be the ones with the most staying power.

The third problem is that clerics and druids, by and large, do these things better. Even in a core game, they tend to dominate melee combat. Given the clerical buffs, a cleric can even become a good archer (and makes the best archer outside of core).

Tome of Battle makes an effort to alleviate these problems. It succeeds admirably at the first two, and makes a go at three. Martial adepts are more able to handle high level monsters without limiting themselves to a single trick (charger) or putting themselves in a secondary role (archer). They are still not as good in melee as a cleric or druid, but at least the gap is smaller.

[LotharBot]

If you're talking about power creep, Tome of Battle is the wrong thing to complain about. Having classes that are behind the curve catch up isn't power creep. Having the classes that are ahead get farther ahead is power creep.

In order to have class balance, you need the classes to gain power at approximately the same rate. It's not "power creep" to take a class that gains power more slowly and modify it so that it gains power at a similar rate. Tome of Battle is not power creep; Tome of Battle simply makes the melee classes gain power at a similar speed to the caster classes so that they can remain relevant and useful all game. (Now all they need to do is make the rogue fit the same system and we're good.)

There is power creep in this game, but it's not the melee classes that are to blame. It's the new spells and abilities for casters -- divine metacheese, arcane genesis, and so on. All of those splatbooks that take incredibly powerful 13th+ level casters and make them into even MORE powerful casters... those are power creep.

But, of course, the DM can always stop power creep. Just limit what you allow your players to do. "No, that spell isn't available in this universe." "No, you can't get that item." "No, you can't take a feat of +10 to caster level." DM's need to learn to say NO and keep the players within the confines of their universe.

[AtomicKitKat]

I'm sorry, I just have to laugh here at the insinuation that mages are "near impotent" at lower levels. That might have been true back in AD&D and older, but in 3.x, the only limiter to a caster's power is if you throw 1 more encounter per day than the number of spell slots they have. And even then, if they get something like Mage Armour, which lasts for an hour per level, they might be able to make the spell last long enough to cover 2 battles.

[Callix]

Kitkat: If you had to use a spell for Mage Armor, then that's 2 fights you're a low-Dex, low-BAB archer (Wiz and sorc), or an unskilled (cleric) and possibly underarmored (druid) melee guy. Up to level 5, the glass cannon problem is a big limiting factor. After that, Fireball, Wildshape, and later Divine Power make this no longer true all the time. Persistent metacheese makes this true none of the time. That is why DMM(Persistent) is broken. Not why clerics are ovverpowered.

[Jack Mann]

Granted, divine metamagic is broken, but clerics don't need it to outclass the fighter. Once they have access to fourth level spells, they're in business. When combat begins, they're really only a round behind the fighter.

As for low-level wizards, they're fairly weak, hp-wise, and they have to be careful of their resources. They can still contribute significantly, however, when they use those resources. Sleep can win a fight at level one. Fireball, incidentally, is almost never worth casting. A wizard who focuses on damage-dealing spells is not going to contribute overmuch to his party's success. Haste does much more damage over the course of a fight.