Why 3.5?

[Arkain]

Mostly, I stick to Pathfinder, not only because I find it mechanically less frustrating, but because it allows convenient online access. Being able to browse online through most of the content is something I don't want to do without anymore. No wondering which book something is in, I can just hand out a link and everybody can look up all the things. I don't have to remind people to pretty please also check the SpC when leveling up their caster, for instance, most of the stuff is part of the default list already. I noticed this particularly the last time I got to play 3.5, when I decided to try a druid. What are interesting feats, spells, wildshape forms, where are they found, can I use them? At this point, I find it overly cumbersome. Not to mention that every single 3.5 group I got to play in ended up being horrible, which made it all the less enjoyable.
This has little to do with 3.5 as a system, but my experiences with it in recent years have been so immensely negative that after the last time I began wondering if I actually hate it. So yeah, I don't do it much anymore, besides helping people out here when I can.

[Raven777]

Yeah, throw in the Elephant in the Room and Path of War and really, Pathfinder 1e is just *chef's kiss*.

[Bohandas]

I don't think this is correct. NPCs are expected to only be in one encounter, while PCs are expected to be in every encounter, which leads to some abilities being valued differently when assigning LA or CR. For instance, from a CR perspective there's no real difference between a 1/day buff that lasts for 1 minute and an always-active buff, as either one will be active throughout the entire fight, but from an LA perspective the latter is clearly more valuable than the former.

Shouldn't ECL generally be lower than CR then?

[Fizban]

If the playtesting casters did explore the capabilities of their magic to a reasonable extent and we still got this unbalanced mess, that arguably might even be more of a problem.

Unless of course the playtesters were actually far more optimized than you think, which is why they were able to handle things you think the game doesn't work for without a bunch of optimizaton. You don't actually know.

Wasn’t there that example combat with the wizard using a bow and True Strike against a balor or something?

There was an article linked in a previous thread on this topic, which I did bookmark, here. It's four 16-17th level PCs vs a Balor (a foe 3-4 CR above their level and as such not necessarily something they even should be able to defeat) during 3.5 (not an example from earlier playtests). They were a Barbarian, a Cleric/Combat Medic, a Wizard, a Fighter/Elocator, and a Hammer of Moradin. It specifically acknowledges that the healer healed, the elocator wasn't able to do damage but did provide tactical support via Dimension Swaps, and that primary problems were Damage Reduction and Armor Class (as should be expected for a foe 4 levels above the party, some of their numbers are just too high and if the party doesn't all happen to have weapons targeting that weakness yet). They knew about the Balor's SLAs and specifically used Greater Spell Immunity to block them (as well as some other "standard buffing spells"), and the DM even used a Greater Dispel but simply failed to get the protections they wanted removed, though still hitting something important. Immediately before the Balor fight the party had apparently walked over a Marilith with little effort with a specific call out to the Hammer of Moradin (a decent combat PrC with various DR, AC, daze, and damage abilities)-who was also the one with the holy cold iron weapon and lost their Fly spell in that dispel on round 1 and was considered the greatest threat. Meanwhile on round 5 it is revealed that the Barbarian was apparently also occupied fighting a Mountain Troll for a much of the fight. And on round 6 the fight falls apart into crits as the Balor immediately lands a Vorpal hit on the dwarf (who is Revivify'd), which is followed by more manyshot holy bow, and Improved Critical hits from the barbarian's greatsword as the party piles on, and then they survive Death Throes thanks to pre-cast Fortunate Fate spells.

This party has 2-3 melee characters, one in rage, one spec'd to hammer/throwing hammer, and one who everyone acknowledged was underpowered so they didn't even waste a Spell Immunity slot on them, and their Cleric is specifically Vow of Nonviolence, and they're fighting a flying opponent (which char-op just assumes everything on both sides should have at all times anyway). The Wizard is literally the only person left with range, and they supply Quickened True Strike into Manyshot with cold iron arrows and a Holy bow- it's the big jank tech example in an article meant to illustrate how high level combat can be janky. This would be better from any actual combat character, but they're all melee specialists (a thing char-op loves to do, overspecialize). The party is fighting a foe far above their level requiring specific weapons, and the Wizard is wielding one of them with a spell and feat combo that make it more reliable than flinging high level spells uselessly into the SR and saves of a foe that will brush them off.

So sure, tell me how horrible this group is at the game, and what you would have done so much better. No, saying you would have brought 6 Wizards or 6 Cold Iron Holy Greatswords is not a proof, use the same characters-of course you can't, because none of ue know the Wizard's exact spell list, and as such can only complain that if they didn't have X perfect spell they should have because you totally would have . This party absolutely was making good use of the spells they had: they wasted several of the Balor's Turns with Greater Spell Immunity and survived thanks to use of a powerful splatbook buff, while the Wizard had apparently equipped themselves with something that clearly was more effective than any of the spells they had in that situation. They had their melee characters buffed to fly- the specialized one with the best damage lost their Fly spell, another was apparently occupied soloing an extra monster, and the third couldn't deal damage so they used support utility abilities they had instead- and once enough party members could attack the foe, it fell.

The biggest mark to be made against them is that they have too many melee characters and someone was underpowered (for this fight anyway), which are hardly rare problems, and if the oversized party had a Ranger instead they probably would have won far more easily. They used prior information and a bunch of buffs to survive and beat something 4 levels above them as a team, succeeding in spite and because of random rolls. This is DnD working as intended. What more do you want?

I don’t remember where that was or the specifics.

Which is why you're getting this reaction from someone who does. You shouldn't act like you're an authoritative source if you. . . don't have a source.

A [PC race] with a total of [x] class levels will be CR [x], so...

No they aren't, as any amount of comparison against monsters of CR X will reveal. The CR=Level statement is for awarding XP and came long after the definitions of CR and EL in the original 3.0 version. It is not a foundational rule, and it should be no surprise to anyone that the system doesn't make sense when you treat it as one.

[Psyren]

So, between all these options... What keeps you here? Why are you here to play and discuss an edition that'll never get new content, an edition known for being a mess, an edition that has very little potential to attract and be friendly to new players?

Here for Pathfinder actually (same subforum) but I do mix in some 3.5 stuff

I'm steadily playing more and more 5e these days though, now that it has like, actual options.

[RandomPeasant]

There was an article linked in a previous thread on this topic, which I did bookmark, here. It's four 16-17th level PCs vs a Balor (a foe 3-4 CR above their level and as such not necessarily something they even should be able to defeat)

This is, of course, incorrect. A 16th level party should be able to defeat a CR 20 foe, thought they would not be expected to have the resources to defeat additional encounters of any particular significance. In fact, a 5 person party of 16th level characters against a Balor would be expected to be at a modest advantage.

No, saying you would have brought 6 Wizards or 6 Cold Iron Holy Greatswords is not a proof

Why, exactly, is it not a proof? I'll give you that strategies like "buy a bunch of Outsider (Evil)-bane weapons" are cheesing things, but simply playing different characters would be an entirely reasonable optimization to expect people to make.

No they aren't, as any amount of comparison against monsters of CR X will reveal. The CR=Level statement is for awarding XP and came long after the definitions of CR and EL in the original 3.0 version. It is not a foundational rule, and it should be no surprise to anyone that the system doesn't make sense when you treat it as one.

This is also incorrect. The DMG (page 110 in my copy) talks about "an NPC's level (or Challenge Rating, which is usually the same thing)", with the examples showing the variance owing exclusively to LA. If you have a more authoritative source that provides a specific guideline that conflicts with "CR == class level", feel free to provide it.

[Seward]

This is, of course, incorrect. A 16th level party should be able to defeat a CR 20 foe, thought they would not be expected to have the resources to defeat additional encounters of any particular significance.

A lot of the quoted fight in the battle can be summed up as "the balor got into full attack range of a martial that could hit it on round 7 and died". Although it did manage a kill vs a prepared party, which is about exactly the expected result for an EL+3-4 encounter if it drags on for more than a couple rounds.

Even if the party didn't have the usual golfbag of weapons most fighters have at level 3, the iconic party of Mialee, Jozan, Lydda and Tordek can smoke a Balor if prepared.

With core spells alone, nothing above level 5 or unusual for a wizard to have by level 16 assuming basically no gear.

Mialee - Major Creation cold iron, fabricate into weapons Lydda, Tordek and Jozan can use.
Mialee or Jozan casts Greater Magic Weapon4 on 3 weapons
Jozan casts Align Weapon Good on 3 weapons
Mialee hastes the party. Maybe also slaps heroism down Lydda and Jozan
Jozan casts circle of prot evil (to keep summoned demons out if they're nearby), and probably bless and prayer. Lydda can do some of this if she has some scrolls or wands to UMD

By L16, most parties can simulate most of this with gear needing no prep ahead of time, or a lot less spells. But assume this baseline.

It is important to start the fight either out of the Balor's move+close range or you risk losing initiative and losing Mialee to implosion. Ideally you send in a summoned monster or illusion or something to draw its alpha strike, or maybe you are doing scry and fry type tactics except with just knowing where he's at (due to scouting options too numerous to go into, ranging from mundane to magical) and directing a dim-door to his location, leaving Jozan, Lydda and Tordek able to full attack, Lydda with a flank. A silence spell in case it survives to counter Blasphemy is also a pretty good idea, although mildly tricky to execute given the desire to have Mialee move the party into position to attack. Perhaps Jozan has a quickened silence prepared.

Of course if you actually kill it in the alpha strike, surviving the 100 point detonation is left as an exercise to the reader. Loading up on temp hitpoint spells (false life, aid or maybe hero's feast) to get over that threshold might matter. Jozan might want to forgo a full attack to interrupt spellcasting perhaps. Tactics are still needed but that balor is going to be on the defensive and maybe somebody will die. Such is the nature of EL+4 encounters. They're a coin toss if the party isn't prepared, and no joke even if they are if a party gets some bad luck.

At L16 death is a speed bump if you recover the body and don't TPK. Even if a body is destroyed, you are only 1 level from True Rez or wish, and probably are owed some favors by then to get it done, especially if that balor was doing something the powers in the world might care about.

By level 20, well, killing a Balor in 1 round if you can manage a full attack is the basic measure of a martial character, and surviving the detonation isn't usually a big deal either if you aren't an archer and forced to do it up close and personal. It's just getting that martial in position to do so that requires tactics and planning, especially if the party is fighting 2-4 Balors.

[Bonzai]

But the setting is something you create yourself. The Forgotten Realms books, the Dragonlance books have no impact on game play. You create a fantasy world. I never played a game where Raistlin, Elminster or any of the other characters exist or have ever existed. To me the books were example stories what you could do with D&D.

Sure, games evolve and diverge over time. But you pay for setting books for background, details, flavor, and inspiration. Since they are well established, they become familiar and players from different groups can have similar experiences and expectations within them.

Now, I am doing exactly what you suggest, and fully creating my own material. Best of all I am free from having to reinvest whenever a company decides to invalidate my purchases.

[RandomPeasant]

A lot of the quoted fight in the battle can be summed up as "the balor got into full attack range of a martial that could hit it on round 7 and died". Although it did manage a kill vs a prepared party, which is about exactly the expected result for an EL+3-4 encounter if it drags on for more than a couple rounds.

The Balor is unrealistically incompetent even outside that. I have some minor nitpicks, like not using Summon (though maybe that was the marilith) and opening with greater dispel magic instead of blasphemy, but the big issue is that it throws multiple spells into the spell immunity when that should not happen. When it sees the first spell fail, it should get a Spellcraft check (DC 28) to "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect". With the Balor's +30 to Spellcraft, that is impossible for it to fail. So at that point it should switch to using 9th level SLAs like implosion and dominate monster immediately, rather than wasting additional rounds on actions it has good reason to believe cannot succeed. Then, for some reason, it throws away the rest of implosion to close to melee with a hard target. That said, the overall result of the fight is not especially surprising. Five 16th and 17th level characters should be able to defeat a Balor. But the fact that they do so because it is played incompetently is not the argument for quality of playtesting it was present as.

[Seward]

Balor's can have off days too, and their stated tactics aren't exactly amazing.

What he did would have worked on some parties. Maybe he'd smoked several other challengers with similar tactics. Or maybe the GM doesn't feel that there is anything to perceive in spell immunity if the balor isn't using something like arcane sight to distinguish it from other effects.

For example....fire storm - stopped by prot fire, a L3 spell, on entire party.

Blasphemy - party might be level 20, or have spell resistance spell cast or maybe somehow has individual silence effects on those unaffected (nobody was casting spells at him, although hearing perception might eliminate the latter as an option) or perhaps managed to somehow be immune to dazing (immue paralysis is a given with freedom of movement available by L16, on a ring if spellcasters are stingy) I note the one guy affected wasn't weakened either, or if so it didn't matter (you weakened a buff/support/heal guy but not enough to drop him to str 0)

power word stun - targeted character might have sufficient hitpoints. Honestly a Balor should expect everybody to have at least 100hp if they challenge him in self-destruct range, and 150 isn't at all unusual for any character who feels high enough to try. Usually you'd wait till you softened them up before going down that road, so I grant this wasn't an especially good call.

Implosion - did in fact target the wizard, and wizard saved against it Save and XXX suck that way, and the other characters were all folks expected to have strong fort saves.

Dominate monster is a pretty bad choice. Most parties engaging any high level demon will routinely cast prot evil just to keep the summons from doing melee attacks. It's not going to work unless you stick a dispel.

He was at the wrong end of a prepared party. Those encounters are dangerous. Frankly the biggest mistake he made was fighting 7 rounds, instead of teleporting away after the first few spells failed. Maybe he had to defend that spot for some reason? Or maybe his personality included getting enraged if stuff fails thus explaining his switching to melee tactics, which resulted in a mutual kill.

[Fizban]

This is, of course, incorrect. A 16th level party should be able to defeat a CR 20 foe, thought they would not be expected to have the resources to defeat additional encounters of any particular significance. In fact, a 5 person party of 16th level characters against a Balor would be expected to be at a modest advantage.

"Of course."

15% Very Difficult EL 1-4 higher than party level

Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an Overpowering one, because it's not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.

By contrast, an encounter of even one or two levels higher than the party might tax the PCs to their limit.

By all means, show me the quotation that says the players are expected to defeat this encounter. Pretty sure you can't because it's not there, and the relevant lines directly contradict that stance. An encounter even a single level higher has the potential to tax the PCs to their limits, and counts as Very Difficult, where one PC might very well die, and the PCs may be in more danger than you'd think because the players might not realize that they need to flee. That is the threshold the DMG allows for.

Resource expenditure does not magically (heh) scale into an expectation of beating higher encounters, it's quite clear on the subject. The connections that "prove" the system wrong do not actually exist, because the designers were not as stupid as people think they are.

Why, exactly, is it not a proof? I'll give you that strategies like "buy a bunch of Outsider (Evil)-bane weapons" are cheesing things, but simply playing different characters would be an entirely reasonable optimization to expect people to make.

This attack originally came from the "oh they didn't even playtest anything/they're so bad at their own game" angle- So, the playtesters/designers are supposed to not actually playtest things because they should be playing "more optimized" characters? The only characters that matter are those you personally find powerful enough, even when a supposedly weaker party gets the job done?

This is also incorrect. The DMG (page 110 in my copy) talks about "an NPC's level (or Challenge Rating, which is usually the same thing)", with the examples showing the variance owing exclusively to LA. If you have a more authoritative source that provides a specific guideline that conflicts with "CR == class level", feel free to provide it.

I literally just said why that's wrong: the NPC CR=level is an ease of use rule that is not the primary source. NPCs are not the base of the CR system. You can read all through pages 48-50, the pages which actually define the EL/CR system, and find no mention of classed NPCs. It's monsters, creatures, monsters, example after example of monsters. The system is defined by parties of PCs vs monsters, not PCs vs classed NPCs. This is made obvious by any attempts to compare classed NPCs to monsters of "equivalent" CR which lay bare the massive gaps in attack, damage, hit points, armor class, and magical firepower, and the simple fact that the system doesn't make sense when treating NPC level as the primary driver should make it blindingly obvious that it's not (or in other words: if you're reading the text in a way that doesn't make sense, maybe try not reading it that way).

There is no more authoritative section than the one that defines the actual system. Classed NPCs are assigned a CR for experience awards because they need something if they're going to fit into the CR system, and in the 3.0 version this not mentioned in the NPC section at all, but is found 100 some pages later in the Rewards section (only the most oblique and indirect reference can be found in the modifiers for generating NPCs from monster "races"*). The 3.5 version moved things around and added extra mentions so it would be easier find, but that does not make it more authoritative, because the 3.5 restructuring of the book is not how the system was designed.

And yes, I'm saying that NPC CR=level is directly, objectively wrong, regardless of how much the DMG says to use it for (which it still does not say is used as the primary driver of the CR system). The writers can and did get things wrong, and this is one of them, but it's easy to use and as long as you're still primarily using monsters, as the system clearly expects, it's not too big of a problem. If they had been more honest it would have caused even more confusion than the monsters advancement rules and ECL etc already do, directly telling people X class is "better" than Y class (which they would fail to grasp is only meant to apply in a completely different context) and cause even worse problems of DM optimization of monsters. So even if I think the rule is objectively wrong, I can see and even support why they went with that rule, while also lamenting the other problems that choice caused.

A fundamentally asymmetrical (and unidirectional) threat evaluation which is easy to use is good, but it being in a system which also encourages NPCs and even monsters to use part of the character creation rules means it was inevitably going to be muddied and cause problems however they tried to integrate it.

*Actually that's not quite right: It does say "Starting with an NPC's level (or Challenge Rating, which is usually the same thing)." at one point, but that line itself includes a "usually" qualifier. This seems to be the line you're referring to on p110 of the 3.5 version, where it is copy/pasted again further down, giving it a far stronger visual credence than it originally was or actually deserves.

The Balor is unrealistically incompetent even outside that. I have some minor nitpicks, like not using Summon (though maybe that was the marilith) and opening with greater dispel magic instead of blasphemy,

Which can be read as the DM actually unfairly metagaming to give their monster an edge, and yet still the dispelled Fly was a major reason the fight lasted as long as it did.

but the big issue is that it throws multiple spells into the spell immunity when that should not happen. When it sees the first spell fail, it should get a Spellcraft check (DC 28) to "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect". With the Balor's +30 to Spellcraft, that is impossible for it to fail.

Which as I recall was added to 3.5 after Tome and Blood used it- or in short, a rule not nearly as core as it looks at first glance. I'd be willing to bet almost zero monsters with piles of Spellcraft filling up their skill points were expected by their designers to be identifying spells. Assuming that your expectation of a spell failing to Spell Immunity even fulfills the skill's definition of "see or detect," which since Spell Immunity causes spells to fail via effectively infinite Spell Resistance, is pretty shaky to begin with since there are several core spells and items which provide SR.

But the fact that they do so because it is played incompetently is not the argument for quality of playtesting it was present as.

And that's kinda all you need to hear really. Once you start calling people incompetent it rather makes any other arguments fall flat. It is also tantamount to saying they're "playing the game wrong," with an extra bonus that it's aimed at the designers themselves.

[137beth]

Disclaimer: I have not read the thread beyond the first page.

For me, the key selling point of 3.5 is mechanical diversity among PCs. The rules for playing a binder, warblade, and a dread necromancer are so wildly different that they don't even look like they belong in the same system. And yet, they can all play in a party together with something resembling game balance.

In my opinion, PF1 misses the mark on mechanically diverse PCs, at least if you are restricted only to Paizo content. Some non-Paizo PF1 content, particularly Interjection Games and Dreamscarred Press classes, bring the mechanical diversity I like to Pathfinder. I am disappointed that both of those companies have stopped releasing new content.

[danielxcutter]

Disclaimer: I have not read the thread beyond the first page.

For me, the key selling point of 3.5 is mechanical diversity among PCs. The rules for playing a binder, warblade, and a dread necromancer are so wildly different that they don't even look like they belong in the same system. And yet, they can all play in a party together with something resembling game balance.

In my opinion, PF1 misses the mark on mechanically diverse PCs, at least if you are restricted only to Paizo content. Some non-Paizo PF1 content, particularly Interjection Games and Dreamscarred Press classes, bring the mechanical diversity I like to Pathfinder. I am disappointed that both of those companies have stopped releasing new content.

Really, the game would have been a lot more balanced if the casters tended to be more like the fixed-list ones.

[Raven777]

I'm the opposite, but I really do think this is an irreconcilable matter of personal preferences.

I think a big strenght of 3.PF is that two Wizards or two Clerics or two Sorcerers can play wildly different just by virtue of the ACF/Archetypes + Races + Feats + Spells + Gear they choose, thanks to being so versatile with so little restrictions. For me, compartmentalizing the casters into thematic niches still triggers the same gut feeling of "ewww MMO classes" that it did a decade and a half ago. I don't want to play a Beguiler, I want to play a Sorcerer who can beguile.

[Batcathat]

I'm the opposite, but I really do think this is an irreconcilable matter of personal preferences.

I think a big strenght of 3.PF is that two Wizards or two Clerics or two Sorcerers can play wildly different just by virtue of the ACF/Archetypes + Races + Feats + Spells + Gear they choose, thanks to being so versatile with so little restrictions. For me, compartmentalizing the casters into thematic niches still triggers the same gut feeling of "ewww MMO classes" that it did a decade and a half ago. I don't want to play a Beguiler, I want to play a Sorcerer who can beguile.

Perhaps I'm missing something (I haven't played that many MMOs) but what's inherently MMO-ish about casters having to specialize?

[RandomPeasant]

Dominate monster is a pretty bad choice. Most parties engaging any high level demon will routinely cast prot evil just to keep the summons from doing melee attacks. It's not going to work unless you stick a dispel.

But in this case the Balor did stick a dispel. And if the Balor suspects protection from evil, he can just teleport out and come back in 15 minutes when it's worn off.

By all means, show me the quotation that says the players are expected to defeat this encounter. Pretty sure you can't because it's not there, and the relevant lines directly contradict that stance.

No they don't. It says "a PC may die", not "the PCs are not expected to win". Similarly "tax the PCs to their limit" does not mean "the PCs will lose", it means "the PCs will win with no remaining resources". The text is clearly describing victory at a cost. Or, you know, exactly the thing I said it was.

The only characters that matter are those you personally find powerful enough, even when a supposedly weaker party gets the job done?

Playtesting that gets the result of "success" when the expected result is "success" is not very useful. A party of five characters of 16th and 17th level is powerful enough that, by strict guidelines, they have some cushion in their margin of victory. That resulting in a success does not prove very much. Especially when the Balor plays as poorly as this one did.

the NPC CR=level is an ease of use rule that is not the primary source.

And yet your citation that it is incorrect is "sometimes designers are wrong". In the absence of a conflicting source, the point stands.

Which can be read as the DM actually unfairly metagaming to give their monster an edge, and yet still the dispelled Fly was a major reason the fight lasted as long as it did.

The Balor flies faster than the flight from fly, and can engage at ranges that exceed that of a charge. Dispelling fly looks like it was important, but it was of relatively little real consequence.

Assuming that your expectation of a spell failing to Spell Immunity even fulfills the skill's definition of "see or detect," which since Spell Immunity causes spells to fail via effectively infinite Spell Resistance, is pretty shaky to begin with since there are several core spells and items which provide SR.

Yes, that's exactly what the use of Spellcraft is for. The ability to identify spells from their effects allows you to differentiate between different spells with similar effects.

Really, the game would have been a lot more balanced if the casters tended to be more like the fixed-list ones.

As always, I'm not convinced by this. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are T2. That's worse than the Wizard, but not by a lot. And a chunk of that is because the Wizard arbitrarily gets a half-level bump on spontaneous spellcasters. How big is the gap between a Dread Necromancer that gets new spells at odd levels and a Wizard? I'm sure it's something, but I think "a lot more balanced" is a hard sell for that margin.

[danielxcutter]

Eh, I still find it weird that spellcasters that don’t have fixed lists often end up having a very weird combination of spells compared to a lot of fictional magic users.

[RandomPeasant]

Eh, I still find it weird that spellcasters that don’t have fixed lists often end up having a very weird combination of spells compared to a lot of fictional magic users.

That's not really a balance concern though. I'm fully onboard with fixed-list casters on a thematic basis, but I see a lot of people pushing for them using arguments about balance I consider to be pretty dubious. And there are reason to have those kinds of broad casters that get weird lists. For one thing, that's not really inconsistent with the source material, as plenty of fantasy Wizards have completely incoherent spell lists (e.g. Harry Potter). It's also sort of a necessary evil from a game design perspective, as getting reasonable coverage in your core book is going to require the classes in it to be broad.

[danielxcutter]

That's not really a balance concern though. I'm fully onboard with fixed-list casters on a thematic basis, but I see a lot of people pushing for them using arguments about balance I consider to be pretty dubious. And there are reason to have those kinds of broad casters that get weird lists. For one thing, that's not really inconsistent with the source material, as plenty of fantasy Wizards have completely incoherent spell lists (e.g. Harry Potter). It's also sort of a necessary evil from a game design perspective, as getting reasonable coverage in your core book is going to require the classes in it to be broad.

I guess it’s not a balance thing, but Sorcerer still feels kinda weird. It’s kinda hard to stick to a theme while staying effective. At least dragonblood-themed Sorcs have a bit of an easier time.

[Batcathat]

That's not really a balance concern though. I'm fully onboard with fixed-list casters on a thematic basis, but I see a lot of people pushing for them using arguments about balance I consider to be pretty dubious.

While this thread probably isn't the right place for the debate, I feel like the basic idea is pretty simple: part of a caster's power compared to non-casters is being very versatile and having abilities for almost any situation. Limit their access to the total width of those abilities and you limit their power.

At least personally, I think there could also be generalist casters but they should in return not be as good in specific fields, just as a skill-monkey who tries to learn every skill won't be as good as the one who specializes.

[Raven777]

Perhaps I'm missing something (I haven't played that many MMOs) but what's inherently MMO-ish about casters having to specialize?

Thematic and ability specialization and niche protection is often how MMO/CRPG classes are separated and balanced.

That's the difference of knowing that one session I can bind demons and raise the dead and the next I can do my best Loki impression with enchantments and illusions, vs. knowing that I'm locked into an archetype. Look at the 5e Sorcerer. Why are a bunch of the Wizard's spells barred to them? Why can't they easily get a familiar? Now look at a World of Warcraft Mage. Why can't they learn the Warlock's spells? Why can't they summon a demon too?

[Batcathat]

Thematic and ability specialization and niche protection is often how MMO/CRPG classes are separated and balanced.

It's also how most real life "classes" work. Most doctors don't work with every kind of patient, most scientists don't do every kind of research, most detectives don't investigate every kind of crime, and so forth.

Not to mention that other D&D classes already works like that. Fighters aren't great at every single type of combat, rogues aren't good with every single skill. But casters need to be good with every kind of magic for... reasons?

That's the difference of knowing that one session I can bind demons and raise the dead and the next I can do my best Loki impression with enchantments and illusions, vs. knowing that I'm locked into an archetype. Look at the 5e Sorcerer. Why are a bunch of the Wizard's spells barred to them? Why can't they easily get a familiar? Now look at a World of Warcraft Mage. Why can't they learn the Warlock's spells? Why can't they summon a demon too?

Sure, I can agree that there should be a reason behind it (though an obvious choice is that learning different kinds of magic simply takes time and most casters don't bother studying every field) but considering how arbitrary and inconsistent most D&D magic already is, I'm not sure it would stand out much if it didn't.

[RandomPeasant]

I guess it’s not a balance thing, but Sorcerer still feels kinda weird. It’s kinda hard to stick to a theme while staying effective. At least dragonblood-themed Sorcs have a bit of an easier time.

The Sorcerer is very much that "necessary evil" I mentioned. For any particular concept, the fixed-list version of that concept is better, but you can't put all the fixed-list casters in Core, so you need something that can specialize in a variety of questions so that people don't have to wait for your Jungle-themed splatbook to play a plant mage. I do think that if you made it pick domains (either instead of or in addition to) individual spells, that might work a bit better, but overall you do need something that can be "lightning mage", "storm mage", "necromancer", and "oracle" in your core book, and that requires allowing lightning-wielding oracles or storm necromaners.

While this thread probably isn't the right place for the debate, I feel like the basic idea is pretty simple: part of a caster's power compared to non-casters is being very versatile and having abilities for almost any situation. Limit their access to the total width of those abilities and you limit their power.

But does the data bear that out? It's not that getting to switch around your powers makes you good, the Incarnate gets to do that (more than the Wizard or the Cleric, even, since it has flexibility during the day too), and it's still T4. It's not that getting to pick from a broad range of powers makes you good, because the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are both easily T2. It's not that getting a long list of powers makes you good, because the Core-Only Wizard is still probably T1 and T2 at the absolute worst. The reason the T1 casters are good is that there are spells (and it's really a pretty small subset of spells) that are extremely good, and they get the fastest progression with them.

At least personally, I think there could also be generalist casters but they should in return not be as good in specific fields, just as a skill-monkey who tries to learn every skill won't be as good as the one who specializes.

But that's the status quo. A War Weaver is better at buffing their party than a Wizard that happened to prepare some buff spells today. A Shadowcraft Mage has better Illusions than a generic Sorcerer. The game is replete with options that allow you to effectively specialize as a caster, it's just that the overall balance between casters and non-casters is such that a caster can often (particularly at high levels) outdo a martial without needing to specialize.

To put it numerically, if a Fighter is a 5 in melee combat, a generic Wizard is a 6, and a dedicated gish is an 8, the problem isn't that Wizards are too good without specializing, it's that there is a dramatic imbalance between Wizards and Fighters, to the point that the former can beat the latter in their nominal specialty without trying.

[Raven777]

But casters need to be good with every kind of magic for... reasons?

I said higher up I really do think this is an irreconcilable matter of personal preferences. I respect and understand your point, but I think beyond that any discourse will boil down to "well I prefer it that way" or "well that way makes more sense to me". In my case, I have tasted 3.PF T1/T2 casters the fruit of the tree of knowledge and nothing else will ever compare. The thread is about why 3.5, and that... kink? Wrinkle? Peculiar approach? Is a big part of it.

As for casters with eclectic toolboxes, to me the absence of theme is always what differentiated Wizards from X-Men.

[danielxcutter]

The Sorcerer is very much that "necessary evil" I mentioned. For any particular concept, the fixed-list version of that concept is better, but you can't put all the fixed-list casters in Core, so you need something that can specialize in a variety of questions so that people don't have to wait for your Jungle-themed splatbook to play a plant mage. I do think that if you made it pick domains (either instead of or in addition to) individual spells, that might work a bit better, but overall you do need something that can be "lightning mage", "storm mage", "necromancer", and "oracle" in your core book, and that requires allowing lightning-wielding oracles or storm necromaners.

Well, they did separate Cleric from Druid so I don’t think it’d be completely impossible.

But does the data bear that out? It's not that getting to switch around your powers makes you good, the Incarnate gets to do that (more than the Wizard or the Cleric, even, since it has flexibility during the day too), and it's still T4. It's not that getting to pick from a broad range of powers makes you good, because the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are both easily T2. It's not that getting a long list of powers makes you good, because the Core-Only Wizard is still probably T1 and T2 at the absolute worst. The reason the T1 casters are good is that there are spells (and it's really a pretty small subset of spells) that are extremely good, and they get the fastest progression with them.

The problem with Wizard is that it gets literally all of those and then some.

But that's the status quo. A War Weaver is better at buffing their party than a Wizard that happened to prepare some buff spells today. A Shadowcraft Mage has better Illusions than a generic Sorcerer. The game is replete with options that allow you to effectively specialize as a caster, it's just that the overall balance between casters and non-casters is such that a caster can often (particularly at high levels) outdo a martial without needing to specialize.

To put it numerically, if a Fighter is a 5 in melee combat, a generic Wizard is a 6, and a dedicated gish is an 8, the problem isn't that Wizards are too good without specializing, it's that there is a dramatic imbalance between Wizards and Fighters, to the point that the former can beat the latter in their nominal specialty without trying.

…Generic Wizards beat Fighters in melee combat?

[Batcathat]

But does the data bear that out? It's not that getting to switch around your powers makes you good, the Incarnate gets to do that (more than the Wizard or the Cleric, even, since it has flexibility during the day too), and it's still T4. It's not that getting to pick from a broad range of powers makes you good, because the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are both easily T2. It's not that getting a long list of powers makes you good, because the Core-Only Wizard is still probably T1 and T2 at the absolute worst. The reason the T1 casters are good is that there are spells (and it's really a pretty small subset of spells) that are extremely good, and they get the fastest progression with them.

Haven't I already had this discussion with you? Or was that with someone else? Either way, the versatility I'm talking about isn't so much their ability to change their spells (though it helps, obviously) but how versatile the spells themselves are. A wizard could pick the same spells every single day and still be able to contribute in far more situations than most non-casters (assuming the wizard put a minimum of thought into their picks). I'd say getting a long list of powers is definitely part of what makes them good — and a core-only wizard still have a long list of powers (shorter than one that uses every book, obviously, but still quite long).

And yes, some spells are broken enough to unbalance the game even if they're the only spell the caster knows. Making casters specialize certainly won't fix the entire caster/non-caster divide, but I do think it would help.

[danielxcutter]

Honestly most of the more OP spells are Core and half of the caster-focused supplement material is to provide players with fun options that aren’t as game-breaking.

[Batcathat]

I said higher up I really do think this is an irreconcilable matter of personal preferences. I respect and understand your point, but I think beyond that any discourse will boil down to "well I prefer it that way" or "well that way makes more sense to me". In my case, I have tasted 3.PF T1/T2 casters the fruit of the tree of knowledge and nothing else will ever compare. The thread is about why 3.5, and that... kink? Wrinkle? Peculiar approach? Is a big part of it.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Out of curiosity, do the non-casters also give you MMO-vibes from the fact that they have to specialize?

As for casters with eclectic toolboxes, to me the absence of theme is always what differentiated Wizards from X-Men.

Yeah, wizards are probably more like Superman. Super-everything and – to some – super-boring.

[RandomPeasant]

Well, they did separate Cleric from Druid so I don’t think it’d be completely impossible.

And they separated the Sorcerer from the Wizard. But those classes are incredibly broad. The Cleric is supposed to be able to represent characters who get their power from their philosophy and whose philosophies are exactly opposed on every relevant access. If your class can do "evil priest of darkness" and "good priest of light", it is not meaningfully specialized. The Druid is a bit more focused, but it still covers plant mage, animal mage, elemental mage, generic nature mage, shapeshifter, and beastmaster (and that's without getting into the things that got grafted on after core as ACFs).

The problem with Wizard is that it gets literally all of those and then some.

Is it? I submit that if you made a Wizard who got only the five best spells of each level, that character would be no lower than T2 and there would be people who argued for it being in T1.

…Generic Wizards beat Fighters in melee combat?

Depends on what you mean. If you count minions, yeah absolutely. If you count personal combat prowess, probably not until pretty high level. But I think the general point stands.

Either way, the versatility I'm talking about isn't so much their ability to change their spells (though it helps, obviously) but how versatile the spells themselves are.

Then why are you framing it as a problem with the Wizard? If the problem is planar binding, and I would agree that it is, why the endless "Wizards are too broad" complaints instead of the more accurate, and therefore more productive, "we need to nerf the ~ten spells per level that break the game". When you say "the problem is the Wizard", you get people proposing fixes like "what if we made the Wizard cast like a Bard" or "what if we brought back AD&D's anti-Wizard mechanics" or any number of other changes that serve only to push people harder towards broken spells.

Honestly most of the more OP spells are Core and half of the caster-focused supplement material is to provide players with fun options that aren’t as game-breaking.

And even within Core, the number of spells that break the game is pretty low. If 90% of your problem can be summarized as "the planar binding and polymorph lines are too good", I don't see how making things about the casting classes is productive. The d2 Crusader is broken, but you don't see people going on about how that means we need to fundamentally rethink martial classes.

[Batcathat]

Then why are you framing it as a problem with the Wizard? If the problem is planar binding, and I would agree that it is, why the endless "Wizards are too broad" complaints instead of the more accurate, and therefore more productive, "we need to nerf the ~ten spells per level that break the game". When you say "the problem is the Wizard", you get people proposing fixes like "what if we made the Wizard cast like a Bard" or "what if we brought back AD&D's anti-Wizard mechanics" or any number of other changes that serve only to push people harder towards broken spells.

Perhaps I phrased myself poorly. My issue isn't with the versatility some extremely powerful/broken specific spells (they're a problem, obviously, but not the one I think specialization could fix) but with the versatility of magic in general (and – more importantly in this discussion – the fact that classes like the wizard can use so much of it). Even if we removed or nerfed every single spell considered overpowered, casters would still be far more versatile than most non-casters.

My issue can be summed up in two parts: D&D magic can do anything and D&D casters can do all the magic (Yes, there are some limitations, like wizards not using divine magic and what not). Nerfing or removing specific spells can help with the first part, forcing casters to specialize can help with the second part.