You guys are fun to watch.
Yeah...
Ok, I'm going to have to bow out of this thread. It's embodied everything I've come to dislike about the pathfinder boards.
|
I can't be bothered to read the whole damn thread, so if this already mentioned, forgive me. However...
One of the many faults of the wizard v fighter arguments is that it assumes a single fight or a brief mathematical analysis of a single encounter proves the point conclusively. What it often fails to deal with is the one crucial difference between casters (in 3e, anyway) and fighter-types - stamina. We have all heard of the fifteen minute adventuring day, and the reason for that is the caster blow off their best spell and then don't want to play any more until they have rested and got them back. A fighter can, on the other hand, swing his sword all day without a break. So when the point arises, the issue of style of play looms large. If the DM allows the fifteen minute adventuring day (or variant) casters will easily outshine the fighters - a fresh wizard is a deadly wizard. If there is a lot more attition over the period of game time, the caster ends up having to conserve his energy or wind up using sub-optimal spells as play continues. The fighter, meanwhile, is the same fighter, give or take a bit of healing.
Now, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the fifteen minute adventuring day - whatever blows your hair back. But it isn't the only way to play, and different styles of play lead to different results.
The other issue with casters, which is much more difficult for a DM to deal with, is the sheer versatility of some (especially wizards) given the vast array of spells and (to a lesser extent) metamagic and powers which they can pile on (like sculpted spells). I think in those situations, all a DM can do is shake his head and write it off to experience, and trust that they get cocky and lazy and try that clever trick once too often.
And counterspell (no one ever does it, but it can really screw up a caster day - in fact, memo to self: counterspell those b*ggers!).
|
|
It is only bad strategy for the DM if the game for a DM is about 'trying to *win* by killing the players' characters in combat' (in which situation the only 'good' strategy is to bombard the PCs with ambushes consistently rated at their ECL+8).The DM's job in combat is to challenge the characters, preferably in an interesting way. Poor strategy makes it more difficult to challenge them appropriately and tends to make combat boring, especially over long periods of play.
As far as NPC's/monsters go, sure it may be bad strategy, but except under unusual in-game circumstances NPCs/monsters often have little reason to know what's about to hit them, nor are located in areas which allow anything resembling optimal deployment.Sure, but if there are a lot of enemies with a lot of space, and they didn't get any forwarning about the PC at all, they still probably shouldn't be clumped together all that closely. It doesn't need to be optimal, just not precisely terrible.
I kind of agree with both of you. On the one hand, a DM who plays against the party is a bloody nightmare to play with. On the other hand, if a party walks all over my carefully (well, sort of) crafted encounters, I might get cheesed off a bit - after all, most DMs like to think they have the cunning of the insane and want to at least hurt the PCs a little (or a lot) without necessarily killing them (and possibly ruining the game).
Good example, and done without Fireballs, lightning and other easy to deal with damage spells. That is an ugly spell-list, as a DM, and hard to deal with. Sure you can spend a ton of time customizing scenarios to challenge that caster but you shouldn't have to. If that caster wins initiative the battles are all but over. If he doesn't win initiative then the baddies need to suddenly recognize him as a caster and take severe measures to kill him very quickly (which makes it seem like a DM who is 'gunning' for the caster).
Good example.
Initiative should be 16 (dex, with a +2 item) = +3, +4 from Improved Init = +7. No slouch in that department.
And thanks.
(Edited, clarity)
LogicNinja:
...
Could we please have some calm? As I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, this topic has been debated before; last time it ended with suspensions after it devolved to baiting and personal attacks.
I find it interesting that you're directing this at me and not at, say, Penny.
---
Example 2: Human Druid 10
Starting stats of 9 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, 16 WIS, 11 INT, 7 CHA
16 WIS, +2 racial, +2 levels, +6 crafted item (18k gp out of 49k) = 26 (+8). +2 DEX/CON item for 16 DEX/CON.
FEATS:
H: Imp. Initiative
1: SF: Conjuration
3: Augment Summoning
5: Natural Spell
7: Extend Spell
9: Toughness or skill focus or something it doesn't even freaking matter at this point geez. Let's say we have CAdventurer access for feats and call it Natural Bond.
ANIMAL COMPANION:
Fluffy, a Dire Lion. With Natural Bond, he gets +2 bonus HD (and a bonus feat and +1 AB), +2 NA, +1 STR/DEX (+1 to hit and damage, +1 AC), Evasion.
Making mithral chain shirt barding for Fluffy is funny, but certainly doable (use MW studded leather if you want to avoid metal, even though it's only the druid himself who can't wear it).
With a +2 Greater Magic Fang for bite and claws and Multiattack as a bonus feat, Natural-Bonded Fluffy Pounces at +18 (charging)/+19/+17/+18/+18 (rakes) for 1d6+10/1d6+10/1d8+5/1d6+5/1d6+5. He's also a good enough grappler to grapple humanoids not specifically set up for it.
WILD SHAPE:
At level 10, the Druid can turn into Diminuitive to Huge animals, Large elementals, or Large plants, as per Beast Shape III, Elemental Body III, Plant Shape II.
Typical Form: the Druid typically spends his time in the body of a Bat (Diminutive animal). This gives him a 40 ft (good) fly speed, 20 ft Blindsense, +4 dexterity (+6 vs. his +2 item), +1 natural armor, +4 size bonus to AC, +12 size bonus to Hide, all day long.
Other forms include Water Elemental (immune to crits, +6 natural armor, +6 CON), Air Elemental (60 foot[perfect] fly speed, natural armor, dex), Treant ("I'm just a tree, sittin' here, don't mind me"), various innocuous animals for scouting/spying.
SPELLS:
5th: Animal Growth, Baleful Polymorph, Animal Growth or Wall of Thorns.
4th: Air Walk, Cure Serious Wounds, Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Movement, Dispel Magic.
3rd: Greater Magic Fang, GMF, Sleet Storm, Plant Growth, Call Lightning, Call Lightning.
2nd: Barkskin, Barkskin, Barkskin, Barkskin (two Extended for him, two for his companion), Bull's Strength (for the companion), Bull's Strength
1st: Longstrider, Longstrider, Entangle, Produce Flame, Produce Flame, Speak with Animals, Speak with Animals.
A Rod of Extend Spell, Regular, allows him to extend things like those Freedom of Movement spells. A lesser rod lets him extend Barkskin easily.
COMBAT TACTICS:
-Once per day: SNA V (Dire Lion) followed by Animal Growth. This gives Fluffy and the summon +8 STR and Huge size (meaning that in addition to huge damage and grappling). The summon has +4 STR/CON from Augment Summoning. The animals are big enough they can block off a room, act as battlefield control (AoO + Improved Grab), etc.
-Once per day, outdoors: Plant Growth (+Entangle), Call Lightning. No save, ping them to death.
-Other encounters: summon monsters, perform battlefield control, and buff Fluffy. If nothing else to do, fly around sniping with Produce Flame (two ranged touches at 1d6+5/1d6+5).
ALTERNATIVE BUILDS:
Instead of a flying spellcaster, I could make a half-orc druid that will smash things pretty damn well in melee.
Conclusion: the Druid is an enormous, disproportionate powerhouse, and hasn't been noticeably nerfed at all.
COMBAT TACTICS:
-Once per day: SNA V (Dire Lion) followed by Animal Growth. This gives Fluffy and the summon +8 STR and Huge size (meaning that in addition to huge damage and grappling).
Just to clarify, Animal Growth only affects one target now.
EDIT: Oops...that post disappeared. Or did it?
|
|
Apart from the perosnal attacks, some of the points in this thread are fair. Magic users get it pretty good in one on one fights gainst mook like combatants. Some of their really high spells are appalling to face (all those destruction ones before Beta solved some of the balance). However it still comes down to situations. Magic user up against golem (most of his tricks don't work anymore) check out logic nijas spell list for that one.
Creatures with SR, get harder to fight. We're also forgetting the all important save factor. At high levels save bonuses for most characters are fairly good. If the guys in may game know they're going to come up against spell casters they prep for it. Boots of teleport at high level make things like wall of force and wall of stone nothing more than a bit of a pain. Things with Blindsight or blindfight. Creatures with big resistances against mind affects or immune to mind effects exist out there as well. Druids aren't always going to be "outdoors"
Most times it comes down to initiative and encounter setup to see how effective things are.
I try to design encounters to ensure everyone gets a good shot at something to do. I work around the fact that powerful spells can take out individual combatants too easily by not putting in too many individual combatants. If I put in large groups of mooks, they suck up the casters spells, then the big hitters get involved and the fighters need to be there or my casters get smooshed.
Unlike MMO's where PvP is a big issue, this game doesn't need every character to be equal. It is a team game where the DM's job is to try and challenge the team, and the team has to work with their abilities to solve some situations. If mages went into a game fully kitted out for pure combat damage output, they'd run into trouble with some of my scenarios where they need some of those problem solving spells to get to their objective.
Too cut a long rant short (my young son wnats some breakfast :) ) in all the 20 years I've been DMing and playing, the idea that magic users were too powerful has just never popped up at our table. Individual spells have been discussed, but classes not really.
I can't be bothered to read the whole damn thread, so if this already mentioned, forgive me. However...
The thread is one page long. Please try to read the threads instead of repeating arguments already made.
One of the many faults of the wizard v fighter arguments is that it assumes a single fight or a brief mathematical analysis of a single encounter proves the point conclusively. What it often fails to deal with is the one crucial difference between casters (in 3e, anyway) and fighter-types - stamina. We have all heard of the fifteen minute adventuring day, and the reason for that is the caster blow off their best spell and then don't want to play any more until they have rested and got them back. A fighter can, on the other hand, swing his sword all day without a break. So when the point arises, the issue of style of play looms large. If the DM allows the fifteen minute adventuring day (or variant) casters will easily outshine the fighters - a fresh wizard is a deadly wizard. If there is a lot more attition over the period of game time, the caster ends up having to conserve his energy or wind up using sub-optimal spells as play continues. The fighter, meanwhile, is the same fighter, give or take a bit of healing.
The Fighter does not have unlimited healing. After four encounters, the Fighter will start feeling low on HP.
Furthermore, adventuring without the party Wizard or Cleric having some spells left is tantamount to suicide against a challenging opponent. That Fire Giant is a lot more intimidating when he's not blinded/enfeebled/whatever. Bone Devil? Forget it, Fighter and Rogue are screwed.Besides which--look at the level 10 Druid I posted at the end of page one. He can just clean up two encounters/day, pretty much guaranteed. He then has enough spells (and long-lasting enough buffs) for at least three more. And that's at level 10. You think the Fighter's gonna survive six encounters per day, every day?
Now, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the fifteen minute adventuring day - whatever blows your hair back. But it isn't the only way to play, and different styles of play lead to different results.
It's also hard for a DM to prevent, without constantly forcing TIME URGENT QUEST NOW NOW NOW. Rope Trick is ridiculously effective.
And counterspell (no one ever does it, but it can really screw up a caster day - in fact, memo to self: counterspell those b*ggers!).
An enemy caster who can be Counterspelling could be doing more harm by dropping Stinking Clouds, Slows, Confusions, Black Tentacles, etc on the party. Or just Fireballing them--direct damage works better against PCs than monsters.
Just to clarify, Animal Growth only affects one target now.
EDIT: Oops...that post disappeared. Or did it?
Okay, so he'll throw Animal Growth on the companion (that brings us up to +20/+20/+18/+19/+19 for XBOX HUGE damage) and toss out a Wall of Thorns on some other enemies, or Baleful Polymorph a guy.
I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. Spellcasters are ALWAYS more powerful than non-spellcasters as far as sheer power goes. For it to be otherwise would not be true to the genre. I think the balance of power is pretty close to what it should be right now. The Conan's and t he like still have tricks up their sleeves that are not necessarily sheer power that help them come out on top despite the odds. Having said that though the other classes are definately no slouches these days when it comes to damaging potential. If you want a character that can do everything well... play a spell caster. That is what magic is for.Charles
One good fantasy example I can think of where the high level melee type can hang with his high-leveled caster friend is Tomas from Feist's "Magician" series. Early on in the series, after Tomas gains the Valheru's powers, Macros, an epic caster in the series, could easily squish Tomas. However, later in the series, as Tomas grows into his powers, it becomes more and more clear that he is just as powerful as Pug (Macros' successor), having quite a few nifty spell-like abilities at his disposal in addition to his combat prowess and resistance to magic. Tomas had essentially taken up the mantle of a demi-god and was wearing artifacts (his armor, etc.), so he's kind of cheating since he's not really a normal mortal anymore (then again, neither was/is Macros and neither is Pug).
One thing I really like about Feist's magic system is that different beings use different kinds of magic. Macros lived with a dragon to learn how it used magic, he couldn't just research it and add the dragon's spells to his spellbook when he leveled. Tomas, as a Valheru, has magic that neither Pug nor Macros can duplicate. Pug had to live with the eldar elves to learn some of their magic, etc. I wish D&D did more of this instead of just having big spell lists open to any caster of that class (i.e., spells could have a "racial" material component. Component: V, S, M [1 can of Dr. Pepper], R [dragon]. Obviously, as a DM, I can choose to do this on my own, and I will).
Okay, so he'll throw Animal Growth on the companion (that brings us up to +20/+20/+18/+19/+19 for XBOX HUGE damage) and toss out a Wall of Thorns on some other enemies, or Baleful Polymorph a guy.
Also note that Baleful Polymorph is not as strong as in 3.5; it no longer strips off your class abilities, Su/Ex/Sp abilities, etc. if the second save succeeds.
The point I'm trying to make (too subtly, I guess) is that spell-casting classes are getting slowly reduced in power by reducing the power of particular spells. If there are still spells that might be considered "too good", maybe those particular spells should be the target of the nerf bat, not the spellcasting class itself.
|
|
Okay, so he'll throw Animal Growth on the companion (that brings us up to +20/+20/+18/+19/+19 for XBOX HUGE damage) and toss out a Wall of Thorns on some other enemies, or Baleful Polymorph a guy.Just to clarify, Animal Growth only affects one target now.
EDIT: Oops...that post disappeared. Or did it?
Huge lions can't run through 5 foot wide corridoors. But maybe that's just poor dungeon design on my part.
Apart from the perosnal attacks, some of the points in this thread are fair. Magic users get it pretty good in one on one fights gainst mook like combatants. Some of their really high spells are appalling to face (all those destruction ones before Beta solved some of the balance). However it still comes down to situations. Magic user up against golem (most of his tricks don't work anymore) check out logic nijas spell list for that one.
Magic-users get it pretty good against pretty much EVERYONE.
For example, the golem: check out what Solid Fog does. Then remember that golems are stupid. My example wizard--not designed for any specific encounter--has Solid Fog prepared, and scrolls of it. He also has Minor Image prepared (and possibly scrolls), and even maybe a scroll of Ventriloquism.
Golems are stupid. They have generally simple orders.
Solid Fog plus Ventriloquism or Minor Image can keep one contained for as long as the Fog lasts. The party can just walk on by. Illusions work wonders against golems and mindless undead, since they have absolutely no reasoning capacity.
Creatures with SR, get harder to fight. We're also forgetting the all important save factor. At high levels save bonuses for most characters are fairly good. If the guys in may game know they're going to come up against spell casters they prep for it. Boots of teleport at high level make things like wall of force and wall of stone nothing more than a bit of a pain. Things with Blindsight or blindfight. Creatures with big resistances against mind affects or immune to mind effects exist out there as well. Druids aren't always going to be "outdoors"
Creatures with SR get harder to fight? Not by much. Pathfinder gives more feats, which means any offensive caster can have Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. Wizards should tend to wind up with the Robe of the Archmagi, for another +2. There are also no-SR spells.
We are NOT forgetting the save factor. A CR 10 red dragon (great saves!) has a Will save of +12 and a Fort save of +14. That Wizard has a Suggestion DC of 20, a Confusion DC of 19, a Baleful Polymorph DC of 20, and that's before Spell Focus, Enervation, etc. He's not guaranteed to land any one spell, but it shouldn't take him more than three rounds, and any one of those is pretty much a fight-ender. Targeting the weak save. There are also no-save spells--Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is going to do quite a number (roll a 3? -12 STR!) on any melee opponent.
Druids don't need to be outdoors for anything other than the LOLarious Plant Growth (+Entangle?)/Call Lightning combo. Indoors they have other advantages, such as being able to use summons as battlefield control, Stone Shape, Wood Shape, Wall of X...
Most times it comes down to initiative and encounter setup to see how effective things are.
I try to design encounters to ensure everyone gets a good shot at something to do. I work around the fact that powerful spells can take out individual combatants too easily by not putting in too many individual combatants. If I put in large groups of mooks, they suck up the casters spells, then the big hitters get involved and the fighters need to be there or my casters get smooshed.
Casters tend to take Improved Initiative, and can deal with a wider range of encounter design than everyone else.
Casters are just as good against large groups of mooks as against big hitters. One Confusion and the whole group of mooks is fighting each other.
Also note that Baleful Polymorph is not as strong as in 3.5; it no longer strips off your class abilities, Su/Ex/Sp abilities, etc. if the second save succeeds.
The point I'm trying to make (too subtly, I guess) is that spell-casting classes are getting slowly reduced in power by reducing the power of particular spells. If there are still spells that might be considered "too good", maybe those particular spells should be the target of the nerf bat, not the spellcasting class itself.
There are a LOT of spells like that. This is a viable approach (as see Arcana Evolved), but it's not exactly easy, since it's broad categories of spells that are too good, and precise power level is hard to pinpoint.
And if you do it, you're stuck with all the other problems (there are more there than power level).
Huge lions can't run through 5 foot wide corridoors. But maybe that's just poor dungeon design on my part.
Then the Druid won't make a huge lion in a 5-foot corridor, but I've never seen a dungeon with 5-foot corridors (and it's not like spellcasters can't use those to their advantage). Druids in a dungeon are no less scary, because summons block off paths and walls and stone-shaping spells provide great battlefield controls.
There are a LOT of spells like that. This is a viable approach (as see Arcana Evolved), but it's not exactly easy, since it's broad categories of spells that are too good, and precise power level is hard to pinpoint.
I never said it would be easy. :) But I think Pathfinder has done a reasonable job at nerfing some of the "low-hanging fruit" so far.
And if you do it, you're stuck with all the other problems (there are more there than power level).
Since this particular thread is called "Do Casters Overpower Melee Classes?", power level is the topic under discussion at the moment.
I think that at level 5, wizards start to become powerful, but are not yet significantly more powerful than warriors if at all. The problem is a few levels later when the caster has enough spells to last the whole day and this problem increases quickly as casters get up levels past 7. The solution, in my opinion, is to increase the spell amount at lower levels, but not allow bonus spells for high mental stats. This helps balance out stat choices for casters while also making them much lest powerful at high levels. At low levels, the wizard will not gain much anyway due to having a lower stat. Despite this, I would still consider giving one more spell per day or memorized for all spells until after 3rd level spells to help compensate at low levels when casters are already weaker.
Also, at high levels the large numbers of spells per day makes intelligent distributions of magical resources less important thereby limiting the fun and strategy that I enjoy when I play a caster
So what is everybody's thoughts on this idea?
|
|
I think that at level 5, wizards start to become powerful, but are not yet significantly more powerful than warriors if at all. The problem is a few levels later when the caster has enough spells to last the whole day and this problem increases quickly as casters get up levels past 7. The solution, in my opinion, is to increase the spell amount at lower levels, but not allow bonus spells for high mental stats. This helps balance out stat choices for casters while also making them much lest powerful at high levels. At low levels, the wizard will not gain much anyway due to having a lower stat. Despite this, I would still consider giving one more spell per day or memorized for all spells until after 3rd level spells to help compensate at low levels when casters are already weaker.
Also, at high levels the large numbers of spells per day makes intelligent distributions of magical resources less important thereby limiting the fun and strategy that I enjoy when I play a caster
So what is everybody's thoughts on this idea?
I'm DMing a game of 15th level next weekend. We're using Beta rules with all the modified rules and spells. We've got a cleric, druid and wizard plus the range of fighter types in game so i guess I'll see how it all pans out. End of game I'll get some feedback from theplayers and let you know their reactions. These guys have been playing for 20 years same as me so they're pretty experienced at making these types of judgements. However, it is only opinion based on experience rather than any empirical data. We're playing Age of Worms which is a pretty tough AP as far as battles go so I think it will be a good test.
Well, it comes down to spellcaster player's style. When I play a wizard I try to use magic only in necessary amount, saving power just in case the party needs it. The wizard can shine, but it's up to player's attitude whether he really has to do that all the time. With great power comes great responsibility...
The DM can also try to balance things a little by using that nice alternative XP progress table.
I also believe that altering individual spells is the way to go to regulate the level of power the spellcasters get. It isn't that hard to make a weaker build of a spellcaster and use mediocre spells spells in less than optimal way if you are not familiar with all details, so I think only the game-breakers need to be addressed. Another positive of this approach is that it encourages variety, beause the other options are just as godd as the others.
|
For the record, Grey Elf Generalist Wizard 10:
INT: 16 base +2 race +2 levels + 4 item = 24 = +71st level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT + 1 Pearl of Power I = 8.
2nd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
3rd level: 4 + 1 bonus + 2 INT = 7
4th level: 3 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 5
5th level: 2 + 1 bonus + 1 INT = 45th: Overland Flight, Cloudkill, Baleful Polymorph, Baleful Polymorph.
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Walls of Stone, one Overland Flight.
4th: Fear or Confusion, Fear or Confusion, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Greater Invisibility
-Scrolls scribed: a couple of Solid Fogs; a bunch of Greater Invisibility.
3rd: Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Haste, Slow, Suggestion, Stinking Cloud.
-Scrolls scribed: bunch of Hastes.
2nd: Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Mirror Image, Web, Glitterdust, Minor Image, See Invisibility
-Alternatively, Alter Self for natural armor.
1st: Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease, Grease, True Strike, Enlarge Person, Enlarge Person.Just an example.
Interesting example, its always nice to see people's spell selections.
Personally, I hate grey elves, but with Pathfinder, it could be any old elf, or a human, or maybe some other races to get that +2 bonus.
Would you consider playing that "as is", or would you maybe put a few more defensive spells in there? Mirror image is very nice, but its not foolproof and as it stands this guy is going to have an AC of about 12 ...
|
|
Interesting example, its always nice to see people's spell selections.
Personally, I hate grey elves, but with Pathfinder, it could be any old elf, or a human, or maybe some other races to get that +2 bonus.
Would you consider playing that "as is", or would you maybe put a few more defensive spells in there? Mirror image is very nice, but its not foolproof and as it stands this guy is going to have an AC of about 12 ...
He could be walking around with 15 scrolls of Mage armor and shield. 25 gp gives him +4 AC for an hour and he can cast a shield for another +4 at 25gp if he looks like he's gonna get targeted. Greater invisibility should clear up alot of the issue though and also at his level he would probably have plenty of money for wands of those spells, bracers or robes of armor and some cool effect magic items to help him not get hit. He would have the resources available to any 10th level caster.
Also he has Alter Self for at least a +5 Natural armor if he goes with lizardfolk. With a 16 dex, mage armor, amulet of NA+1, ring of protection+1, and his lizardfolk scales, he should be walking around with an AC of 24 and under the effects of greater invisibility. He can read a scroll and get a shield going to bring his AC up to 28 and immune to Magic missiles. Maybe he has a wand of mirror image too? But he does have 2 on his spell list already.
Also he has Alter Self for at least a +5 Natural armor if he goes with lizardfolk.
Pathfinder's version of Alter Self doesn't give natural armor bonuses.
I'm also of the school that avoiding attacks with invisibility, mirror image, etc. is usually more cost- and time-effective for a spellcaster than pumping up your AC. YMMV.
|
|
I didn't read the whole thread, but by far the best point I did read was Aubrey's about play style. If the party is resting constantly after fights, then the casters will outshine everyone else because they don't have to conserve their big guns at all. If the game plays out such that the caster has to think about the worth of blowing their big guns on the first encounter of the day when they know they aren't going to sleep 8 hours after every battle, and it really levels the playing field. The next thing is that casters are vulnerable to specific weaknesses that fighters are not. It all comes back to how the DM runs things. I personally feel that the changes made to the melee types (lots of new bonus features for fighters, rage points for Barbarians, auras for Paladins etc.) have closed the gap on the power gap. Further, they have started weeding out the "save or die" type spells. Just a flip through the beta shows many positive changes in leveling the playing field. I just don't think the power level is that different between them anymore.
|
|
Also he has Alter Self for at least a +5 Natural armor if he goes with lizardfolk.Pathfinder's version of Alter Self doesn't give natural armor bonuses.
I'm also of the school that avoiding attacks with invisibility, mirror image, etc. is usually more cost- and time-effective for a spellcaster than pumping up your AC. YMMV.
Yeah, I hadn't noticed PF's Alter Self change, but the reason I was posting about the caster's AC was in response to someone else saying the wizzo would have a 12 AC. Of course I agree that the 'cast see me' spells are better, that's why I also said he would be walking around with Greater Invis going too and that mirror image is on his memorized list a couple times.
I wasn't trying to pump the caster's AC, just outlining where it would/should be.
The problem with balancing the casting classes by weakening certain spells is the idea of being backwards compatible. if you weaken all of the spells for balance than someone using a 3.5 book that adds more spells will break the game. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to balance the core spells, and it also doesn't mean you have to assume a player has found an overpowered spell in some splatbook when designing classes, but weakening spells therefore is not a good choice.
I also completely understand that some spells in splatbooks just need to be banned by DMs and Pathfinder should not have to make adjustments due to them.
The problem with balancing the casting classes by weakening certain spells is the idea of being backwards compatible. if you weaken all of the spells for balance than someone using a 3.5 book that adds more spells will break the game. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to balance the core spells, and it also doesn't mean you have to assume a player has found an overpowered spell in some splatbook when designing classes, but weakening spells therefore is not a good choice.
Maybe this should be at the top of every page. What happens outside of the core PRPG rules cannot be avoided or changed. You could easily say "Someone using a 3.5 book that adds a PrC will break the game" or "Some that adds a magic item will break the game" etc. DMs need to be careful about what they add to the game... period. This should have been the case under 3.5 as well but many people took the WotC stamp as a stamp of approval and ran it without looking twice.
The DM is the arbitrator and responsible for making sure his game is balanced.
Conclusion: the Druid is an enormous, disproportionate powerhouse, and hasn't been noticeably nerfed at all.
Hasn't been noticeably nerfed at all? I'm not sure I agree with that. While I agree that it's still a powerhouse and maybe still the most powerful class in the game I think it most certainly has been nerfed to some degree. The wide-open, ever expanding nature of the previous version of Wild Shape allowed a huge amount of abuse.
Incidentally, I'm familiar with a lot of the stuff you did over on the WotC site and think your perspective as a power gamer/ optimizer would be a big help poking holes in the various rules in Pathfinder. I'm just not sure how long you will last around here with your very direct AND somewhat confrontational attitude. The moderators around here tend to be a little more active than at WotC. Good luck.
Conclusion: the Druid is an enormous, disproportionate powerhouse, and hasn't been noticeably nerfed at all.Hasn't been noticeably nerfed at all? I'm not sure I agree with that. While I agree that it's still a powerhouse and maybe still the most powerful class in the game I think it most certainly has been nerfed to some degree. The wide-open, ever expanding nature of the previous version of Wild Shape allowed a huge amount of abuse.
The point is that a druid can still fly around all day, casting powerful spells; that's the "powerhouse" part.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with the "flying around all day" part as long as the spellcasting is less powerful, i.e. some of the more egregious spells are nerfed. And I think that's happening, to a certain degree.
The point is that a druid can still fly around all day, casting powerful spells; that's the "powerhouse" part.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with the "flying around all day" part as long as the spellcasting is less powerful, i.e. some of the more egregious spells are nerfed. And I think that's happening, to a certain degree.
This is how I feel also, weaker spells, significantly nerfed wild shape...
I agree that DMs are responsible for making sure certain spells don't break the game. However, if Pathfinder weakens spells as a whole, then all of the non-core spells will be too powerful and therefore Pathfinder would not be backwards compatible with any spells from any book. It is also possible that you are referring to only weakening some of the most unfair spells, but in my opinion, there are a few game breaking spells but the power level of spells as a whole are just too powerful in general. Getting rid of polymorph doesn't stop a wizard from casting many other powerful buff spells to reach the same affect.
To the original OP. There are a few things that have not been touched upon. Mages and sorcerers have a shortage of hp and it is more expensive to increase their AC. This leaves them very vulnerable to archery type fighters, who are able to get their full attacks off. Since most very good defensive spells have a short duration (displacement, invisibility, mirror image) an archery who wins initiative(a good chance with his high dex) will lay quite a hit on the mage. A rogue hiding will lay quite a bit of damage on any character, but loses most of the time going face up against a melee fighter. Clerics and druids do very well but should not have the same damage output of a mage or sorcerer, by looking at the damage output on p.36 DMG. This is an issue still to be completely addressed by PathfinderRPG.
A suggestion I brought up was at higher levels when save disparity increases there needs to be some change. Whether it is a new feat or a change to poor save progression, I leave that up to the Pathfinder team.
Spells that take enemies out of the fight, whether by incapacitating them or save or die are more powerful than damage spells, even the new save or die. The reason is the increase in hp. PathfinderRPG still needs to address this.
Another issue I am going to address in the nicest manner possible is that with the flexiblility of magic it is often the most often abused. When wording is poor or the editing process just failed to perceive the length to which feats and prestige classes can be abused.
Fake Healer- If your mage was using sculpt spell to increase a 10ft radius spell to 20 ft. He was following the wording of the feat but manupulating the spirit. I say this because it would be circumventing the widen spell feat which costs +3 against sculpt's +1. I can understand why it caused problems. I would not allow it in my campaign for said reason. It is not in Pathfinder Beta so if they introduce such a feat it would be best to word it as "any spell with at least the same dimensions as the choices, can be sculpted."
Logic Ninga- Are you sure you want to waste empower on ray of enfeeblement? It only multiplies the variable amount which is 1d6. So the most you can get is +3(on a roll of a 6). You get +2 (on 4 or 5) and +1 (on 2 or 3) and nothing on a 1. The average increase is 1.5. This could be beneficial especially against a power attacking two handed fighter but I find it expensive.
To the original OP, agruing about spellcasters to melee types is too vague of a topic to give any true definition of their differences. If you feel one is too powerful look for the reason why. Then offer a suggestion to Pathfinder RPG as a solution, they have done very well with the changes thus far. Although they have recently stated there will be many more changes to come.
I agree that DMs are responsible for making sure certain spells don't break the game. However, if Pathfinder weakens spells as a whole, then all of the non-core spells will be too powerful and therefore Pathfinder would not be backwards compatible with any spells from any book. It is also possible that you are referring to only weakening some of the most unfair spells, but in my opinion, there are a few game breaking spells but the power level of spells as a whole are just too powerful in general. Getting rid of polymorph doesn't stop a wizard from casting many other powerful buff spells to reach the same affect.
What Hogarth was talking about was nerfing individual spells. For example glitterdust, a second level spell was formerly a common combat ender. It is now much more reasonable. I call it filing off the rough edges. If you look at all the spells, 90% of them are fine, it's the spells like alter self, glitterdust, polymorph, etc are serious jagged edges that have long needed to be filed down. (I was really disappointed that WotC didn't do this with the Spell Compendium).
I agree that as a whole casters will still be more powerful than martial characters. I'm not sure you can really change that without significantly altering the game system. Since backwards compatibility is a major goal it is likely casters will remain more powerful than martial characters.
Well, I think that the DMG section could use a section about creating and BALANCING custom spells, which could be used as a guide to keep splatbook spells in check.
Nerf it yourself guide! Wuzzah! ^^
Heres a question that this thread has finally prompted me to ask because example after example has made me think some people might not know.. And I'm doing it with as much politeness as my socially retarded self can manage so no one take this as an attack.. As DMs do y'all just not realize that every happy little bit of queerosity that your players throw at you.. You can make a Monster or NPC with class levels do right back at them ? I know that sometimes you dont want to throw out the NPC's spell list in a premade adventure but sometimes ya gotta.. And if your running you own stuff.. I mean WTF ? I see things like the following all the time..
Problem 1.
My parties wizards are ruining the game with over powered spell loop holes.
Fix 1
Do it back at 'em
Problem 2
My parties fighter is teh brokxors thanks to power attack and basic math skills.
Fix 2
Do it back to him.
Problem 3
Thanks to the Clerics high AC and obscene amount of healing I cant hurt the party.
Fix 3
Guess what.. Do it back.
I say this not to encourage DMs to get into a TPK=win mentality but to remind them of one simple fact.. You play this game with your friends.. If telling your friend he's being a dick with subtlety doesn't work.. Show him how he's doing it.. In my experience nearly all of them the next time scrape off some of the cheese.
And if all else fails.. Use an advanced to 50 HD half-fiend psudonatural gelatinous cube i like to call the Jellobian death beast.
Problem 1.
My parties wizards are ruining the game with over powered spell loop holes.
Fix 1
Do it back at 'em
I think you posted this on the wrong thread. We were talking about the fact that spellcasters are more powerful than their martial counterparts. The imbalance is not between the DM and the players, it is between one player and another. If one character is significantly more powerful than the rest he can really run the show... players should all have roughly an equal shake. Otherwise the ones that are ineffective get bored, pack up their stuff and go home.
I can't be bothered to read the whole damn thread, so if this already mentioned, forgive me. However...The thread is one page long. Please try to read the threads instead of repeating arguments already made.Get off your pompous high horse, sunshine - you don't own or moderate this thread.
I wasn't moderating anything. I said "please". I was ASKING you to chime in.
If you don't care enough to read our posts on the subject, why do you expect us to care about your opinion on the subject? Going "hey guise I didn't read the thread BUT HERE IS MY HOLY OPINION ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN COVERED" is disrespectful. It was a one-page thread--if you can't get through that, how do you read RPG rulebooks? Check the height of your own horse, Mr. "My opinion must be heard even though I don't want to read anyone else's."Please, read the threads before you chime in. I can understand not reading a 10-page, meandering thread, but one page of on-topic discussion? No excuse.
LogicNinja, I've never seen things work out quite the way you refer to in practice (24 years of DMing similar systems here, usually DMing or playing in multiple groups at the same time, since Basic D&D).
Don't get me wrong, I agree that 3E spellcasters are the most powerful characters. But not in the way you describe.
They're powerful in exactly the way I describe, and I've seen this in any number of groups. I've even seen this in an AD&D game (it's just that in AD&D blasting was *also* effective).
Save-or-lose spells lose their power in groups where the DM fudges his monsters' saves, but if the DM wants you not to win you won't win, and most DMs who *do* resort to this only do it for big, important fights (in which case you can use control and no-save spells).
All those save or "die" spells are ok, but not terribly useful. And that is even when the opponent fails their save, which he doesn't all the time (even under 3.0 which had higher DC bonuses for spell and greater spell focus).
No, they're very useful, because they take enemies out of the fight. The opponent doesn't fail his save all the time but targeting.
Even a CR 10 *dragon* is going to fail his save vs. the wizard's higher-level spells 40-50% of the time. Two offensive spells to take on a dragon? Sounds good to me.Lets look at your level 10 Wizard ...
(1) Overland Flight - ok, useful utility. Not great for manouevering. Being in the air makes you a great target for all ranged attacks (until casting greater invisibility, which may or may not be first round, a slow start to combat that will cause extra damage to your party).
You're ignoring the fact that Overland Flight keeps you entirely or mostly safe from any creature that doesn't have flight or a strong ranged attack. That's more than you think--a lot more. Coupled with Greater Invis it keeps you safe from damn near everything.
Being in the air makes you a target for ranged attacks? Sure, if there are ranged attackers around. But the wizard can survive a ranged attack or two.
Overland Flight lets the wizard fly all day (BTW, Pathfinder gives him Fly as a class skill, so his maneuverability with Overland Flight is actually EXCELLENT now--why the hell did they add a Fly skill?), which is an enormous advantage. Trying to see it as a disadvantage is amusing but ridiculous. Throwing only archers at the party because the wizard can fly is like throwing only rust monsters at the party because of the fighter: if the DM wants to screw you, you're screwed... but the Wizard isn't exactly helpless. He can survive a few arrows.
And NPC who aren't casters or bow-specialized (1d8+1 from a non-specialist isn't a threat) can't fly and don't have significant ranged attacks. Same for the collosal Animated Object, the nine/ten headed pyro/cryohydras, the Bebilith, the Hezrou (weak SLA), the Barbed Devil, the Devourer, all but Air elementals, the various giants (rock throwing is much weaker than the greatsword, and a bad idea when it's engaged in melee), clay and stone golems, 11- and 12-headed normal hydras, the Rakshasa, the Troll Hunter, enormous monstrous Scorpions and Spiders...
That was a list of CR 10-11 core monsters, BTW. It was more than half of them, even factoring in "X dragon" and "Y dragon" as different options.
How can you say Overland Flight isn't great when it makes you completely or almost completely immune to ANY enemy that doesn't have flight or a strong ranged attack--which is a very large percentage of them?!
(2) Cloudkill - by the time you are level 10 most foes are at least 6hp. So you are doing 1-4 con points damage, pretty much never for more than one round, which ends up equivalent to doing almost no damage.
Pathfinder gave universalists the ability to quicken one spell per day for free (Metamagic Expert). First round: (scroll of) Solid Fog, quickened Cloudkill. They can't get out of it. Second Round: Wall of Stone. Oops, they're trapped in the Cloudkill and DIE. This doesn't work on teleporting opponents, so you can't use it on devils/demons (who are poison immune anyway), but it sure works great against tons of others.
(3) Baleful Polymorph - a close range spell, and close range is likely to get you very dead. Fortitude save means its very weak against fighters, clerics, monks, and short range means its not good against wizards. So its for Rogues, which you have to see first. Marginally useful, but not that good.
A Monk is lucky to have a CON of 14 at level 10. His Fort save is 7, +2 from CON, +2 from a Cloak, or +11... against a DC of 23. He needs to roll a 12. He has a 55% chance of failing his saving throw (and being turned into a harmless animal, thus being out of the fight). The Fighter might have a 50% chance (but we don't use thios on the Fighter).
You seem to be under the illusion that "the class has a good save" means you mostly don't need to worry about spells targeting that save. This is only the case when the good save dovetails with a primary stat (Rogues' Reflex + Dex, Druids' Will + Wisdom).
(4) Walls of Stone - useful utility, if used intelligently. Not superb.
This "utility" can mean "cutting enemies off from the fight". If you had four enemies, and I just trapped two of them, letting the party fight two and then two more, I turned one hard fight into two easy ones. This is a huge contribution.
(5) Fear - even if they fail they run away and fight another day. Will saves mean this is for fighter types. Its not bad, but it doesn't do anything. Essentially what most of these spells do is take YOU out of the combat and require your fighter type friends to do the dirty work.
(6) Confusion - great spell when used effectively. I haven't seen it used effectively, and it's a great target for a dispel magic.
Funny, I used this spell effectively all the time. It's not hard: target creatures with low or medium Will saves!
Yes, fear makes enemies run away. No, you don't use it on an open plain. Aside from that, Frightened enemies run into a wall or something (or a Web spell, or a Wall, or...) and cower, leaving the Cleric and the Rogue (and the Fighter, I guess) to mop them up at their leisure.Is that teamwork? Sure. Does it also relegate my friends to being janitors? Sure. A Warrior could mop up a creature in the grips of Fear.
"Dispel"--this is when you start making stuff up, stuff like "there's an enemy spellcaster full of Dispels present every fight". If there is an enemy spellcaster, I target him *first*, with Baleful Polymorph (what's his Fort save, again?) or a variety of other spells.
Adding a level 10 caster to every encounter, for dispel purposes, bumps otherwise-CR-10 encounters to CR 12. If you have to do that just to deal with the wizard's basic tactics, that screams "the wizard is overpowered".
(7) Black Tentacles - yes, exceptionally powerful in this incarnation. Its only drawback is that it lasts for 10 rounds, and that your allies will be unable to enter the area to...
Lasting 10 rounds is a drawback? That's good. It means it controls the area I cast it in. And, hey, what if I combine it with Wall of Stone...? Trapped and dead.
Hey, maybe the Fighter can actually be useful by bullrushing people into the tentacles. It'd make Bull Rush useful for once. Still--he's shoving them; I'm killing them.(8) Solid Fog - cool utility spell. Nice barrier, nothing more.
(9) Greater Invisibility - focuses damage on your friends, who won't last as long.
(10) Ray of Enfeeblement - close range, only drops Strength a little. Very weak.
This is ridiculous.
Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement drops STR by 1.5x (6-11), or 9-16 points. That's -5 to -8 AB/damage, meaning that melee enemy is now next to worthless (especially if he gets another -2 or -6 from Ray of Exhaustion... and two Rays of Exhaustion stack for the -6). Oh, was he waering heavy armor? If his STR just went down to next to nothing, he can't move more than 5 feet in it anymore.--And, yes, Empower increases the flat +5, too--check the PHB example for Magic Missile (the +1s are increased).
Greater Invisibility is an ENORMOUS defense. But you turn that into "focuses damage on my friends". Isn't the Fighter supposed to take damage? Regardless, the point stands: the invisible flying wizard is unthreatened by 90% of the enemies he encounters.
Solid fog is no save, no SR, and traps multiple enemies for a round or two, guaranteed. If you don't understand why keeping an enemy in the Fog for two rounds is powerful, I'm not sure why you're discussing Wizards at all.
It also sets up combos with Black Tentacles, Cloudkill, Wall of Stone, and other spells.
You really, really underestimate the effectiveness of save-or-lose spells and battlefield control spells. Those are the keys to spellcaster victory--not slinging around d6es. Damage spells are a sucker's game; a losing proposition as monster HP scales faster, usually MUCH faster, than the damage of your spells. Yeah, this guy is nominally a team player (disabling enemies, casting Haste, etc), but practically, the Fighter's his clean-up crew and a Warrior would be almost as good at it. Another Cleric or a Druid would certainly do a lot better than the Fighter. And on top of that--remove the Fighter, minor damage done to the party. Remove the Wizard, suddenly the party can't handle those CR, CR+1 threats so easily, and CR+2-3 threats at all.
Edit: the only spell I forgot Mage Armor. 16 Dex and Mage Armor gives a base 17 AC before Ring of Protection/Amulet of Nat. Armor. This is not exceptional, but it's certainly tolerable.
don't have the damage output of a wizard or sorcerer
One final note: if you're looking at the *damage output* of wizards/sorcerers, you're missing the problem. Evocation is a sucker's game, and the least effective thing an arcanist can do 95% of the time.
|
|
And yet..I don't see groups of overpowered invisible mages flying around anywhere. At least not in any of the games I've played.
If the power balance were such a huge issue, why are parties so very diverse?
Fly and air walk etc are good in areas of high ceilings etc. Not so effective in dungeons.
I can't beat the improved invis trump card. Way too powerful a spell unless blind fight, tremosense, blindsight, truesight etc are used extensively. Although now there's a spell called arcane sight that also lets you see auras instantly and can be made permanent. Nice buff to add to an archer built to hunt mages (if we're going down the powergamer path.) There's alos magic items available for that allow for lflight and sight but probably outside the range of a level 10 charatcer. Yep, I struggle with this one as a DM.
We're also assuming power outside the realms of the actual game world here. Drop a cloudkill in an urban environment and your gonna have the authorities after you. Dire lions aren't going to be let into most cities in the settings I play (heck, even Eberron had restrictions on the types of beasties allowed to roam their cities). That makes them limiting. My group gave up on animal companions mostly becasue a number of the adventures we played through made them tough to bring along. (Published AP's with big cavern descents etc, small passageway dungeons, ships with cramped quarters thant make big lions tetchy)
Dragons are smart, they fight smart, and although some spells will take them out quickly, it's a bit of a lottery. Caster tries and fails, casters toast. On his own that is. If he has his mates drawing aggro or blocking attack lines then he can try again. It's what makes dragon fights so exciting.
<sigh> Think I'll just bow out from this point on. Not going to change anyones mind really. It's never been an issue for my group nor any groups I've played with. Something to do with the diverse nature of people playing the game and the style they play. Which means the game is balanced to the players not the classes I guess. cheers, good luck from here on.
And yet..I don't see groups of overpowered invisible mages flying around anywhere. At least not in any of the games I've played.
If the power balance were such a huge issue, why are parties so very diverse?
Because not that many people understand how to play really powerful wizards. Druids were the most common "accidental overpowered" class--I've seen, more than once, Druid players quite unintentionally eclipse Fighter players, just by being bears that have bears and summon more bears, pic related.
I can't speak for your group. Maybe they just don't pay any attention to the mechanics. But I'm telling you how the numbers work out. "It's OK because people in my games don't do it" isn't a very good argument--the system is made for all groups.
Fly and air walk etc are good in areas of high ceilings etc. Not so effective in dungeons.
What kind of dungeon doesn't even have a 15-20 foot ceiling? Regardless, if you have to avoid open air encounters and high ceiling just because otherwise the wizard is overpowered, the wizard is overpowered. You're basically saying that the spell's okay because it only protects from more than half of potential enemies *most* of the time, not *all* of the time.
This is the surest sign of how effective the wizard is: people keep bringing up very situational stuff. "Well, archers are still a threat! And he can't fly in tight quarters!" If you have to include flying archers or archers in tight quarters for every encounter that you want to threaten the wizard, Something Is Wrong. You sure as hell don't have to take that kind of care with the melee guys--you can challenge them with just about anything!I don't care about dungeons too much personally because I think they're (a) ridiculous and (b) boring; I find "dungeon crawls" largely uninteresting. But it's not like the wizard isn't at an advantage in dungeons--you thought Wall of Stone and Solid Fog were good before? Imagine how good they are in small corridors and areas. Stinking Cloud, Summon Monster/Nature's Ally, Stone Shape, all these spells are enormously useful in dungeons. Battlefield control, which is already powerful, becomes more effective by almost an order of magnitude.
I can't beat the improved invis trump card. Way too powerful a spell unless blind fight, tremosense, blindsight, truesight etc are used extensively. Although now there's a spell called arcane sight that also lets you see auras instantly and can be made permanent. Nice buff to add to an archer built to hunt mages (if we're going down the powergamer path.) There's alos magic items available for that allow for lflight and sight but probably outside the range of a level 10 charatcer. Yep, I struggle with this one as a DM.
Keep in mind that you have to "beat" all these cards at the same time, too. The wizard isn't flying *or* invisible *or* casting fogs/cloudkills/walls--he's flying and invisible and casting all those spells.
Tremorsense doesn't remove the 50% miss chance, and Blind-Fight doesn't help you actually find what square the wizard's in.We're also assuming power outside the realms of the actual game world here. Drop a cloudkill in an urban environment and your gonna have the authorities after you. Dire lions aren't going to be let into most cities in the settings I play (heck, even Eberron had restrictions on the types of beasties allowed to roam their cities). That makes them limiting. My group gave up on animal companions mostly becasue a number of the adventures we played through made them tough to bring along. (Published AP's with big cavern descents etc, small passageway dungeons, ships with cramped quarters thant make big lions tetchy)
Reduce Animal is a second-level spell that lasts for *hours*/level. One spell, and that Dire Lion can go anywhere the Halfling Rogue can.
There are also medium-sized animal companions that are plenty viable."Animal companions aren't that much of a factor in some places" isn't much of an argument--a minority of games take place in quarters so consistently cramped that a Large creature (just 2x2 squares) can't fit at all. A dire lion might not be allowed in.
And just how many guard forces are able and willing to take on a group of level 10 adventurers who politely insist (with sky-high Diplomacy checks) that, yes, the lion's with them, and they'll shrink it/vouch for its behavior (the Druid can TALK to it with a single spell!)/et cetera, but it's coming in with them?
"Drop a cloudkill in an urban environment and you're gonna have the authorities after you". Why? The Cloudkill is contained by a Wall of Stone, and is killing people you'd otherwise be killing anyway. If you can't use lethal force, casters are better at that than noncasters, too.
Besides--if you have to put your casters in situations where they can't use their spells to balance them, they're not balanced. That's like saying that a feat that gives +100 AB/damage with swords is balanced because some problems can't be solved by killing people.
Dragons are smart, they fight smart, and although some spells will take them out quickly, it's a bit of a lottery. Caster tries and fails, casters toast. On his own that is. If he has his mates drawing aggro or blocking attack lines then he can try again. It's what makes dragon fights so exciting.
On his own, a wizard stands a FAR better chance against a dragon of CR = level than any melee character, or even a cleric, possibly can. He just has to worry about defense first. Resist Energy means the dragon can't do too much damage with a breath weapon. Staying away means that while the dragon can charge, it can't full attack--and the wizard can survive a single hit, or several single hits.
Think I'll just bow out from this point on. Not going to change anyones mind really. It's never been an issue for my group nor any groups I've played with. Something to do with the diverse nature of people playing the game and the style they play. Which means the game is balanced to...
The game can't be "balanced to players". Players can always make mediocre choices and build weak characters. It's possible to make a weak druid.
But the game can and should be balanced so that a Druid (summoning, plant spells, flying) or wizard (various control and disabling spells) played according to type isn't overpowered, doesn't step on other people's roles (the druid making the Fighter redundant), and doesn't force the DM to put X, Y, or X and Y in every encounter that you want to be a challenge.
I was going to post a view point but there is far to much aggression and negativity in the thread so I'll take a rain-check too.
|
There's no rigorous statistical data done by actuarials to answer this question, nor do I believe there ever really will be.
So all there is is evidence that, though highly interesting, is nonetheless anecdotal at best. The question will probably never be conclusively answered to any degree of acceptable satisfaction.
I have YET to see in anyone's statistical analysis the concept of group cohesion addressed; i.e. a wizard without a fighter to block attacks, a fighter without a cleric to heal him; time and again it just turns into yet another tedious argument about somantics when the idea of.....heaven forfend! a well-diversified portfolio of classes in a party is discussed. I'm sorry; 1:1 parity between wizards and fighters does not hold for ALL situations. Each has his strengths and weaknesses; I have YET to see any concrete statistical data that it is otherwise. I agree that it is possible the wizard is stronger, but barring anything remotely resembling complete data, arguing back and forth about it is nothing more than a geekhobby.
SO.......what can often follow is a more sophisticated yet equally inane back-and-forth hearkening back to 5-year-old games of cops and robbers wherein multiple children shout "I shot you!" "No you didn't I shot you! You're dead!!!"
There's no rigorous statistical data done by actuarials to answer this question, nor do I believe there ever really will be.
So all there is is evidence that, though highly interesting, is nonetheless anecdotal at best. The question will probably never be conclusively answered to any degree of acceptable satisfaction.
What kind of statistical data would you like? The game isn't played solo. It's not expected to be played solo.
If you want, you can build a Fighter and write me some notes on running him. I'll run a group with two of him, a Cleric, and a Rogue, and a group with two of my wizard, a Cleric, and a Rogue, against a few encounters (you can even pick the variety of enemies/monsters).
But what would this tell you?
Statistical analysis HAS been done on, for example, DCs vs. saving throws. And as long as the Wizard doesn't target his strongest save, CR-equivalent enemies have a ~40% (best case--dragons and the like) to ~60% (for decent but not bad saves) to around 75% (level 10 Fighter's Will save is, what, +5 or 6, vs. DC 21-22? chance of failing the saving throw.
|
|
The point is, neither you nor I have the skill to adequately model and test this phenomenon. There are people who do; they work for insurance companies for a considerable amount of money, among other things.
Therefore, you and I are left with this argument over somantics that really goes nowhere. What you are suggesting, merely by definition, would be nothing but codified anecdotal evidence. The modelling is no good.
The point is, neither you nor I have the skill to adequately model and test this phenomenon. There are people who do; they work for insurance companies for a considerable amount of money, among other things.
Therefore, you and I are left with this argument over somantics that really goes nowhere. What you are suggesting, merely by definition, would be nothing but codified anecdotal evidence. The modelling is no good.
So, what you're saying is "we can never know anything about class balance because we can't rigorously test it to the last detail".
This is pretty blatantly wrong. If I point out that a Druid can fill the melee character role as well as a Fighter and still be more useful to the party, I can back this up with hard numbers and capabilities.