Is there a way to solve the problem without changing the game completely?
Maybe there is, however, that means that some overlap between classes must be allowed - non-wizardly classes have to be able to deal with control abilities of magic classes, while wizards and other spellcaster have to be less vulnerable to mundane weapons.
For example,
allow fighters abilities which grant:
- self healing,
- temporary cancellation of negative conditions,
- once a day abilities to negate magic effects,
- DCs for saves and invisibility spells, which are actually managable,
- reactive ability to boost saves.
This is more or less on the right track ("once per day" is bad, and self-healing is unnecessary). It's also basically what Tome of Battle does (in addition to ending reliance on the Full Attack!).
I tried something similar in my long-ago Fighter Fix*, made before Tome of Battle and before I knew as much about game design as I do now (I've been exposed to a variety of indie games that helped with that, since then, as well as ToB, 4E, and D&D stuff).
*Willful Resistance is overpowered and needs errata/fixing/nerfing.
LogicNinja:
So if you’re correct and spellcasting classes are comparatively overpowered, as things stand, how in your opinion should the power of spellcasting be reduced to rebalance things?
Increasing casting times or reducing the number of spells a caster can use in a short length of time are two possibilities that immediately occurred to me.
To really do it, you'd need to fundamentally redesign the system (monsters included!), I think. I'll get into details on more functional solutions than "redo the whole system with an eye for the math" or "4E, lol" later tonight or tomorrow; I'm heading out after this post.
Both of the solutions you propose strike as bad ones, though. Not all nerfs are good nerfs; good nerfs still leave the class fun to play (and only being able to do something every two rounds is definitely not fun).
I am not familiar with Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved having had a (very) limited RPG budget, but in another post you referred to it as having been a system that successfully balanced spellcasting and melee; how did it achieve that? Did Monte rewrite every spell, or employ some other radical method?
Arcana Evolved has its own spell lists, and the spells have effects that are level-appropriate. The spellcasters actually have a superior casting mechanic to normal 3E casters (they have a Spells Known list, and they can pick a smaller Spells Readied list (larger than the 3.5 sorcerer's) to cast from spontaneously every day, for the most part... and they even have flexibility in being able to combine two spell slots into a slot of a higher level, learn spells that are upgraded when you prepare them in a slot one level higher, etc), but they're still balanced, because of what the spells *do* and how it compares to what the melee characters can do. The strongest spells are all ones that support the melee characters, too. It's not pefect or anything--the Unfettered class is weak, for example, Oathsworn Giants can pull shenanigans with the Chi-Julud feat IIRC, and so on--but it's pretty damn good.
...but basically? Yeah, he rewrote most of the spells, but more than that, he didn't do so reactively, like Pathfinder is having to do--he did so while he was designing the monsters, melee classes, etc. This matters: if you were to nerf every save-or-lose spell &etc, casters would become weaker... but those spells are more-or-less required for many "level-appropriate" challenges. 3.5 monsters tend to have ridiculous arrays of abilities (check out the Bone Devil: Greater Teleport, Fly, Invisibility *and* Wall of Ice at will... and it's CR freaking 9. What the hell is a Fighter supposed to *do* against this thing, exactly? It's even got a Will DC 17 Fear aura for when it gets into melee).
You can probably illegally break the law and illegally download Arcana Evolved and become a criminal to take a look at it, but I do not publically endorse this product and/or service.
|
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.
No, that isn't what I was saying. I'd clarify, but I'll trust in the reading comprehension abilities of anybody who cares to read my post.
You've pretty much embodied the gist of what I said in my earlier statement with this post.Some advice....you can tell people that they're "blatantly wrong," or you can say "I disagree with your statement." Which sounds nicer? Which would you rather have somebody say to you? To your face? In a bar?
Furthermore, you can also feel free reply to somebody's statement as it reads without fallaciously rephrasing it. This is the Paizo boards. Please feel free to not talk to people like they're a%~@+!&s.
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.
I remember on the character optimization boards a long winded debate over whether the druids animal companion was a better melee character than the fighter. No one ever really convinced the other side of anything but I think the animal companion held it's own pretty well. Particularly when you considered that the druid was able to buff and heal it on a continual basis.
Under the PRPG rules the druid himself is significantly less of a brute in melee but a druid side by side with his animal companion is a tough pair and I don't see a fighter coming out of that arena alive even with the fighter buffs from Pathfinder.
Yeah I do see what your saying. Now more so than before, after 5th casters own as they nerfed key figher feats keeping them at the same, if now slightly low power, while giving arcane casters a little more.
|
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.
Well, I don't really have to justify what I chose to do to you, nor do you really have any real right to expect me to. If yours (and others) posts are boring (and when it comes down to discussing what spells are useful for this that and the other, it is) but the general thrust of the OP's point is interesting, I'll chime in as I see fit. As for the not reading stuff - I don't know what you do for a living, but I read and read and read all day, and in my evenings I'm not generally going to trawl through dull posts just so I can "contribute on an equal level". I've been DM'ing for years, this subject has been covered before several times on this board, and I strongly doubt you have anything interesting to contribute in detail that Mr Trollman hasn't already.
But on the other hand, I don't really want to start a flame war. So let's write this off and move on.
However, linked to the above, and Heathanson's point, the simulation stuff is interesting but ultimately arid. Any conclusions to be drawn are highly reliant on the assumption made in the test. For example, Trollman's tests assumed that a monster and character of equal CR, if facing one another, should win against eachother 50% of the time. Intuituvely that may be right, but it also assumes that all characters are fresh, can blast off everything without having to worry about conserving their abilities, and therefore there is no attritional stuff going on in the mean time. That's a huge assumption, and the extent to which it is true depends on playing style - hence my point.
You state that there is very little a DM can do to affect the issue of the 15 minute adventuring day (Rope Trick and all). Actually, the DM controls the world, and can put a time limit on their activities (and I don't see that as especially a dirty trick - many, many things in life are time-constrained). Sure, the PCs might be fresh, but if they come down from their interdimensional space to discover the person they were there to rescue has been sacrificed while they were tucked up in bed, it might give them pause. I wouldn't suggest it every time, or even most of the time, since it would possibly be a downer and the point of playing D&D is to have fun. But it is appropriate to challenge PCs in different ways, and that sort of constraint is a way of doing it. I'm sure there are others.
I remember on the character optimization boards a long winded debate over whether the druids animal companion was a better melee character than the fighter. No one ever really convinced the other side of anything but I think the animal companion held it's own pretty well.
But at least in theory, the druid should buff the fighter like that.
It's interesting how most balance comparissions are based on the assumptions, that a character of one class fights a character of another class. I never see anyone mention the issue of ballance within teams.Which is sad, because I think teamwork is what's the game is all about.
I don't really care if a wizard can kill a fighter in 3 rounds, as long as the wizard needs the fighter to be able to cast his spells at all. What does the wizard do, if his first spell doesn't drop the ogre. Or if there's also a second ogre? Grapple and pin, fights over, wizard gets squeezed to death.
|
|
It's interesting how most balance comparissions are based on the assumptions, that a character of one class fights a character of another class. I never see anyone mention the issue of ballance within teams. Which is sad, because I think teamwork is what's the game is all about.
I don't really care if a wizard can kill a fighter in 3 rounds, as long as the wizard needs the fighter to be able to cast his spells at all. What does the wizard do, if his first spell doesn't drop the ogre. Or if there's also a second ogre? Grapple and pin, fights over, wizard gets squeezed to death.
Put much more succinctly than I managed.
But at least in theory, the druid should buff the fighter like that.
Have you looked at the Druid's spells? He CAN'T buff the Fighter like that. Similarly, the Cleric's best buffs are all Personal range.
It's interesting how most balance comparissions are based on the assumptions, that a character of one class fights a character of another class. I never see anyone mention the issue of ballance within teams.
Which is sad, because I think teamwork is what's the game is all about.
When I talk about balance, I certainly take a party into account. For example, part of the problem with the Druid is that between the Animal Companion, his Summon Nature's Ally Spells, and his own capabilities, the Druid fills the Fighter's role better than the Fighter in addition to filling his own. From an effectiveness standpoint, there's basically zero reason to have a Fighter instead of a Druid.
I don't really care if a wizard can kill a fighter in 3 rounds, as long as the wizard needs the fighter to be able to cast his spells at all. What does the wizard do, if his first spell doesn't drop the ogre. Or if there's also a second ogre? Grapple and pin, fights over, wizard gets squeezed to death.
Relegating fighter types to "guy that stands between wizard and monsters" is IMO pretty lame. It's doubly so because the Fighter can't actually stop the monster from walking around him like he can in 4E.
What does the wizard do if his first spell doesn't work? At level 3 (Ogres are CR 3) he has to be more careful, obviously. Keep himself from being charged, use spells like Web that interfere with the ogres, etc. Walking up and Color Spraying them in the face is dangerous, because they do save on, say, a 15+, which is bad odds for them, but still possible.
But then, no one suggested that the wizard outclasses everyone at level 3.
I'm going to repeat my dragon and bone devil examples. What does a Fighter do in these fights?
I'm going to repeat my dragon and bone devil examples. What does a Fighter do in these fights?
These "one man party" examples are a bit silly, IMO. From my experiences in the Core Coliseum on the WotC boards, a fighter can beat a bone devil (for instance), but it takes a lot of expensive expendables and specialised equipment to substitute for having no spellcaster (e.g. Hand of Glory to see invisible, potions of Invisibility or Eversmoking Bottle to sneak up on the enemy, tanglefoot bags + reach weapons to avoid full attacks, Winged Boots for flying, etc.). But what does that prove? Not much: only that it's much cheaper to have a spellcaster in your party instead of trying to have the same flexibility as a spellcaster via potions & magic items.
The only balance issues that really need to be fixed are ones that make the game less fun or that strain credibility (e.g. scry + teleport tactics, druids and clerics who are instantly better melee fighters than fighters, etc.).
I remember on the character optimization boards a long winded debate over whether the druids animal companion was a better melee character than the fighter. No one ever really convinced the other side of anything but I think the animal companion held it's own pretty well.But at least in theory, the druid should buff the fighter like that.
It's interesting how most balance comparissions are based on the assumptions, that a character of one class fights a character of another class. I never see anyone mention the issue of ballance within teams.
Which is sad, because I think teamwork is what's the game is all about.
I completely agree with you, it's not about XXX versus XXX in arena combat, for example much of the rogue or ranger's utility is wasted in combat. My message was poorly worded.
The fighter could/ should be buffed by the cleric/ druid/ whatever in the party. However, the whole animal companion versus fighter debate revolved around the entire usefulness of having a fighter in a group. If a buffed animal companion can essentially replace a fighter why not have another druid then you have 2 animal companions and 2 druids to buff them?
The whole exercise is not to truly pit one class against another but to point out that the druids animal companion is a highly overpowered class feature. Whether the AC can take on the fighter or not is irrelevant, the fact that the fighter wouldn't be able to slaughter the AC out of hand is the greater problem. A single class feature of the druid should not be a threat to a full PC class.
Nope. They are not. I've seen exactly the opposite.
Perhaps it's just how the players in your games play.
Nope. They are not. I've seen exactly the opposite.
I've never needed to do that. I don't believe in it. When the entire party goes down, which is almost never, they are usually captured or something similar. It just adds to the role playing. No need to fudge.Save or "lose" spells? You haven't listed any yet.
Everything from Baleful Polymorph to Slow and Stinking Cloud and Confusion are save-or-lose spells. Just about any monster that was challenging before, will no longer be challenging when hit with one of those spells. It loses.
If you don't fudge saves, then you should be able to look at monster saves and see what I'm talking about. I've already pointed out that a CR 10 dragon has a +12 Will save (and it doesn't get bettter than that, except maybe for cleric NPCs with stat-boosters).
You can talk all you like, but you haven't addressed any of my points. If you have to put archer-focused, invisible-seeing NPCs and/or Sorcerers with AoEs in every combat you want to challenge the fighter, something's wrong. You don't have to do anything special to challenge the melee guys.
For how long? And can you do anything about it while they are out of the fight? Often with your spells, it would seem you can't get to them or see them (through plant growth or solid fog for example). How stupid are the opponents you have been fighting anyway?
For how long? For multiple rounds, during which your party kills all their friends, leaving you to gang up on them and beat them via action efficiency. If you don't understand how dividing enemies and taking some of them out of the fight for multiple rounds is a good thing, tactics is not your strong suit.
That, and with most of these spells, the party CAN get to them. Cloudkill + Wall of Stone is a killer. But Suggestion, Fear, Confusion? getting to them is easy. Slow? No problem. Stinking Cloud? As soon as they get out of the cloud (the effect lasts longer than the cloud does, so no problem there).
Really? How many groups of foes don't have ranged weapons, even if they don't have spells? Fighters or humanoids without bows or even spears? You have to be kidding! And you never face numbers of opponents with bows? The damage adds up, especially if they all target your rather puny armour class (yes, I saw the mage armour).
Spears? Oh, no, he's going to throw it 20 feet?
Groups of humanoids/fighter-types are not a real threat. It is next to impossible to challenge a good wizard with them. Because what's their Will save?? +3? +4? +5 at most? One Glitterdust and most of them are screwed for multiple rounds. One Confusion or Fear and they're all screwed.The 1d8+1 or 2 from an NPC's bow is not very threatening. It can't even make the wizard fail a Concentration check (Spellcraft now, I guess). Fighter-type NPCs who aren't archers specifically (in which case, LOL INVISIBILITY) are going to have crap for ranged damage compared to their melee damage.
Quit pretending that Overland Flight doesn't help. I showed you a list. In NPC-heavy games, it's still enormously helpful, because, no, NOT all NPCs have strong, threatening ranged attacks. And those, you take out first.
Except area effects. Which every evoker out there knows tons of. I just hope you don't face that puny sorceror you are so dismissive of. Go invisible first round, and eat a fireball. Round two, win initiative or take another. Oh, he has great initiative too? Goodbye. Oh, and that first fireball was save or die too for you too because you didn't have enought...
You just focused on the one thing flying + invis doesn't protect you from, and ignored the fact that it protects you from all the others.
Yes, AoEs can still hurt you. Congratulations! Now how many enemies have AoEs? Oh, that's right, barely any. Do you face Fireball-throwing sorcerers every fight?If you're facing a spellcaster, you don't go invisible, obviously. You hit him with Baleful Polymorph (and his low Fort save means he's screwed) or Stinking Cloud (meaning he's screwed, again).
The Wizard has bonus feats (so he's more likely to have Improved Init) and is likely to be an Elf (for DEX/INT boosts). He'll probably have a higher initiative. And if he loses? Well, one Fireball won't kill him. One Baleful Polymorph will kill the sorcerer.
(BTW, if the wizard goes invisible and then moves 40 feet to one side, how does the sorcerer know where to center the Fireball?)
Meanwhile, that same Sorcerer casting Confusion screws the Fighter and the Rogue in the party.
You're ignoring all the points I make and patting yourself on the back for it. I've provided you with hard evidence (list of monsters whom Overland Flight completely thwarts, examples of monster/NPC saving throws, etc); you've done nothing of the sort.
To recap:
-Overland Flight keeps you safe from any monster/NPC who doesn't have a STRONG ranged attack. This is, at level 10, most of them.
-Greater Invisibility, coupled with Overland Flight, keeps you safe from everything that doesn't have See Invisibility or strong AoE attacks. The list of enemies who do *that* is vanishingly small, and you can use different tactics against them.
-Spells that make enemies unable to act, make them unable to act fully, give them big penalties to their primary combat method, or deny them actions are very powerful, because they stop the enemies from hurting the party, while letting the party kill the enemies far more easily.
-Spells that take enemies of the fight completely, like Baleful Polymorph, have a good chance of working against CR-appropriate enemies.
You haven't addressed ANY of that. Pointing out that WELL A SORCERER CAN FIREBALL YOU LOL when I bring up flight + invisibility doesn't disprove my point. It shows that a sorcerer can still be a threat (great; with a good spell selection he's far MORE of a threat to the melee guys). It does NOT show that MOST enemies are threats.
I see. And you left out ... what was it ... fighter, thief, cleric, mage and all their variations? You'll never meet them of course. And of course none of them could take you out in the air. Oh wait, you will meet them, and any of them could.
"Any of them could"? Really? What's the Rogue going to do?
What's the Fighter who's built for melee, not archery, going to do?What's the Cleric (who's also built for melee, and can be disabled with Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement--good luck walking in your armor after) going to do.
YES, another arcane caster is a threat to you! Arcane casters are threats to EVERYTHING.
Shade, maybe you play in NPC-opponent-heavy campaigns. That doesn't mean all campaigns are like this, or that default campaigns are like this (look at WotC modules). That doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that one spell lets the wizard more or less ignore half the appropriate-CR monster list!
Besides which, the wizard is VERY strong against NPC enemies. What are the NPC Fighter and NPC Rogue's Will saves?
Feel free to describe some CR 10 to 11 encounters. You can even set them up while looking at my spell list, making them specifically to try and be immune to as much of it as possible, but it'd be fairer to just do them off the top of your head. For example, a dragon and its minion, a group of two demons/devils, several NPC fighter types (a hobgoblin war party) with their cleric, etc. I'll show you what the wizard does.
These "one man party" examples are a bit silly, IMO.
Hogarth, I am not talking about a one-man party. I was asking what the Fighter does *in a party*.
The only balance issues that really need to be fixed are ones that make the game less fun or that strain credibility (e.g. scry + teleport tactics, druids and clerics who are instantly better melee fighters than fighters, etc.).
That leaves a lot of issues.
Ifni--yes, you can build a Fighter that splatters things in melee with Shock Trooper &etc. If you had fun doing "clean-up" and taking out enemies the DM provides so you can kill stuff in melee, that's good, but it doesn't really address the capability differences.
Pouncing Shock-Trooping Robilar's-Gambit power attackers treat melee enemies like wizards treat low-Will-save enemies. I think this is a bug, not a feature; it just breaks the game in an aditional way and provides another category of enemies that won't really be a significant challenge.
This also doesn't apply to Pathfinder itself, which, while it claims to be "compatible", doesn't really work well with 3.5 splatbooks. Pathfinder sort of has an equivalent in Devastating Blow, which is terribly designed and should be taken out and replaced with a base-rules-level way of making standard-action attacks more effective.
Hogarth, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT a one-man party. I was asking what the Fighter does *in a party*.
*In a party* fighting a bone devil, the fighter hits the devil with his sword, or shoots the devil with his bow and arrows. If the devil is invisible, his wizard buddy casts Glitterdust or casts See Invisibility and tells the fighter where to attack. If there's a Wall of Ice, the fighter breaks through it and then attacks with sword or bow & arrow. If the devil flies, the fighter flies after him (with his winged boots, or with a little help from the wizard), etc. So he's not useless, as long as he has some assistance (and/or fancy equipment).
hogarth wrote:
The only balance issues that really need to be fixed are ones that make the game less fun or that strain credibility (e.g. scry + teleport tactics, druids and clerics who are instantly better melee fighters than fighters, etc.).That leaves a lot of issues.
Yes. Hopefully some of them will get resolved. I already think that druids are not instantly better fighters than fighters, so there's at least one step in the right direction.
A better comparison would be
Take a typical campaign set of adventures (say a Paizo Adventure Path)
Can a party consisting of core only druid, cleric, sorceror and wizard complete it or at the least be somewhat sccessful.
Do the same with a party consisting of a barbarian, fighter, rogue and a paladin or ranger with the same adventure.
I somewhat suspect the former will actually have no trouble whereas the latter is going to be somewhat screwed.
I think an even better comparison would be:
Take a party of cleric, wizard, fighter, rogue in 3.5, and the equivalent party in Pathfinder. Run both of them through the same campaign and see which group has the fewest criticisms. Repeat with new versions of Pathfinder until criticisms < tolerance level.
Can a party consisting of core only druid, cleric, sorceror and wizard complete it or at the least be somewhat sccessful.
Do the same with a party consisting of a barbarian, fighter, rogue and a paladin or ranger with the same adventure.
I somewhat suspect the former will actually have no trouble whereas the latter is going to be somewhat screwed.
I'm only just getting into Second Darkness but I know that Red Hand of Doom which my PCs are working though now would be nearly impossible without casters. The group I run has a sorcerer and a cleric... the rest are martial, plus a rogue. I think the cleric does the bulk of the heavy lifting, between her healing and other spells. Then again the sorcerer casts haste a lot so that really leverages the effectiveness of the rest of the group. It's a tough call but regardless, the group would really struggle without those 2. I think they could lose 2-3 of the martial characters and would still do ok
Sculpted Black tentacles and sculpted Glitterdust. The caster has pumped his DCs a bit resulting around DC23 for the Glitterdust and DC 25 for the tentacles. Almost all the melee baddies were blinded and any that weren't were grappled. All the caster baddies that weren't blinded were grappled. All with the wizard floating 200ft away and 35 feet off the ground.
LOL! Sounds like an episode of He-man!! I can just picture Evil-Lyn making short work of the Eternian palace guards! Muhahahaha!!
Take a typical campaign set of adventures (say a Paizo Adventure Path)
Can a party consisting of core only druid, cleric, sorceror and wizard complete it or at the least be somewhat successful.
Do the same with a party consisting of a barbarian, fighter, rogue and a paladin or ranger with the same adventure.
I somewhat suspect the former will actually have no trouble whereas the latter is going to be somewhat screwed.
That depends.
If the second party invests in consumable/custom magic items for buffs/utility spells, with the rogue maximizing Use Magic Device for scrolls/staffs/wands of control/mass damage spells and the paladin/ranger using wands of cure light wounds (and other healing spells on their spell list), they can actually be very strong (especially if they work toward minimizing weaknesses such as Will saves as well as simply maximizing strengths). Also, they will tend to have more "staying power" when it comes to the number of encounters they can handle.
BTW, greater invisibility is easily trumped by the 2nd level spell see invisibility (which anyone can have with 2,160gp for a 1x/day custom item, less than the cost of a +1 weapon).
Er, turning the rogue into a wizard via UMD AND the use of consumables is not really an argument in favour of the non-spellcaster class.
In fact, I'd argue that a dependence on magical items and having a rogue UMDing strengthens the argument many detractors of the wizard class.
No, it's an argument that primary spellcasters are not absolutely required for a successful party. In fact, with appropriate preparation a party without primary spellcasters can be at least as successful as one with, which knocks the "spellcasters are tremendously overpowered compared to non-spellcasters" argument in the head.
Also, the rock-paper-scissors nature of the various classes and "builds" makes the "x is more powerful than y" arguments somewhat meaningless without getting into specifics: send a barbarian with the above mentioned see invisibility item, dispel magic/greater dispel magic arrows, ring of spell turning, and an item that grants antimagic field 1x/day up against a high-level spellcaster and who will win most of the time?
No, it's an argument that primary spellcasters are not absolutely required for a successful party. In fact, with appropriate preparation a party without primary spellcasters can be at least as successful as one with, which knocks the "spellcasters are tremendously overpowered compared to non-spellcasters" argument in the head.
This is simply not true. I have played multiple modules which would be impossible without at least one primary spellcaster. RedHand of Doom is designed with the idea that the party have both a caster capable of eliminating large numbers of 'mooks' and one capable of significant healing. I am not entirely sure a party of fighters could even get through the first encounter intact.
Also, the rock-paper-scissors nature of the various classes and "builds" makes the "x is more powerful than y" arguments somewhat meaningless without getting into specifics: send a barbarian with the above mentioned see invisibility item, dispel magic/greater dispel magic arrows, ring of spell turning, and an item that grants antimagic field 1x/day up against a high-level spellcaster and who will win most of the time?
Yes, you can build wizard killers if you put enough accessories on a barbarian. This says nothing about actual usefulness in the game. It also doesn't do much when the wizard puts a wall of stone around the barbarian. Nor does it help when the same wizard casts transmute rock to mud over him. Incidentally, what item grants antimagic fields against a creature?
whenever i see this argument about casters > melee i cant help but think of a few things.
first of all, everyone seems to forget something very important. while the almighty wizard was leveling he was putting all his money towards new spells, improving spellcasting, and items to cast extra spells. so its obvious the caster has been doing something to get these levels. then whenever people mention the fighter apparently he didnt go adventuring. think about it, while the caster was buying new spells and such, the fighter was buying new armor, weapons, miscellaneous helpful magic items. that the fighter didnt learn a few things while fighting to gain his levels. the fighter is not a helpless person!
now im going to play a fighter in an upcoming beta campaign, starting level 6th. so im just slightly out of reach of all kinds of cool things. that hasnt stopped me from planning what to get! then once i look at the list i cant help but see, hey!, there are some decent anti caster things on there that i didnt even mean to be anti caster! like the swords i will be wielding are a good example. i was debating with myself on getting spell storing on them so i could get some of those wonderful low level spells put on them out of combat. originally it was for things like blindness/deafness and ray of enfeeblement. you know, just things i could use to help turn a fight my way if needed. though if going against a caster those spells could easily turn towards the direction of touch of idiocy, dispel magic, and hold person. wow look at that hit really messed you up. now as for the armor i was going to get energy resistance without a doubt in my mind but whether or not spell resistance would be added is iffy, i would have to see how caster heavy the campaign is. was gonna get a certain brooch alongside with some boots that would help cut the ground between me and my enemy. i was also debating cape of the mountain bank or just a plain old cloak of resistance. both decent choices to put a crimp in a casters style. so as you can see, just the things i was gonna get anyways would server as good anti caster materials if i really wanted to do it. i would not be . an the higher the level the more gear with tricks i would naturally have.
now the caster is another thing i want to discuss. why would he be so intent on the fighter going down first in a fight? or atleast taking him out of it? its because of a simple fact. the fighters job is to either protect the caster on his side so his guy can take the original caster out. or the worse option he is going to cut a swathe of destruction towards him then add him to it, then he may or may not continue in a different direction. in the end every caster knows one very important fact, a sword to the gut is a sword to the gut no matter how big a fireball you can cast.
so just think about that in the caster vs fighter debate i beg of you. cause remember you can counter magic with magic but try blocking a sword with it.
No, it's an argument that primary spellcasters are not absolutely required for a successful party. In fact, with appropriate preparation a party without primary spellcasters can be at least as successful as one with, which knocks the "spellcasters are tremendously overpowered compared to non-spellcasters" argument in the head.This is simply not true. I have played multiple modules which would be impossible without at least one primary spellcaster. RedHand of Doom is designed with the idea that the party have both a caster capable of eliminating large numbers of 'mooks' and one capable of significant healing. I am not entirely sure a party of fighters could even get through the first encounter intact.
A "party of fighters" is not the same as a "party without primary spellcasters." A barbarian, fighter, rogue (with Use Magic Device maxed and possibly Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) to get a +11 skill check before Cha bonus or any other modifiers, as well as a partly charged wand of fireball*), and ranger (with a wand of cure light wounds and a wand of entangle) would have a damn good shot at winning the encounter.
*- Or even just a character with a necklace of fireballs.
Also, the rock-paper-scissors nature of the various classes and "builds" makes the "x is more powerful than y" arguments somewhat meaningless without getting into specifics: send a barbarian with the above mentioned see invisibility item, dispel magic/greater dispel magic arrows, ring of spell turning, and an item that grants antimagic field 1x/day up against a high-level spellcaster and who will win most of the time?Yes, you can build wizard killers if you put enough accessories on a barbarian. This says nothing about actual usefulness in the game. It also doesn't do much when the wizard puts a wall of stone around the barbarian. Nor does it help when the same wizard casts transmute rock to mud over him.
(emphasis mine)
The usefulness of a wizard's spells depend almost entirely on 1) which ones are prepared/available and 2) the opponents/terrain the party faces. This is why I'm stressing the specifics for each set of circumstances. Are there going to be circumstances where the wizard nukes everything that stands? Sure. There are also going to be instances where the wizard will be reduced to casting magic missile or some other spell with only minor effect. There may even be times when none of the spells prepared/available will be useful.
Incidentally, what item grants antimagic fields against a creature?
One designed using the standard magic item creation rules:
Command word (spell level x caster level x 1,800gp) x (1 charge per day / 5) = (6 x 11 x 1,800gp) x (1 / 5) = (66 x 1,800gp) / 5 = 118,800gp / 5 = 23,760gp
magic item creation rules
These same rules let me make an item that casts as many Wails of the Banshee and Dimension Doors as I want, at will (use activated, linkd to each other), massive AC bonuses of nonstandard types, and other gamebreaking things.
Those aren't rules, they're guidelines, and bad guidelines at that. Any DM who lets players use them to make items of spells is in for a surprise (it starts with a ring of continuous Shield, continues to gloves of continuous Wraithstrike, and ends in tears).
Using them to make a point is very poor form, and basically shows that you don't have much of a point. The DM could just give the barbarian an item that projects an AMF that doesn't affect the Barbarian or his items. Or the DM could just say "rocks fall, wizard dies."
That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
An Antimagic field using barbarian would need to take a standard action to activate the AMF, incidentally, meaning he can't grab the wizard on the same turn. The wizard could move away and fly up out of the AMF's reach (or Dimension Door away). Then the flying wizard could hurl Instantaneous Conjuration spells into the AMF, killing the barbarian (since those spells work just fine in an AMF).
there may even be times when NONE of a wizard's prepared spells are useful
This has never, ever happened to me. This will never happen to any wizard with a solid spell selection, barring DM fiat ("Dead magic zone, no casting anywhere around here, lol").
A "party of fighters" is not the same as a "party without primary spellcasters." A barbarian, fighter, rogue (with Use Magic Device maxed and possibly Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) to get a +11 skill check before Cha bonus or any other modifiers, as well as a partly charged wand of fireball*), and ranger (with a wand of cure light wounds and a wand of entangle) would have a damn good shot at winning the encounter.
I guess if your DM lets you spend all your cash on disposable magic items so you can simulate being a primary caster... OK, that really convincing of the power of martial characters.
Wands are not as effective as actual spells, DCs are lower, damage is at the lowest possible casting level. So you are now a caster who burns money like mad and is significantly less effective than a real caster. Not my first choice of strategies.
The usefulness of a wizard's spells depend almost entirely on 1) which ones are prepared/available and 2) the opponents/terrain the party faces.
It's entirely possible a wizard or sorcerer player can build a nearly worthless spell list or that a DM can engineer a situation where wizards are useless, it doesn't follow that the game system should be designed around DM malice or player incompetence though. Some situation come up in game where the wizard is less than the ideal character, but they are few and far between and generally in retrospect it's due to poor spell selection. Do you balance the game based on the assumption that players of spellcasters will regularly screw up or do you balance it with the assumption of competence on the part of the player.
Incidentally, martial characters are equally capable of poor preparation. Not having the proper weapon to overcome DR is a common example of this. I've also seem fighters who neglect to bring a reasonable missile weapon.
The point brought about evocation spells being good in Ad&D and much less (close to the mentioned sucker-way) in 3.X IS to me the first step in specializing the characters.
In video games all the classes tend to rely on dmg to clear the way. The mage/wizard having range to compensate for his lower armor/hit points. Now that's not the way I wanted DnD to go and 3.X avoided much of it. 4 sadly (in my opinion) dove right into it.
In paper pen, magic can do anything, and the wizard is the reference for that (heck, according to the rules he can create the spells he wants to furfil his needs).
The fact that in combat his niche is no longuer the dmg output, but the buff/debuff is IMO the good thing. And IF he wants to go the blaster way? Then warmage or properly built sorcerer is the way to go. Then balance of d6's with the fighter's dmg output is easy to accomplish. But those builds/classes LOSE the ability to be very effective at crowd control/social interactions. You end up with the video game style mage. Which is fine.
The fact that the wizard disables his foes is nice, but lets not forget that he needs the brawlers to take advantage of it afterwards. I don't see the Wiz coup-de-grace 10 times in a row the disabled dragon in order to bring his hp down.
Sure the wizard is WAY more versatile than the fighter. Yet it doesn't mean that the latter is not needed in a group. More than ever I've seen balanced groups (in terms of class choices) in 3.X. Prior to that? In D&D or aD&D you'd see parties of 4 wizards with rejen. pos for the haste fest.
We've come a long way, few things have to be addressed (like PF mutltisaves on save-or-suck spells), but the core of it cannot be altered much past that in it's present state and need for backward compatibility.
Sure, the 4th member of a fighter/cleric/wizard party is better off being a wizard/cleric than a fighter, but in the end you sure need that one brawler (before the super summons come in that is).
more powerful, probably, due the versatility. Past the point where you see wizards only party? not anymore. I like it that way. It's rather nice to see the arcanists/divine casters blossoms after 6ish levels of being protected by the brawlers.
And beyond that, beyond pure game balance, the spotlight goes to the guy that talks at the table. The one that roleplays. And that, my friends, can be acheived with any class out there. The rest is mechanics, and there will always be holes in it. There's simply too many rules and options. We can try to close the gap by adjusting the spells, but in essence, since we really want the cool/supernatural stuff to still happen, and the wizard/cleric/druid are the ones who gonna pull them off, they will always appear/be superior mechanic-wise in the mid/high levels.
Just some side notes on the druid build:
SPELLS:
3rd: Greater Magic Fang, GMF
Just wanted to note that GMF only works on a single natural weapon, or +1 to all of them. So two GMF's would be enough to do +2 to the Lion's Bite, and one Claw, or +2 to the Bite and +1 to both claws and both rear claws (for rakes).
COMBAT TACTICS:
-Once per day, outdoors: Plant Growth (+Entangle), Call Lightning. No save, ping them to death.
Not quite clear what you mean here, but Call Lightning does provide a save (though if entangled would be -2 from the dex penalty).
COMBAT TACTICS:
-Once per day, outdoors: Plant Growth (+Entangle), Call Lightning. No save, ping them to death.
Not quite clear what you mean here, but Call Lightning does provide a save (though if entangled would be -2 from the dex penalty).
No save is on the Plant Growth. "Speed drops to 5 feet, or 10 feet for Large or larger creatures." So creatures in the area effect are slowed to 5'/ round with no save.
"Ping them to death" is the Call Lighting, whether they make an individual save on the spell or not is irrelevant since the druid will likely have a long time before the creature escapes the spell radius.
Wow, do you guys ever think that there's just to much magic available in the world? I guess it depends on the style of the campaign that the DM is running and I'll admit that I haven't been roleplaying for a long while and am just returning to it. Magic just seems so readily available in the game now. Sort of World of Warcraft-like or video game-like. You could just go buy wands of X or 10 scrolls of Y.
Maybe the game's evolved now heh. When I played a wizard back then, I jumped for joy when I found a new scroll...it meant I could learn a new spell. I never once had access to a spellbook that had every spell in every core rulebook/splat book to craft nifty uber spell combos. My DM treated new spells or books like magic items and I think the game was better for it. We didn't all own books so the DM didn't give us free access to read every spell description. It takes some of the fun out of the game when you just know too much (and LogicNinja's grasp of the game mechanics is friggin impressive...I'm such a noobie). This convo is all too powergamy and everyone's lost sight of the most important thing of all and that's just to roleplay the story and have fun...not min-max.
But sorry to sidetrack. I understand the point of the beta-testing is to figure out where to break the game and improve it. You guys are doing a good job of it. :)
"Wow, do you guys ever think that there's just to much magic available in the world? I guess it depends on the style of the campaign that the DM is running..."
Exactly. It depends on the game, but there's a certain baseline that can be established, or rather, HAS BEEN established. The core rule set of DnD was written with exactly such a baseline in mind.
"Maybe the game's evolved now heh. When I played a wizard back then, I jumped for joy when I found a new scroll...it meant I could learn a new spell."
I played some casters back in 2nd ed myself, and let me tell you: in my experience, playing a spellcaster in 3.0 and 3.5 is unbelievably more fun, for the very thing you mention: I get more control over my spells! There's so many aspects of the game that are out of my hands. Why shouldn't spell selection allow for more player choice?
"I never once had access to a spellbook that had every spell in every core rulebook/splat book to craft nifty uber spell combos. My DM treated new spells or books like magic items and I think the game was better for it."
This is a variant of "we hiked to school barefoot uphill both ways and we liked it!" Certainly, new spells and magic items need to be considered before their use in game, but to say there weren't killer spell combos back in prior editions is simply not true. Many of the same spell tactics that LogicNinja and others have pointed out could have been pulled off in earlier editions as well.
"We didn't all own books so the DM didn't give us free access to read every spell description. It takes some of the fun out of the game when you just know too much (and LogicNinja's grasp of the game mechanics is friggin impressive...I'm such a noobie)."
Does it? I know a lot about the game, and it still excites me every time I get to play. LogicNinja obviously knows a lot about the game as well, and from the passion in his posts, you can tell he still derives a lot of enjoyment from it. Perhaps this is more of a player preference issue than a game balance issue, because if it works for you, then who am I to tell you how to play?
Regarding the availability of spells/tactics: As far as I've read, however, the thread has only covered basic tactics that could be developed from the pathfinder core book itself. No need for Wraithstrike and Shivvering Touch when you have plenty of lethal options in the core book itself.
"This convo is all too powergamy and everyone's lost sight of the most important thing of all and that's just to roleplay the story and have fun...not min-max."
See above note on play preference and styles. Just as I can't tell you how to enjoy your game, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. There is a term for the sort of logical fallacy you are using: the Stormwind Fallacy. Paraphrased, it goes something like, "roleplay and mechanical power (minmax, powergaming, optimizing, twinking, munchkining, etc.) are not mutually exclusive." In other words: in Dnd (and by extension, Pathfinder) I can have my cake and eat it, too.
I roleplay my characters to the hilt. I write up backstories and invent family trees. I do illustrations of favored weapons, clothing styles, and notable moments in campaign history. I understand the "role" part of roleplay. I also understand the "play" element, too, and enjoy crafting mechanically streamlined, powerful characters. If my stats don't match it, my enjoyment decreases. Nobody writes poems about "Ser Gavin, the moderately-competent swordsman." They write poems about "Ser Gavin, the Invincible." If I can have a mechanically powerful character that also expresses the roleplaying concept I have, then I consider it a character well made.
I have read the rules, but have not used them in a campaign, and don't understand how they apply to a living situation. However, I am able to read the spell lists and notice that if a spell caster were to prepare and use the exact correct spells for a situation every single time, they would be able to potentially save the party if they didn't get hit more than perhaps once.
I noticed you noticing. To everyone out there who's insistent that holy hell, caster is the only way to go, caster is SO broken, caster caster caster, play a campaign. See the way it goes. "But we have! We did! In our campaign, the caster often cast FIREBALL and or CURE SERIOUS WOUNDS and it was HORRIFYINGLY POWERFUL. ONE TIME THE CASTER FLEW SOMEWHERE AND A MONSTER WASN'T ABLE TO HIT HIM, THEN THE DM CONGRATULATED US FOR WINNING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AND WE ALL HAD YOOHOOS."
Situational. Everything is situational. If the casters are in a favorable position, they may well manage to carry off a "ranged victory" just like a few archers might be able to carry off the same type of keep them at bay situation. But next time it isn't your turn, and your nancy "I had to play the best character or I would refuse to play" drow psionic warlock monk with vow of poverty "the invincible" is sharpening his spiked chain or something and it's the fighter's turn, take a look. Pay attention to him and see that just because he isn't levitating and making dc37 bluff checks while firing infinite ranged touch attacks he still retains a logical and essential party function. Or ignore it because it isn't your character and come online to complain.
Exactly. It depends on the game, but there's a certain baseline that can be established, or rather, HAS BEEN established. The core rule set of DnD was written with exactly such a baseline in mind.
I played some casters back in 2nd ed myself, and let me tell you: in my experience, playing a spellcaster in 3.0 and 3.5 is unbelievably more fun, for the very thing you mention: I get more control over my spells! There's so many aspects of the game that are out of my hands. Why shouldn't spell selection allow for more player choice?
This is a variant of "we hiked to school barefoot uphill both ways and we liked it!" Certainly, new spells and magic items need to be considered before their use in game, but to say there weren't killer spell combos back in prior editions is simply not true. Many of the same spell tactics that LogicNinja and others have pointed out could have been pulled off in earlier editions as well.
Does it? I know a lot about the game, and it still excites me every time I get to play. LogicNinja obviously knows a lot about the game as well, and from the passion in his posts, you can tell he still derives a lot of enjoyment from it. Perhaps this is more of a player preference issue than a game balance...
Just giving my opinion, not trying to tell you how to play your game. Just saying sometimes it's easy to get lost in the mechanics and stats. Too much magic available and stuff loses it's luster for me. But that's just me. "What? It dropped a +4 INT Helm? Bah, already got one of those...I'm looking for at least +6. Let's pawn it though, because I've been meaning to get some +4 DEX gloves." I need to get used to that aspect of the new games heh.
magic item creation rulesThose aren't rules, they're guidelines, and bad guidelines at that. Any DM who lets players use them to make items of spells is in for a surprise (it starts with a ring of continuous Shield, continues to gloves of continuous Wraithstrike, and ends in tears).
Rule 0 AND slippery slope. Nice.
A ring of continuous shield is a no-go (it would follow the permanent AC bonus rules). A daily/charged version would be OK.
Using them to make a point is very poor form, and basically shows that you don't have much of a point. The DM could just give the barbarian an item that projects an AMF that doesn't affect the Barbarian or his items. Or the DM could just say "rocks fall, wizard dies." That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Ignoring/disregarding RAW to overstate the problem is better? Or maybe deliberately violating them ("ring of continuous shield" and "antimagic field that doesn't affect the barbarian") to make a point?
there may even be times when NONE of a wizard's prepared spells are usefulThis has never, ever happened to me. This will never happen to any wizard with a solid spell selection, barring DM fiat ("Dead magic zone, no casting anywhere around here, lol").
"This hasn't happened in my group, therefore it will never happen."
A "party of fighters" is not the same as a "party without primary spellcasters." A barbarian, fighter, rogue (with Use Magic Device maxed and possibly Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) to get a +11 skill check before Cha bonus or any other modifiers, as well as a partly charged wand of fireball*), and ranger (with a wand of cure light wounds and a wand of entangle) would have a damn good shot at winning the encounter.I guess if your DM lets you spend all your cash on disposable magic items so you can simulate being a primary caster... OK, that really convincing of the power of martial characters.
Another slippery slope argument.
Fully charged wands of cure light wounds and entangle are 750gp each. A wand of fireball with 10 charges is 2250gp (slightly less than a +1 weapon). That's hardly "all your cash."
Long term, wands are not effective for all spells, but for 5th-12th level characters (i.e., the levels for Red Hand of Doom) they can be effective in many circumstances. I'm not arguing that it's as effective or versatile as having primary casters in the party (or that you should try to be), but a selection of control/debuff/mass-damage items can help a party compensate.
Incidentally, martial characters are equally capable of poor preparation. Not having the proper weapon to overcome DR is a common example of this. I've also seem fighters who neglect to bring a reasonable missile weapon.
Yes, preparation is the key for any character/party being successful. It's not inherent in the class.
|
There is one piece of key balance that was lost between 2nd and 3rd edition. And that is that in previous editions, most spells could KILL YOU. System shock was in place for any spell that altered your body, which included haste since it could magically age you. If you failed system shock, you died.
Now, I think they took this out to prevent transmuters from using their spells as instant death effects on their enemies, for the same reason they nerfed illusions to some degree.
That said, in previous editions, being a caster was much more dangerous.
Another slippery slope argument.
Fully charged wands of cure light wounds and entangle are 750gp each. A wand of fireball with 10 charges is 2250gp (slightly less than a +1 weapon). That's hardly "all your cash."
No, it's not 'all your cash' but it reduces the ability of the martial character to be good at and focus on what they should be good at. Assuming your DM allows you to by partially charged wands (which is by no means anywhere in the core rulebooks) that martial character just sacrificed the opportunity to buy +1 armor and +1 shield, or magic arrows, or a cloak of elvinkind for the rogue... whatever. The fighter/ ranger/ barbarian cannot even use the wand and has to go with the much more expensive necklace sacrificing even more wealth (and opportunity to be better at what he's good at). Not to mention that you can easily burn through those 10 spells in less than 3 days worth encounters then you have to give up another +1 weapon...
Further, the wizard has the same wealth that the martial character has and can buy wands or other magic items to increase his versatility without limiting his primary purpose (spellcasting)
[Long term, wands are not effective for all spells, but for 5th-12th level characters (i.e., the levels for Red Hand of Doom) they can be effective in many circumstances. I'm not arguing that it's as effective or versatile as having primary casters in the party (or that you should try to be), but a selection of control/debuff/mass-damage items can help a party compensate.
Short term wands are not effective. Even at 6-7th level the damage is falling off and the DC of a wand is significantly lower than the typical casters DCs.
;.;
I can only assume that you're feeling pretty guilty about playing D&D like it's a fan fiction and lash out defensively whenever someone suggests that someone out there is a psionic monk spiked chain drow paladin.
You might feel attacked, but I need to point out that if you'd read my post without feeling like someone was commenting on your behavior in your psychologist's waiting room you might take a different perspective.