|
Help me out here. I'm not sure I fully understand this argument and would like some clarification.
Looking for two answers.
1) In what way are these classes unbalanced to the point of being "broken"?
2) How does this brokenness really affect game play?
This keeps being brought up and I'm not sure that I understand why it's such a big deal.
|
|
Read this to gain some insight into the sides of this debate.
Basically, some people care more about the numbers and the game. Others care more about just having a character.
Different people have different ideas of "balanced" and "broken".
One rough guideline I have is that a character with N levels in one of the base classes should be fun to play in a level N party (for N = 1..20). So if a level 18 fighter is not fun to play in a level 18 party, it's not very well balanced. (Defining "fun" is a bit more difficult, though. :-)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Here is the crux of the arguement:
People get upset when they look at the higher level spells and what they allow a wizard to do. They compare one class versus another and realize that, in a one-on-one fight, a fighter cannot beat a wizard beyond level 8 or 9. The truth of the matter is, D&D shouldn't HAVE a scenario in which a fighter is going solo against a wizard of equal level. D&D is not designed to be a solo game. It's like saying linebackers are underpowered because they can't score touchdowns as well as a running back. OF COURSE NOT! That's not the point!
This whole "wizards vs. fighters" arguement frankly annoys the hell out of me. I've played my share of fighter types and I've certainly played a hefty sum of wizards. And you know what? Even in high level games, I manage to have fun with both because I don't feel that my fighter needs to "upstage" the wizard. Instead, the wizard uses his spells and abilities to enhance my abilities as well as dishing out some damage to our enemies. In the end, it's all about teamwork and a lot of people seem to forget that. Try taking a wizard, by itself (or even a whole party of wizards), through any given campaign. Unless your GM caters the encounters specifically to your character's strengths, you'll find yourself wishing that fighter and cleric were by your side just about every single fight.
|
|
As I posted in one of P-R's threads...
I don't think it's necessarily broken. I mean in one combat I can have a Wizard wipe out a whole swath of enemies with a well placed Fireball while the fighter struggles to fend off 2 or 3 attackers at the same time. The balance comes in when one of those 2 or 3 attackers gets past the Fighter and closes with the Wizard. The Wizard probably isn't going to last long while the Fighter will probably survive. I think that's actually fairly balanced. I think it's more about the relationship between the two class' rolls in combat. Personally if your trying to play a Wizard like a Fighter then yeah I could see how people would feel that it's unbalanced. If your playing a fighter getting 1 or 2 kills per combat but the Wizard in your party is dropping 5 or 6 more with Fireballs and Lightning bolts then I also see how you could see them as unbalanced. BUT remember that if the Wizard was not there then the fighter would be dealing with many more targets and find it much harder to survive the encounter. The Wizard, without the fighter, would be dead...usually...my one Wizard vs 3 Drow story being an example of EXTREME luck I'm sure.
I think it's more about perspective than anything.
|
|
The truth of the matter is, D&D shouldn't HAVE a scenario in which a fighter is going solo against a wizard of equal level. D&D is not designed to be a solo game.
I and my group feel the same as you do. Hence the reason for my question. It's a team effort and all the players have their part to do. The truth is that with spell resistance and high saves, I far too often shut down the wizard in many combat scenarios at high levels.
I just didn't understand the argument. If it's not really a supportable argument, I'll ignore it in the future.
|
|
Try taking a wizard, by itself (or even a whole party of wizards), through any given campaign. Unless your GM caters the encounters specifically to your character's strengths, you'll find yourself wishing that fighter and cleric were by your side just about every single fight.
Off the top of my head, invisible rogue versus wizard. That's gonna hurt without cleric and fighter support.
|
|
Off the top of my head, invisible rogue versus wizard. That's gonna hurt without cleric and fighter support.Definitely. Maybe less so with the "whole party of wizards" scenario, but solo? Yeah, you're hosed.
I was gunning for the solo, indeed.
A party of wizards is workable, so long as everybody does something different, and you have a Magic Device user with a curing wand handy.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I was gunning for the solo, indeed.
A party of wizards is workable, so long as everybody does something different, and you have a Magic Device user with a curing wand handy.
Yeah, a 4-man wizard party with a Diviner, an Illusionist, an Evoker, and a Conjurer would actually be somewhat formidable once they hit level 5 or so. Still, not as formidable as a balanced party, but it might be fun to do. :) The Illusionist might consider dipping a rogue level, but everything else should be fine.
|
|
Yeah, a 4-man wizard party with a Diviner, an Illusionist, an Evoker, and a Conjurer would actually be somewhat formidable once they hit level 5 or so. Still, not as formidable as a balanced party, but it might be fun to do. :) The Illusionist might consider dipping a rogue level, but everything else should be fine.I was gunning for the solo, indeed.
A party of wizards is workable, so long as everybody does something different, and you have a Magic Device user with a curing wand handy.
Sort of a nod to the old Castle Greyhawk team of Mordenkainen, Rary, Otiluke, Tenser, and Bigby. Oh, and Robilar and Riggby were there too.
I have played a few other systems outside of D&D. In every fantasy game I have ever played in, the magic using characters outshine non-magic using characters in their own niche. The wizards are better in combat than the fighters. The wizards are better at thieving than the thieves.
This has just been my experience, so feel free to dismiss it as hearsay.
I do not think that means every single system I have ever played is horribly broken. I am sure there are a myriad of reasons why this happens. I do, however, think there is a problem.
Help me out here. I'm not sure I fully understand this argument and would like some clarification.
Looking for two answers.
1) In what way are these classes unbalanced to the point of being "broken"?
2) How does this brokenness really affect game play?
This keeps being brought up and I'm not sure that I understand why it's such a big deal.
The way I see it the fighter should be able to do something effective in every round of combat. The wizard (and cleric and druid) should have some less effective things they can do every round but a few awesome things they should be able to do a few times per day, perhaps once per encounter. Around 5th-7th level it's roughly like that. Before then the wizard can never do awesome things. After then wizards can do awesome things 4+ times per encounter. Hmmm
|
|
The problem is not that the wizard can "beat" the fighter. The problem is that the fighter isn't necessary.
Ever play with a party of 3-4 fighters? My group has a side campaign with 3 Ogre Fighters (one two-handed katana, one heavy repeating crossbow, one flail and shield). They can demolish most opponents. They die a lot against spellcasters, but the rest soldier on and pay for resurrections later.
|
|
The problem is not that the wizard can "beat" the fighter. The problem is that the fighter isn't necessary.
Is this a problem with the mechanics or the scenarios? (Or DM for that matter?) As I have said, I have run encounters that have all but made the wizard useless (and I wasn't even trying to do so). Also I have run encounters that have made the fighter(s) all but useless. (Again, usually without intending to.)
I would argue that there isn't any class that is truly necessary. Our current group (20th level) consists of a fighter/swashbucker, rogue/swashbuckler, favored soul, barbarian, and monk. Almost no spellcasters at all and the only real one is fairly limited in their spellcasting abilities. And no one misses having a wizard.
Someone else said that a wizard becomes a better fighter. I disagree -- unless the wizard has amply time to prep and usually the fight is over by that point. They just fight differently.
Someone else said that a wizard becomes a better rogue. In this I agree. Aside from skill points, there is little a rogue does better that a wizard can't get around with spells.
But that doesn't mean that the rogue is useless. Nor does it support the example that seems to continue to be thrown out there.
At the worst case -- it eventually falls on the DM to "balance" the players with their abilities. I'm not saying with "Rule 0" crap. I'm saying that there are always going to be things that you can do (fairly easily) to make one character type shine over another in combat. I can even do it with the rogue over the wizard. I'm still not sure how it is a problem with the rules.
|
The problem is not that the wizard can "beat" the fighter. The problem is that the fighter isn't necessary.
If you start a new party in a campaign with a level higher than about 6-8, there is no reason whatsoever to include a fighter, and nearly no reason to include any non spellcaster, though there are certain situations where a rogue or charismatic character might come in handy even at higher levels.
Of course, people who want to play non-spellcaster characters exist in multitudes. I am one of them. But if I'm in a higher level campaign, I pretty much always end up being a gish - because without some spell slinging ability I am quickly rendered pointless.
Roleplay and good teamwork can mitigate this problem to a certain extent, especially at the mid levels. But it's still an essential problem with the system.
I've been ruminating on this problem and on and off, and one solution I think would work well is to cap the number of spells a spellcaster can cast per day - or maybe the number of spell levels worth of power they can memorize / cast per day - in order to limit them a little more. For example, an 18th level wizard can have eleventy bajillion magic missiles memorized for the day - or 3 9th level spells. Or something in between.
This is probably not backwards compatible enough, however, so I think the best option for pathfinder is to continue to nerf in combat spells with obvious abuses, and give non-spellcasters things that help them defend a little more against magic or give them alternate roles. Increasing fighter skill points wouldn't have a large effect on general game balance, but gives a fighter more choices, and hopefully would increase the fun quotient enough to make them more attractive, if not equal in power to spellcasters.
</brain dump>
sorry about that, I shouldn't let myself think out loud like that, I tend to ramble.
|
|
Re: turning the fighter against the party. I've done that before and hate it. I tend to avoid those kinds of things for a variety of reasons. I have never seen a player like to see their character decimate a fellow player and be helpless about it. It ends up not being fun for anyone. I also think that the rules are incredibly poorly done for this stuff. There was a great article on the WotC site that dealt with this quite a while ago, but even that has quite a bit of gray as to what you can or cannot tell a charmed person to do (or even a dominated person). I'm not saying I won't utilize the spell(s) but only do so with creatures that it makes the most sense to (mind flayers, aboleths, etc.) But that's really a discussion for another thread...
Re: making a wizard useless...
How about finger of death? Destruction? Power word kill? Anything else that might require a Fort save or even a reflex save? At higher levels many creatures have really good saves or even spell resistance (or both). Both magic creatures and outsiders have no "bad" saves. With probably the lowest amount of hit points in the party, and with the supposed danger they represent, most Intelligent creatures would focus on the wizard as well and probably be able to take it out in a round or two.
|
|
But if I'm in a higher level campaign, I pretty much always end up being a gish - because without some spell slinging ability I am quickly rendered pointless.
Roleplay and good teamwork can mitigate this problem to a certain extent, especially at the mid levels. But it's still an essential problem with the system.
Why are you a "gish" without some spell slinging ability? I'm hearing this, but I haven't seen this myself. So I'm asking for something a little more specific.
And is this really a problem with the system or with the scenario (or possibly the DM)?
I'm still not sure how it is a problem with the rules.
Glad it was all just in my head.
thinking about it, i wouldn´t want the fighter be as powerful as the wizard... after all: it´s the wizard !
it´s like complaining how Jedis are more powerful than stormtroopers or that Luke Skywalker can beat Han Solo in any encounter. Why must everyone be "balanced" ? After all, as others have mentioned, they play together, not against each other. And why not playing a fighter who ist impressed by the powers this mage next to him can wield ?
The problem is when EVERYONE around you wields some fancy magic and you are the only one being left behind.
But we all know the mage´s (or sorcerers) powers are limited. It´s like having a rifleman attack a swordsman. He could kill him at a distance, but if he´s out of ammunition, he won´t stand a chance.
(Not talking about warlocks here, of course)
A fighter´s powers are (almost) always ready.
Additionally, playing a mage means doing much more paperwork and preparation than playing a fighter class. So if i don´t want to decide what spells to learn, what to prepare today... i better take the fighter.
And don´t forget how much it costs a wizard to learn new spells. Following the rules it´s really expensive ! A fighter can (and must) spend much more money into magical equipment.
I agree that there are a lot of situations (climb, fly, see invisibility, magical effects etc.) where the fighter can feel lost. But it´s up to the DM to balance such situations and give the fighters their moments, especially in higher levels.
We play at lvl 15 at the moment and none of my fighters feels useless, because they deal constantly quite a lot damage and can take about 4 times the beating the spellcasters can.
|
|
Sorry, I should have addressed this directly.
I have played a few other systems outside of D&D. In every fantasy game I have ever played in, the magic using characters outshine non-magic using characters in their own niche. The wizards are better in combat than the fighters. The wizards are better at thieving than the thieves.
This has just been my experience, so feel free to dismiss it as hearsay.
I do not think that means every single system I have ever played is horribly broken. I am sure there are a myriad of reasons why this happens. I do, however, think there is a problem.
I'm not discounting that high level magic is powerful. I also think that it's very quickly easy to "out-shine" everyone else if you have Batman's utility belt. (Oh, you need to take out 300 mooks, here use this. Oh, you need to get bigger, take this. etc.) But that's a different problem. Simply having access to vast amounts of spells suddenly gives the character the (apparent) ability to "out-shine" everyone else.
At the same time, I've seen a player outshine everyone else as a wizard. The next game they play a fighter and outshine everyone else. The next game they play a bard and outshine everyone else. So then I ask myself if it really is the classes and the mechanics or the player.
I didn't mean to dismiss what you said. I guess that I would still like some specifics to reference.
|
|
I agree that there are a lot of situations (climb, fly, see invisibility, magical effects etc.) where the fighter can feel lost. But it´s up to the DM to balance such situations and give the fighters their moments, especially in higher levels.
Yes. I guess that my question should be --
At what point is this the responsibility of the DM or the responsibility of the rules? Where is the balance really? How do you have every class be what they are without the DM at some point making the story happen for the characters?
I really wasn't trying to say that it was.
I apologize. I was just being defensive.
For me, it is about niche protection. I do not expect the rules to solve this. Maybe that is why this is such a volatile issue. Obviously, it is a problem for some people yet there is no real way to address it within the mechanics of a game.
Don’t you gravitate towards low magic games, Moff?
For me, it is about niche protection. I do not expect the rules to solve this. Maybe that is why this is such a volatile issue. Obviously, it is a problem for some people yet there is no real way to address it within the mechanics of a game.
I've never been a believer in niche protection. Let people develop the PCs as they want to develop them. It's my job, as DM, to make sure everyone is having fun and everyone gets to have some time in the spotlight.
I suspect this has a lot to do with why I'm not liking 4e with its comparatively rigid roles.
|
|
Don’t you gravitate towards low magic games, Moff?
I don't know that I "gravitate" towards anything but my friends. Personally I love high magic, lots of options, huge spells and so on. Not everyone else does. I'll usually acquiesce to what's most comfortable and fun for the group.
From a DM's point of view, the monk in our group is feeling the most worthless. She just doesn't do quite as much damage, is kind of a half rogue and so on. But the truth is that I can't affect her at all with just about any bad guy I throw at the party without making it so big and bad that it would decimate the rest of the group. Spell resistance, very high saves, very high AC, very quick, etc. Still she is feeling not quite as powerful as the rest. It's my job to fix that. Is that a problem with the system? Is it my problem? Is it a "problem" with the player? I don't know for sure yet. But it's not something I can't fix on my own.
I've never been a believer in niche protection. Let people develop the PCs as they want to develop them. It's my job, as DM, to make sure everyone is having fun and everyone gets to have some time in the spotlight.
But aren’t you doing some niche protection by ensuring everyone has fun and everyone has some spotlight time?
But it's not something I can't fix on my own.
I would agree that it is a problem. I am sure someone could come in and say monks work just fine in their games. Someone else could come in and give you a long, detailed monk build that, at least in theory, would make her dish out just as much damage as everyone else.
This does not help you or ease your frustration with a very real problem for you.
O.k. I am beating a dead horse. Sorry. Still feeling defensive.
I am not convinced it is your job alone to fix this problem. I can concede this is not a problem with the system. I believe everyone at the table needs to be conscientious of everyone’s fun. That includes the other players.
D&D allows opportunities for magic using characters to outshine other classes. With the army of muchkins and inexperienced/poor GMs out there, those opportunities are exploited. Maybe games need to address this issue with advice and suggestions.
|
|
Wizards also have a variety of ways to avoid physical attacks, but it really depends on what level we're talking about. Everything from Mirror Image to Ghostform.
And it also depends on how quickly they can get those spells up. Also most of those spells have fairly short durations making it difficult to cast ahead of time. The deathward "solution" I feel is moot since the same argument can be used for any class -- "If someone else helps me I can become invincible..."
You're right about the wizard duel thing though. That may eventually come down to who get's initiative first.
Divination spells may be a problem. I'm not sure -- I've never had a player use them well.
|
|
I am not convinced it is your job alone to fix this problem. I can concede this is not a problem with the system.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't a problem with the system. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be looked at. I'm experienced enough with the system that I can create fixes fairly easily. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed.
However the real question at hand is -- "Do the classes truly need to be absolutely "balanced" (whatever that might look like) in order for the system to not be broken?"
Maybe so. I think that I'm understanding that I seem to have a different view as to the role of the DM than some others may have.
i'm a fighter man myself and more than understand how a wizard might outshine a fighter. it does seem like quite a delema doesnt it. but ive always thought of it like this. sure the caster can cast fly to get to the top of the cliff when i have to climb it but when we both get to the top of the cliff ive lost nothing and the caster is out a spell and cant do it again tomorrow.an as the day wears on, as long as i have hitpoints im always working at top efficiency, while the casters selection of options are slowly wittled down. of course there is the slew of magic items a fighter can have to give him an edge in combat when he needs a magical helping hand. but that has nothing to do with the character of the characters.
in the end it comes down to the fun factor. an while some people might enjoy the absolute number crunching to make a god, more then the majority enjoy role playing aspect. now as long as you have the setup to atleast not die in combat what more could you ask for. it doesnt matter the class as long as you have fun. and someone said something about looking for a story when a competent spell caster was worthless; i more then have one for ya.
it was a ravenholme campaign i want to say,and we were underground looking for some artifact that would help destroy the count. now there were two casters, a cleric and wizard. now it was the usuall setup cleric was almost all healing and wizard was the boom boom guy. so we were making our way down the tunnel and was pretty sure we were closing in on the lair of the artifact. then these monsters popped out, i dont remember their names but they are floating brains with beaks and tentacles. so they came out us and we quickly found out they had a paralyzing touch. then to our utter dismay it turned out they were immune to electricity and some other energy type. an our poor wizard specialized in those two energy types. now he had fiquired with two energy types he was set and so had we, cause it had worked pretty well. but as the brains advanced the barbarian and fighter were able to hold their ground for a bit thanks to the high fortitude saves against the paralyzation. but the monsters had multiple attacks and numbers, and as it goes you only had to fail once. so they advanced took the cleric out and were coming up on the wizard. he had one trick left, that spell were you get to transform into a monster, and he picked that big big artic worm with a burning hot back. an guess what proceeded to get paralyzed right after the spell. so there, he was a good caster and rendered useless shearly by chance. on a happier note the burning hot strip killed a few of them as the wizards worm body sat there while they tried to coup de grace him. it was like a dumb child and a hot stove. but eventually they stopped and the spell wore off and you know the rest.
I do not think any system can be perfectly balanced. Even if it were, people with more experience with the system would unbalance it again…would they not?
This is why I think min/maxing and muchkinism (not saying they are one and the same) need to be addressed with some kind of social contract instead of ever increasing rule restrictions. I guess, when I look at it that way, I have been agreeing with you the whole time.
I am just tired of being the wizard’s pack mule.
|
|
The question to ask is 'who has spells which help make characters invincible?' Those are the guys you want adventuring with you. Those characters are Wizard and Cleric (and Archivist and Artificer ultimately). Those characters most definitely do not include Fighter or Barbarian or... you get the point.
I still think that's what the team for. When I play the wizard I ask myself who would I like along to take my hits for me? Another wizard who can die in one or two hits themself?
"MDJ"? What's that?
Also, where is the archivist class? Artificer is an interesting class and I didn't have enough experience with it to figure out all the potential issues with allowing a class the ability to create anything they wanted. I allowed one person to do that class only because I knew it would require a pretty good understanding of all the rules. But that person had to leave the group (60 miles is a bit to commute with these gas prices) so my true experience with it is limited.
I am just tired of being the wizard’s pack mule.I thought that was just a chip on your shoulder.
Point.
you ever just think that most of the problems might come from the splatbooks? those were pumped out pretty fast theres no way they could have tested it all.
ive always played core with some splat rarely placed here or there, like a little every few games rare. and ive always enjoyed it
|
I agree there is something of an imbalance, but believe the examples most often given about the wizard stomping foes while the fighter looks on are limited to a game style in which static monsters and a static game world (read Diablo) exist to provide a backdrop for this type of play. If an internally consistent game world is instead used and the characters are not viewed statically, but rather as members of a society that would function just fine without them, then this imbalance tends to not mean as much.
For example, if clerics and wizards were so much better than fighters at mid levels and beyond and the world in which this game took place was an internally consistent one, then all mid to high opponent encounters would contain a comparable wizard/cleric foe component. The reason being, of course, that any bad guy that did not use these obviously superior components would be destroyed by other forces of good before the characters got involved. Why call upon the PCs when the local town wizard can kick the crap out of the band of evil but magically-neutered upstarts by using his superior magical power?
So, all evil guys that remain at mid to high levels now have wizardly power at least equal to if not superior to the environment in which they are operating. Now the PCs are needed since the local wizard can do nothing to stop the overwhelming magical power shown by the enemy (or he is already dead and the poor fighters in the area can do nothing to thwart the powerful magic they face because of their many weaknesses).
So, the PCs must now deal with the threat. This so far seems ok, except now their group is bound to be facing a wizard that is at least as powerful as the now disposed local NPC wizard and possibly more powerful. In this clash of the titans, the party is now just as susceptible to the evil wizard's power as the bad guys are to the party's good power. When these forces meet, who will the respective wizards focus on? The fighters? Hardly. If the PC wizard knows he will face a caster, that is going to be his responsibility while the fighter deals with the mooks (and the enemy mooks hold off the party fighters so the evil wizard can slay his counterpart and mop up afterward). Anything else gives the other caster time to devastate him, which leaves that wizard's faction vulnerable to subsequent destruction by the other faction's wizard's awesome powers. The two opposing magical forces would attempt to trap each other, draw each other into an unfavorable fight and kill the opposing wizard so that rest of the battle is that much easier. If you are a wizard, if you focus on the mooks on the other side before dealing with the opposing wizard, you lose. (Aside: this is what modern air forces are used for. Like wizards, they exhibit extraordinary powers ground forces cannot match. And like wizards, the primary goal of the air force early in the conflict is to destroy the opposing air force, and the command and control structures for air defense. Once the skies are clear over the disputed territory, the air force can reign down hell with impunity. Air sorties carried out without control of the skies are very risky and will result in far more deaths and loss of equipment than destroying the enemy's air force first. Thus, if you do not have an air force capable of competing with your opponent, the best you can do is retreat and the worst is perish. Victory is unobtainable).
Thus fighters are needed and play a vital role in the group. If your party has a fighter and a wizard and the opponent is a wizard, that wizard has problems because if he focuses on using his power to destroy or delay the fighter, he dies "the next round" (I say this because many "wizards-are-uber" proponents claim a wizard ends the fight in one round at mid to high levels). If the evil wizard focuses only on the good wizard, he risks death at the hands of the oncoming fighter. Thus, the evil wizard needs mooks to slow down the wizard's ground forces long enough to settle the dispute magically.
Is the fighter "weaker" than the wizard? I guess you can say that he is, but without him, the wizard will have difficulty facing a like-level wizard and his friends and these will be all the wizard faces since all weaker threats are deposed of before he even hears about the problem.
I play mostly Hero which does not really have splat books. There are supplements, but they rarely add rules. Mostly they show you new ways to use the current rules. Despite this, I have still encountered problems with wizards.
Granted, I imagine splat books to muchkins = can opener to cats.
|
|
Artificers are problematic for a couple of reasons.
Very good points. My potential problem with the artificer was that it takes a lot of control away from the DM. THAT I didn't like. So I had a talk with the player well ahead of time and it was no problem. I don't really care what rule system it is. It could be a rock solid game. I'm still the DM and I still say what is allowed and what isn't. Taking that ability away from me was really my only real concern.
The DM needs to be in control of the game -- Not the players. At the same time the DM is the one running the game -- FOR the players.
I have a feeling like there are a number of DMs that let people walk all over them and make decisions for them. Or that treat the game as though it's the DM vs. the players. Both scenarios will lead to problems.