Dear Mr. My-wand-has-more-charges-than-your-wand,
What did we ever do to you? I keep reading threads in the PRPG playtests where all design decisions are being subjected to the question of whether or not they can stand up to a fully-buffed wizard staring down from the other end of the corridor.
Thinking about improvements to the fighter? Not enough unless it helps him to withstand the heat of a fireball.
Sneak attack damage being debated? You have to be able to take out the mage in one hit or he'll make jokes about your mother while teleporting out of there.
I have to ask, wiz, when did you become such an a%*+%~!? I remember a time when you were a valued member of the party, protected at low levels and quite impressive at high levels. I remember when magic users like yourself were happy to get fireball and after each blast would get big smiles on their furry little faces. Buff spells? Those were a way for the wizard to thank the fighter for protecting them all these years.
Now, it seems, that wizards hang out in long hallways buffing themselves while waiting for honest, hard-working PC fighters to walk dumbly up the corridor just so they can mock them while testing area spells that might be better used on goblins.
Yours,
Grognard
I haven't really been following the PRPG, but I played in an high level campaign where the mage outshined the warrior types in combat because they shapechanged into balor tanar'ri and got those wonderful melee stats AND had a repetoire of spells besides. And because he was a powergamer, he was able to tweak things so it was ridiculous compared to the vanilla fighters and wizards and lich arcane trickster archmages, etc.
So I can see the point of trying to maintain some kind of class balance, especially if one "role" can act better than another "role" that that class was designed to excel at.
But it also comes down to play styles, and players shouldn't be trying to outshine the other players.
My favorite aspect of D&D is the collaborative stuff, like coming up with intricate plans where everyone has a really important role, and then the BBEG falls to pieces even though he should have wiped the floor with you.
|
Dear Mr. My-wand-has-more-charges-than-your-wand,
What did we ever do to you? I keep reading threads in the PRPG playtests where all design decisions are being subjected to the question of whether or not they can stand up to a fully-buffed wizard staring down from the other end of the corridor.
Thinking about improvements to the fighter? Not enough unless it helps him to withstand the heat of a fireball.
Sneak attack damage being debated? You have to be able to take out the mage in one hit or he'll make jokes about your mother while teleporting out of there.
I have to ask, wiz, when did you become such an a%*@~@@? I remember a time when you were a valued member of the party, protected at low levels and quite impressive at high levels. I remember when magic users like yourself were happy to get fireball and after each blast would get big smiles on their furry little faces. Buff spells? Those were a way for the wizard to thank the fighter for protecting them all these years.
Now, it seems, that wizards hang out in long hallways buffing themselves while waiting for honest, hard-working PC fighters to walk dumbly up the corridor just so they can mock them while testing area spells that might be better used on goblins.
Yours,
Grognard
Well, strictly, it isn't the wizards, it's the players. Ther is an argument that fighters are too useless to bother with because a wizard can do it all. I find it interesting that is often presented by people presenting you with "statistics" who are slightly lacking in the personality department. I think that there is an issue with the way a wizard can be optimised in a way which the fighter cannot, but I have only really seen this through the boards rather than in real life gaming, so I don't really know if it is true. On the other hand, my experience as a player tells me the issue isn't that big a deal. The real problem seems to me that some players want to "win" at D&D, and wizard is the best way to do that. It is a gaming style, I guess, but not much fun to be around if you are anyone other than that player.
|
The day that warriors are balanced with spellcasters (as they stand now) is the day I stop playing D&D and start playing the Stargate SG-1 RPG, where fighters are soldiers and nobody gets magic.
The day that mages are balanced with warriors (as they stand now) is the day I stop playing D&D and start playing Ars Magica where wizards rule and the game forces that home.
The day the two classes meet in the middle - well, that's 6-12th level isn't it?
I do think the wizard can tread on the fighter's toes, which isn't cool (look at me, full BAB and spells and no need for gear cause I am buffed to all get out!) but I also think that the fighter can never and should never match the wizard in terms of usefulness. Fighter = hit things with other things, always has been always will be.
A few reasons the difference is exagerrated:
1. Paranoid players who want uber-mages with huge hit points and saving throws. 3rd Edition was this players dream, PRPG isn't helping with d6 hit dice. Remember when a 10th level Wizard had 30 hit points?
2. Extreme reliance on magic items. The fact that fighters inherently rely on magic items more than any class (which doesn't bother me) is blown out of proportion when mages get the same WBL but get to spend it on other stuff because they don't need a magic sword.
3. The 3.5 combat system. It really makes the fighters life worse and the mages better. Introduce attacks of opportunity but give mages Concentration. Blech. Simplify the action system, but make spells a standard action and full-attacks a full-round action. Blech.
2nd Edition did as much right as not, but unfortunately the things 3rd Edition didn't need to fix, but did anyway, made things worse for the warriors.
I feel if something were done to my above points the game would move forward to a happy place where fighters kick butt and so do wizards, without needing to do 4d6+20 points of damage per attack.
Also, I agree with Aubrey. To paraphrase: "Don't hate the game, hate the player."
|
|
I think Kirth Gersen came up with quite a good notion off the cuff in that respect - the Concentration thing is stupid. You want to stand next to a fighter and cast a spell? AoO and no messing. Then you can roll Concentration and see if the damage distracts you. The free pass for casters is silly.
Easy enough fix. If only more posters would listen to Kirth instead of spewing virtriol disguised as rules commentary.
The "wizards" will correct us that are fail. Aubrey: Ever notice how the talk is vaguely Orwellian?
I find it interesting that is often presented by people presenting you with "statistics" who are slightly lacking in the personality department.
I'm offended. I use examples, not statistics, to make that point. Don't you dare label me as having an abundance of personality because of that!
I also think that the fighter can never and should never match the wizard in terms of usefulness.
Jal, that's fine if the DnD player's manual states that fighters will be a suboptimal choice and will always be a suboptimal choice. If you tell your players that up-front, that's fine by me. I have a problem with players only discovering this fact about their beloved character 2 years into a campaign. It's misleading to design the game to achieve your desired end of wizards always being more useful. Misleading flavor text robs players of the ability to make an informed choice. That's wrong.
Hate the flavor text, not the player.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I also think that the fighter can never and should never match the wizard in terms of usefulness.Jal, that's fine if the DnD player's manual states that fighters will be a suboptimal choice and will always be a suboptimal choice. If you tell your players that up-front, that's fine by me. I have a problem with players only discovering this fact about their beloved character 2 years into a campaign. It's misleading to design the game to achieve your desired end of wizards always being more useful. Misleading flavor text robs players of the ability to make an informed choice. That's wrong.
Hate the flavor text, not the player.
I'm guessing that by 'usefulness' Jal meant ability to do useful things outside of combat, you know, like read magic. Is that what you meant, Jal?
|
|
I find it interesting that is often presented by people presenting you with "statistics" who are slightly lacking in the personality department.
I'm offended. I use examples, not statistics, to make that point. Don't you dare label me as having an abundance of personality because of that!
Forgive me - empirical evidence I have no problems with. Statistical analysis makes me suspicious. And your personality is flawless.
|
|
The "wizards" will correct us that are fail. Aubrey: Ever notice how the talk is vaguely Orwellian?
I'm not really bothered by them now - CoL, for example, basically made clear he has no friends and no likelihood of getting any soon when he revealed his interesting world view, which certainly was vaguely fascist. However, I also get the impression that most of that crowd are young men who haven't really been round the block much, and who seem to seethe with resentment. I expect them to grow up and mellow out with time, which will be better for everyone. It's funny how trivial things seem so important when you are young - the curse of testosterone. My presence also seems to rile them, since I apparently chased their hero away from the boards. But, meh, life goes on. If they spent les time decrying the changes made as being unsufficient and spent more time putting positive effort into making the changes that can be made in the context of backwards-compatibility, they would probably be happier.
|
|
I'm guessing that by 'usefulness' Jal meant ability to do useful things outside of combat, you know, like read magic. Is that what you meant, Jal?I also think that the fighter can never and should never match the wizard in terms of usefulness.Jal, that's fine if the DnD player's manual states that fighters will be a suboptimal choice and will always be a suboptimal choice. If you tell your players that up-front, that's fine by me. I have a problem with players only discovering this fact about their beloved character 2 years into a campaign. It's misleading to design the game to achieve your desired end of wizards always being more useful. Misleading flavor text robs players of the ability to make an informed choice. That's wrong.
Hate the flavor text, not the player.
Tarren's right. I really meant "utility" - having something for every situation, as opposed to just having combat ability. It extends somewhat in combat as well - Wizards will invariably have spells that can be used in creative ways that fighters cannot match.
I do want fighters to be able to do cool things, like throw people off cliffs with relative ease, and I do want fighters to have more of an impact as damage dealers (a fault of the 3.5 hit point bloating). A lot of the actual suggestions made by people like Kirth have addressed these issues.
What I don't want is the fighter having the ability to deflect magic rays with their sword, sprout stone skin, regenerate, or any other nonsense that ToB introduced.
|
|
I'm guessing that by 'usefulness' Jal meant ability to do useful things outside of combat, you know, like read magic. Is that what you meant, Jal?
Tarren's right. I really meant "utility" - having something for every situation, as opposed to just having combat ability. It extends somewhat in combat as well - Wizards will invariably have spells that can be used in creative ways that fighters cannot match.
I do want fighters to be able to do cool things, like throw people off cliffs with relative ease, and I do want fighters to have more of an impact as damage dealers (a fault of the 3.5 hit point bloating). A lot of the actual suggestions made by people like Kirth have addressed these issues.
What I don't want is the fighter having the ability to deflect magic rays with their sword, sprout stone skin, regenerate, or any other nonsense that ToB introduced.
My view in a nutshell.
|
I guess what gets lost in this as well is the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Yes, the fighter has fewer powers than the wizard, but isn't that the point?
When someone creates a fighter character, isn't part of that decision process the desire to play a blue-collar, lunch-pail hero, rather than the prodigy? Maybe not, maybe I'm crazy.
There is something heroic in being the guy who has to stand toe-to-toe with the bad guy, trading blows and being the one to give the wizard enough time to get off a volley of spells, and making it easier for the rogue to flank and sneak attack.
Forget the stat differences. Stats are not the heart of the game.
|
|
... I also get the impression that most of that crowd are young men who haven't really been round the block much, and who seem to seethe with resentment..
So I'm not the only one who got this vibe?
It's this (my) generation I swear; a bunch of spoiled brats whose parents never taught them how to respect other people. I got lucky in that my parents beat it into my head (in a case or two literally - a fact which I thank them for this day).
Apologies before hand to any parents I've offended with this. Chances are if you're posting here and coherently you're not one of the aforementioned parents.
There is another parameter that get’s lost in the comparisons: Playing a spellcaster (Wizard being at the top) is a lot of work and rule-reading for the player compared to a warrior.
You have to read threw the spell rules section, understand (at least a little) the school, sub-school, line-of-effect vs line of sight, bonus types, SPELL DESCRITPTIONS, read the fitting conditions, figure out monster types, sub-types, the mechanics of spell resistance, good saves/bad saves, Spellcraft vs Knowledge XYZ, Meta-magics, Craft Magic Items.
And that’s on top of all the basics of action types, skills, feats, etc.
Sure to build and play an Uber-fighter you have to work for it too but the amount of time and effort needed to build and play an Uber-Wizard is staggering. If you go threw it once you’ll be O.K. for doing it again but you still had to do all the work.
Some people like doing that (I do to a point), kind of like playing Lego with the rules and seeing who can build the toughest car. But it’s never the coolest car you can build that will be the toughest. You have more blocs with a Wizard but you have to dig longer to get the best ones.
Note that I refer here only of the uber-builts. If the character/fluff guides your choices (ex.: sure sleep is great but I want to shoot flames from my hans!) and you don’t work on your character’s built more than the other non-spell casting players I think you’ll get the same power level for a long-long time.
My 2c
Actually, getting revenge for all the indignities of being a 1st level mage with one or two spells has been a part of the game since the basic set.
|
|
my 2 cents worth, and here I think Aubrey hit the nail on the head...
I haven't seen in 'campaigns' where this issue ever comes up. It only comes up when players 'create high level characters out of thin air and then play them...'
Why?
We could speculate on the reasons it doesnt factor into most real campaigns- DM's controlling magic items, Players being happy with and growing with a party...fighters protecting wizards as part of their role, and wizards doing the serious damage to knock down an opponent but happy the fighter is keeping them from getting within reach, players in a campaign diversifying their wizards to be more of a team player, DM's not allowing certain splatbooks, DM's controlling the spells the Wizard gets....
True if you let the thought of unlimited magic avaialability play into your game, where shops are like wallmarts....then it can get ugly. But how many DM's just let players by what they want without looking at an item saying....hmmmm nope, thats not avaialable. Or no you cant make an efreeti wish factory....or how do you plan to support yourself while you create those hundred everburning torches?.....
Couple that with having wizards needing fighters at times, throw an Illithid at the party, and see how that wizard goes crying back to the fighter saying "Hurt him, my magic just bounces off".
There are only a couple of tweaks that the fighter needs to be more valuable, and he doesnt need to be equal....just valuable. Dont lower the DC for Combat Manuevers, give the fighter a bonus at them. thats really it. Now he'll be doing all those fancy manuevers and better...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I guess what gets lost in this as well is the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Yes, the fighter has fewer powers than the wizard, but isn't that the point?
When someone creates a fighter character, isn't part of that decision process the desire to play a blue-collar, lunch-pail hero, rather than the prodigy? Maybe not, maybe I'm crazy.
There is something heroic in being the guy who has to stand toe-to-toe with the bad guy, trading blows and being the one to give the wizard enough time to get off a volley of spells, and making it easier for the rogue to flank and sneak attack.
Forget the stat differences. Stats are not the heart of the game.
Okay, my next fighter's theme song will be "Working Class Hero".
my 2 cents worth, and here I think Aubrey hit the nail on the head...
I'm glad for you. But melee types over-shadowed by caster types happened twice in two well-run campaigns for me. It's not like the casters were jerks about being over-powered either; it's just apparent.
In one campaign that I've been in since 1999, everyone ended up multi-classing into caster classes just to keep up. The DM has one set of encounters for when the married couple who went straight caster classes shows up and a scaled-down set in case they can't make it.
Right now, my PC's role in a mid-level campaign is to play punching bag while the casters blow up the opposition. A successful combat is when I don't get my HP knocked down into high negatives. If I take one opponent down, that's an absolute bonus.
As soon as a caster goes down, the party reacts like it's a potential TPK. As soon as my PC or the other melee character go down, there's nothing like that reaction, because it's utterly normal.
What I don't get is this: when the archery players complain about doing less damage in the other forums, they get told that archers SHOULD do less damage because they don't face melee combat. Why doesn't the same thing apply to casters? Especially the druids and clerics?
|
|
Okay, my next fighter's theme song will be "Working Class Hero".
In homage to Styx "Blue Collar Man"
Give me a sword, give me a shield +3,
Give me a chance to survive.
Got the best magic armor that my gold could buy,
Mithril full plate +5.
The druid and the wizard, the barbarian,
I see them laugh in my face.
But I've got good Fort saves, (though not such good Will)
I'm not a total disgrace.
I'll take on...Death Knights, Black Dragons and Mohrgs.
Keeping my back to the wallllllll
If it takes 12 feats to be just what I am,
I'm gonna be a pure fighter, man.
I played in an epic campaign, and the casters totally out-shone the warriors in early encounters. But once the big guns were gone, the warriors began to shine. But once all the healing and big spells were gone, my dwarf warlock finally got a chance to shine. Being able to hit the opponent again and again and again from 250 feet away is nice, but the warlock's damage output wasn't on par with a wizard or cleric until they ran out of good spells. I just had to win by attrition, and the tactical use of the Empower, Maximize, and Quicken Spell-like Ability feats. Heck, most of the time the opponents had true-seeing, so my Retributive Invisiblity didn't work; and it seems half the time we fought in Teleport-proof areas, so I couldn't use Flee the Scene; and most opponents had flight, so my flying didn't give me the big tactical advantage it would have at lower levels. But I had close to 36 Con, so that was nice.
|
|
I just hit on something else, related to WBL.
In 3rd Edition Wizards (and all spellcasters, including the new Sorcerer) get their spells for free. They don't have to pay for a scroll and pay to copy it into their spellbooks.
But the fighter has to pay for that magic sword.
Perhaps a simple partial fix would be to have casters pay for access to spells. Clerics are an obvious problem, but they could pay to increase the quality of the holy symbol (literally or figuratively).
|
But once all the healing and big spells were gone, my dwarf warlock finally got a chance to shine. Being able to hit the opponent again and again and again from 250 feet away is nice, but the warlock's damage output wasn't on par with a wizard or cleric until they ran out of good spells. I just had to win by attrition, and the tactical use of the Empower, Maximize, and Quicken Spell-like Ability feats.
Around 8th level or so, a Warlock can pick up Battle Caster (PHB 2? Complete Mage? I don't recall.) and wear Mithral Fullplate, while Fell Flying around. At that point, the world just turns around, IMO.
Plus it looks dead sexy, the flying dude in fullplate shooting energy blasts around, acting all Victor Von Doom. :)
|
I just hit on something else, related to WBL.
In 3rd Edition Wizards (and all spellcasters, including the new Sorcerer) get their spells for free. They don't have to pay for a scroll and pay to copy it into their spellbooks.
But the fighter has to pay for that magic sword.
Perhaps a simple partial fix would be to have casters pay for access to spells. Clerics are an obvious problem, but they could pay to increase the quality of the holy symbol (literally or figuratively).
Wizards only get a few spells for free (your first level spells and 2 per level), the rest of them you either have to find, or pay for access to another wizard's spell book.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Okay, my next fighter's theme song will be "Working Class Hero".In homage to Styx "Blue Collar Man"
Give me a sword, give me a shield +3,
Give me a chance to survive.
Got the best magic armor that my gold could buy,
Mithril full plate +5.
...
Yours is better than mine:
with apologies to John Lennon
As soon as you're rolled they make you feel small
Because you aren’t destined to fart fireballs
Soon the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A combat class hero is something to be
A combat class hero is something to be
They make you take point and call you a tool
Call you ‘fail’ if you’re clever and min-maxed if a fool
Till you're so f%+@ing crazy you can't follow their rules
A combat class hero is something to be
A combat class hero is something to be
When they've hidden behind you for the first seven levels
They tell you you’re naught but a worthless meatshield
And compare your +3 sword to the wands that they wield
A combat class hero is something to be
A combat class hero is something to be
The casters have got spells coming out of their arses
Druids got wildshape, Paladins flying horses
But you're still swinging swords while they’re slinging curses
A combat class hero is something to be
A combat class hero is something to be
There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to heal at-will
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A combat class hero is something to be
A combat class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
|
|
Wizards only get a few spells for free (your first level spells and 2 per level), the rest of them you either have to find, or pay for access to another wizard's spell book.I just hit on something else, related to WBL.
In 3rd Edition Wizards (and all spellcasters, including the new Sorcerer) get their spells for free. They don't have to pay for a scroll and pay to copy it into their spellbooks.
But the fighter has to pay for that magic sword.
Perhaps a simple partial fix would be to have casters pay for access to spells. Clerics are an obvious problem, but they could pay to increase the quality of the holy symbol (literally or figuratively).
That's exactly my point - the fighter doesn't get a free magic sword every level, which to use his class features he needs as much as a wizard needs spells.
|
|
A bit more pro-fighter, based on "Badlands" by Bruce Springsteen:
Lights out tonight
don't have darkvision
Got a head full of feats
but an Intelligence of ten
I'm caught in a power creep
that I can never understand
But there's one thing I know for sure girl
I don't give a damn
For the same no-DM scenes
I don't give a damn
For just the bowling alleys
Honey, I want the heart, I want the soul
I want roleplay right now...
talk about a class
Try to make it real
you open up your books
With simulation zeal
Spend your life waiting
for an action that just don't come
Well, don't waste your time waiting
Balance, you gotta live it everyday
Let the broken hearts stand
As the price you've gotta pay
We'll keep pushin' till it's understood
and this balance starts treating us good
Workin' in the dungeons
till you get your Will burned
Workin' `neath the wizards
till you get your facts learned
Baby I got my facts
learned real good right now
You better get it straight darling
Wizards wanna rich,
rich man wanna be king
And a king ain't satisfied
lest he gets infinite things
I wanna sit down tonight,
I wanna find out what I got
Well I believe in the feats that you gave me
I believe in the saves that you gave me
I believe in the spells that could aid me
I believe in the hope
and I pray that some day
They may raise me above this
Balance, you gotta live it everyday
Let the broken hearts stand
As the price you've gotta pay
We'll keep pushin' till it's understood
and this balance starts treating us good
For the ones who had a notion,
a notion deep inside
That it ain't no sim
if you regenerate your hide
I wanna find one face
that ain't looking through me
I wanna find one place,
I wanna spit in the face of this
Balance, whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa...Balance...
|
|
ROFLMAO!Couple that with having wizards needing fighters at times, throw an Illithid at the party, and see how that wizard goes crying back to the fighter saying "Hurt him, my magic just bounces off".
Even better - Rakshasa (esp. 3.0 version). "Well, I forgot to stock up on holy bolts today. Good luck, warriors!"
|
|
Forgive me - empirical evidence I have no problems with. Statistical analysis makes me suspicious.
Yeah. If that's all someone is offering I can see that.
I can't completely agree since I've found that it's helpful to run the numbers to get a better feel for how things will behave in play.
Did I see you post somewhere that you review mathematical models as part of your day job?
Sam
|
|
I think it is fairer to say I review model assumptions and controls over data than to imply I am a maths geek. I didn't mind implying it, however, to the person I was posting to.... It gave me a basis for criticising the tenets of his analysis, which are critical if you are going to use analysis in this way.
|
|
But melee types over-shadowed by caster types happened twice in two well-run campaigns for me. It's not like the casters were jerks about being over-powered either; it's just apparent.
In one campaign that I've been in since 1999, everyone ended up multi-classing into caster classes just to keep up. The DM has one set of encounters for when the married couple who went straight caster classes shows up and a scaled-down set in case they can't make it.
Right now, my PC's role in a mid-level campaign is to play punching bag while the casters blow up the opposition. A successful combat is when I don't get my HP knocked down into high negatives. If I take one opponent down, that's an absolute bonus.
As soon as a caster goes down, the party reacts like it's a potential TPK. As soon as my PC or the other melee character go down, there's nothing like that reaction, because it's utterly normal.
What I don't get is this: when the archery players complain about doing less damage in the other forums, they get told that archers SHOULD do less damage because they don't face melee combat. Why doesn't the same thing apply to casters? Especially the druids and clerics?
I think there is a case to answer, and I wouldn't mind a bit of added poke for the martial types. My view is that is about degree. I don't see the game being about individual characters, I see it as being about a party. The issue arises if people are having less fun playing melee types, and there is evidence that that can happen. But that is the only issue as such, not spurious notions of mathematical balance.
As for the archery comment, I think the basic premise (you "deserve" less damage because you don't get involved in melee) is bogus to begin with.
|
|
I'm glad for you. But melee types over-shadowed by caster types happened twice in two well-run campaigns for me. It's not like the casters were jerks about being over-powered either; it's just apparent.
In one campaign that I've been in since 1999, everyone ended up multi-classing into caster classes just to keep up. The DM has one set of encounters for when the married couple who went straight caster classes shows up and a scaled-down set in case they can't make it.
Right now, my PC's role in a mid-level campaign is to play punching bag while the casters blow up the opposition. A successful combat is when I don't get my HP knocked down into high negatives. If I take one opponent down, that's an absolute bonus.
As soon as a caster goes down, the party reacts like it's a potential TPK. As soon as my PC or the other melee character go down, there's nothing like that reaction, because it's utterly normal.
What I don't get is this: when the archery players complain about doing less damage in the other forums, they get told that archers SHOULD do less damage because they don't face melee combat. Why doesn't the same thing apply to casters? Especially the druids and clerics?
I respect what you are saying, and I am not doubting this occurs. However, would it be safe to say that is an issue with how your party looks at things and not a flaw with the basic design of the game?
Most the groups I game with, are quite happy with the fighters holding the baddies at bay and nickel and dime them with damage, while the Wizard artillery goes to work on the majority of hit points...
If you fellow players are downplaying your importance, then I understand your frustration. Id talk to them out of game. If it doesnt help, then you have other issues with the game then and Id talk to the DM and see about him putting some antimagic encounter stuff in...to show them that you are an asset ;)