|
Talek. Mind your tags. If you're having trouble, please preview your posts before submitting them, so that the rest of us don't have to go digging through to decipher the code.
Who cares if the wizard blinded the giant. The fighter still has to kill the creature. A blinded giant may not be optimal but it is far from helpless. I find it funny that you brought this up as a bone of contention. In the game I played we were fighting a frost giant and I used shatter to destroy it's battle-axe. Neither the fighters or rogue in the party grumbled about me making the combat "too easy". They said "Thanks for getting rid of that axe. The battle was much easier with an unarmed giant." Fighters worthless against golems? Really? Maybe you play in drastically different games then me but I never went into meele against a golem when I played a wizard or a sorcerer.
Actually, the giant is pretty much helpless. Pretty much one twelfth normal chance to hit anything, or worse.
And the problem is, when the Fighter is killing a blind giant, his abilities don't matter. The giant really is defenseless; pretty much anyone could do the job. The Cleric, the Ranger, especially the Rogue, and even the Wizard herself, via summons. Just because the Fighter got the glory shot does not mean that the Fighter made a meaningful contribution. And in fact, that the Fighter gets the glory shot anyways propagates the myth that Fighters stay useful when, in fact, their abilities aren't being brought to bear and aren't what's winning fights.
Acutally, I believe you are missing the point. Attacking the giant with a blindness spell seems pretty weak. It attacks a giant at it's best save which is fortitude. If you use power word blind that is a 7th level spell. No wizard is going to have a ton of 7th level spells and I don't know many sorcerers that are gonna use a slot on it. It is a balanced ability because it is rare. Also fighters do win fights for the party at every level. I have seen it. A figther with a 24 str swings a greatsword at level 15 for 2D6+19 per hit. If he hits with at least three attacks that is 6D6+57 damage. So on average that is 85 damage. How is that awful? This dosen't even take into consideration feats or special weapon properties such as holy, keen, improved crit, ect. It may not be flashy like the wizard but it is nothing to sneeze at. I can't do that much damage on average rolls with less than 9th level spells. SO I have limited resources and do less sheer damage than a fighter without unlimited resoucres (attacks, damages with weapons) but I am just gonna dismiss someone that powerful because my lame summoned creature can't even get into that range and provide all of the versatility and toughness that fighters bring? Maybe you just need help in building fighters.
|
|
Acutally, I believe you are missing the point. Attacking the giant with a blindness spell seems pretty weak. It attacks a giant at it's best save which is fortitude. If you use power word blind that is a 7th level spell. No wizard is going to have a ton of 7th level spells and I don't know many sorcerers that are gonna use a slot on it. It is a balanced ability because it is rareGlitterdust. Granted, you just use Charm Person now.
The point is that save-or-lose spells are so endemic and powerful that while there's plenty of hitting to be done, it's usually unchallenging busywork after the first two to four rounds.
I understand your point but what happens for all of the combats where these spells fail to work because someone made a save? What happens when it is only a round delay because the creature makes a save on a subsequent round?
Take a decent wisdom score. Take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Buy a cloak fo resistance. There are many ways to overcome poor will saves. The first level protection from evil spell makes charm person/charm monster and dominate person all pointless until the protection wears off. Play an elf or a half-elf and suddnely sleep is a non-factor or play a dwarf for the save bonus vs magic. There are many ways to overcome save vs suck spells or minimize their effects. If you choose not to take precautions that is your fault. It is no different than wading into combat with weak armor, no shield and no dex benefit. You will get clobbered by the monsters because your ac is so poor.
What I disagree with is that a character must be designed to be capable of achieving the maximum under the rules in order for the game to be fun or for characters to be effective. Maybe you haven't said this?I haven't. Not remotely. "Legitimately capable of contributing" is different from "Pun Pun." Power isn't a yes-or-no question.
Imagine a grand spectrum of power, going from Useless to Theoretical. From left to right-
Completely Useless: Few things technically fall here, unless you're talking the psionic sandwich, but even then, rations.
Nominally Useful/Incompetent: These are things like a mule, or a 1HD kobold in a group of humans. Sure, they have their uses, but they're nowhere near equally contributing members.
Underpowered and Suboptimal: These may not be as powerful as they could be, but can more or less pull their weight.
Legitimately Powerful: Characters who can hold their own, who bring something useful to the table and do it well.
Optimal: Simply characters who are very good at doing something useful.
Overpowered: Characters hitting the realm of being too good at something useful.
Theoretical: These are the crazy-powerful godlike builds that aren't intended for actual play.
The problem with Fighters is not that they fail to be optimal. The problem is that, while they actually can be optimal at level 1, as levels go up, they slide down the totem pole not to powerful or underpowered, but to incompetent, and there are only a handful of highly optimized builds that might manage to get the class to suboptimal or better but are still easily shut down. The problem isn't that they're not the best, but that they flat suck past the early levels, that they don't grow, they don't gain options or abilities that matter.
The problem I'm still having with this (after a break for a psionic sandwich - tasty, but I hadn't thought I liked mustard before....) is that it seems to capture only one dimension of the game - the mechanics in a mathematical sense. Since we're talking here about having fun, I don't see how this is the only relevant consideration.
I appreciate that for some games, optimization/build are really important to allow the game to be played as desired. Though frankly this only seems to be a major issue when the fighter is in the same combat as wizards/clerics/druids/etc. Otherwise the encounters can be tailored to the characters without such a power imbalance - and it doesn't seem important at all that a group of 20th level fighters are only able to take on a CR16 creature (or so), whereas a group of 20th level wizards might be able to take on a CR24 creature (or so).
This is hardly incompetent. I don't want to defend the fighter as the best thing ever, but so what if they take 5.2 rounds longer than the wizard or expend 35.4% more resources to solve a problem?
With a well designed set of encounters/adventures, fun can still be had, even if people play fighters.
I appreciate that for some games, optimization/build are really important to allow the game to be played as desired. Though frankly this only seems to be a major issue when the fighter is in the same combat as wizards/clerics/druids/etc. Otherwise the encounters can be tailored to the characters without such a power imbalance - and it doesn't seem important at all that a group of 20th level fighters are only able to take on a CR16 creature (or so), whereas a group of 20th level wizards might be able to take on a CR24 creature (or so).The problem is that both sorts of classes are frequently found in the same parties, and both are expected to participate in the same adventures. What, exactly, does a 15th-level, or 20th-level, fighter do against any enemy who can fly and cast Wind Wall?
He sits to the side and waits for the players who actually can play to do so.
Ok, but that's not a problem with the system so much as it is with the DM, who should design encounters better than that, to include opponents to keep the fighter busy too. I don't see the rogue doing any better in that situation. Or the fighter uses a magic item to level the playing field a bit. Or waits for a better tactical opportunity to attack when those spells are not in effect or can't be used effectively (lures the opponent into a low ceilinged cave etc.).
And that's not much different from putting a wizard in a room with an anti-magic field and a bunch of hill giants - the wizard is going to die. The fighter wouldn't.
Look, I get it that there are more situations that the fighter can't handle than that the wizard can't handle - the fighter will have a tougher time against spell casters than a wizard will against non-spell casters. And it is challenging to design encounters that are equally fun for both characters at the same time, especially at high level.
What would you do in that situation (flying, wind-wall casting opponent)? Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? Tell him/her to play a wizard next time if he/she wants to have fun?
Look, I get it that there are more situations that the fighter can't handle than that the wizard can't handle - the fighter will have a tougher time against spell casters than a wizard will against non-spell casters. And it is challenging to design encounters that are equally fun for both characters at the same time, especially at high level.Yes. This is the problem. The classes have greatly imbalanced problem-solving ability.
And that's not much different from putting a wizard in a room with an anti-magic field and a bunch of hill giants - the wizard is going to die. The fighter wouldn't.Antimagic Field is an ability that almost always only appears on enemies who are also chock-full of magical abilities, so it is vanishingly rare. Flying is up there with Darkvision for abilities that many foes have.
There are too many common things that non-casters rely entirely on magical items or magical classes to deal with, and this is on top of all of the normal abilities that make melee difficult and dangerous (reach, DR, hideously huge damage, etc.) The list of things casters cannot deal with consists entirely of Antimagic Field.
Or running out of spells.... (which suddenly makes their list much much longer)
but in principle you're just restating what I said - the list of things casters can't deal with is shorter.
What would you do in that situation (flying, wind-wall casting opponent)? Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? Tell him/her to play a wizard next time if he/she wants to have fun?Redesign the game so that players don't sit out the game because they picked the wrong class.
I see. So you think it's too broken to try to work with, and your solution is to play a different game?
If that's what you want to do, no problem. I'm not there yet.
God, let's nto get into that Stupid Sunder argument again. Sunder is a perfectly valid tactic. The loot you are entitled to per level is entirely different then the loot your enemies wield. If I Sunder that unholy sword with my Good character, I should be rewarded for it, not penalized, and that's within the rules of the game. It's not your loot until it's divided up and claimed...it's the enemy's stuff, and you smashing it so he can't use it is totally valid and a very accepted tactic in life, literature, and the game.
==Aelryinth
No.
You smashing it up is a great way to miss out on a ton of magical loot. No sane party will allow its members to sunder anything unless it's a) obviously non-magical, or b) obviously not the sort of thing they would want to wield. Anything else, and they're hurting themselves more than they're hurting the monster.
Fall behind other characters? I don't expect the fighter to be more effective across the board than a wizard.
But it's okay that the wizard is more effective across the board than the fighter, of course.
More effective when the wizard is out of spells? Yes.
When the wizard (or druid, or cleric, or sorcerer) is out of spells, the party is either sleeping or running for its life. If they don't the spellcaster's player is the one having a crappy time, because he can't do any of the thematic things his class allows him to do.
I mean, really, what the point you're trying to make here boils down to is that the fighter can only contribute meaningfully to something when the spellcasters are not able to contribute meaningfully to anything.
Better at combat than a rogue? Yes.
In my experience, rogues hit more often and deal greater damage than fighters do. They also have an easier time of avoiding attack. I do not expect a fighter to be better at melee combat than a rogue, ever.
Capable of mopping the floor with a large number of mooks while the wizard neutralizes the BBEG? Sure.
Why doesn't the wizard just fireball the whole room, neutralizing the mooks and harming the BBEG at the same time?
Capable of keeping the BBEG occupied while the wizard knocks off the mooks? Yes.
Or the wizard can just do both. At the same time. Without exposing himself to danger.
Or running out of spells.... (which suddenly makes their list much much longer)Unless you are a wizard, this demotes you to the problem-solving ability of a melee class. (Never mind that pushing players so hard that they have to use up all of their spells is exceedingly difficult by mid levels.)
It's telling that the big weakness of casters is that sometimes they have to deal with the same limitations that melee characters deal with all the time.
Well sure, but I hope you're not suggesting that a wizard with no spells is better at melee than a fighter! That would really be pathetic. A fighter would certainly solve a melee problem far better than a wizard with no spells.
Wizards do get lots of spells, but if they don't rest they don't get more. Rest does not always come easy, particularly when the stakes are high. Fighters don't need to sleep (sort of, you know what I mean).
I see. So you think it's too broken to try to work with, and your solution is to play a different game?My solution is to use one of the many solutions that other designers have put forward to deal with this problem. Tome of Battle is a good start.
Another solution is to simply tell players not to play classes that sit the game out a lot. I wouldn't let players fall into the trap of playing barb20 or fighter20 at high levels, unless everyone was on the same page for a fist-fighting game.
Those are both solutions that could be used. As would a high level fist-fighting game, or a game with more role-playing than roll-playing, or a game in which the high level fighter and high level wizard aren't always on the same battlefield, or a game in which the encounters are tailored to challenge all the characters at once (difficult as it may be). My point is that there are lots of solutions - not all of them require tome of battle or bored fighters.
Personally I'd rather tell a player that they can play the character that they want to play, not that they would have to play a different character to avoid boredom.
Don't the casters have an extremely limited duration compared to the melee guys (who perhaps can't do as much but can basically do it all day)?
Nope.
First and foremost, a wizard who is trying to be a fighter is less effective than he could be. No one is best off doing what the fighter does. Heck, the fighter is best off doing something else.
That said, if you want to have a spellcaster take the fighter's role, there are plenty of ways to make it last. Many of the best buffs last practically an entire day. Some last 10 minutes per level, but once you hit 5th level or so that's effectively your entire adventuring day (and you can always recast it).
And, most importantly, spellcasters running out of spells doesn't make the fighter better. The fighter is still going to be resting for the evening once the party wizard runs out of spells. The fact that he could keep fighting means very little.
We've had our mages burn their best spells on something which turned out to be an illusion. We've retired to rest, only to find ourselves harried, ambushed, interrupted and thus not have regained our spells. It seems to me (from an admittedly ignorant point of view) that discussions like this tend to focus on a mage or cleric being able to supplant all other roles in a one-off situation (presuming they've prepared the spells appropriate to the situation), without paying attention to how long they can do that for. In a twenty four hour day I would expect a better strategy to be preserving your resources - sure the fighter may take longer fulfilling the role you could do with a click of your fingers. However, he can do it for three, four, five battles in a row - providing you keep him alive (which seems much easier to me, in the sense of using less resources, than taking his place).
Any spellcaster worth his salt will be packing plenty of wands, scrolls, potions and other contigency-based items for those just-in-case scenarios where he's caught off-guard without memorized spells. And he's well-suited for it, too. When you're a spellcaster who isn't forced to spend huge piles of gold on magical armor and weapons just to keep up with the monsters, you suddenly have an enormous surplus of money that can be used on magical trinkets like those mentioned above.
Acutally, I believe you are missing the point. Attacking the giant with a blindness spell seems pretty weak. It attacks a giant at it's best save which is fortitude. If you use power word blind that is a 7th level spell. No wizard is going to have a ton of 7th level spells and I don't know many sorcerers that are gonna use a slot on it. It is a balanced ability because it is rare.
Glitterdust is 2nd-level, area-effect blindness (plus no-save anti-invisibility) using Will instead of Fortitude. Every wizard should have this spell. It wins fights.
I understand your point but what happens for all of the combats where these spells fail to work because someone made a save?
Ignoring the moving goalposts for a second, your argument here is basically, "Yeah, you can probably win the fight in one round, but what if you don't?"
The answer, of course, is that the wizard will win it in the next round, when he recasts the spell.
What happens when it is only a round delay because the creature makes a save on a subsequent round?
What?
Take a decent wisdom score. Take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Buy a cloak fo resistance. There are many ways to overcome poor will saves.
Yes, so very many ways that your typical D&D monster just doesn't use.
The first level protection from evil spell makes charm person/charm monster and dominate person all pointless until the protection wears off.
Which we don't need, because blinding works, too. If we really want a charm spell to go off, a quick dispel will drop that protection from evil.
And really, what you're saying here is "Spellcasters aren't all that great because they can be foiled by protection from evil, which is something a spellcaster casts!"
Do you see the trouble with that sort of reasoning?
Play an elf or a half-elf and suddnely sleep is a non-factor or play a dwarf for the save bonus vs magic.
We're talking about monsters here, not player-on-player combat. Obviously, if you're a wizard going up against a bunch of elves, Sleep isn't going to be cast. Sleep is also not used past level 4 or so, since it has a hit die cap, and we've already made it clear that wizards have to be coddled through the first four levels by the rest of the party so that they can eventually eclipse everyone who isn't a spellcaster by level 7.
The problem I'm still having with this (after a break for a psionic sandwich - tasty, but I hadn't thought I liked mustard before....) is that it seems to capture only one dimension of the game - the mechanics in a mathematical sense. Since we're talking here about having fun, I don't see how this is the only relevant consideration.
It's not. But there are a lot of people acting like it isn't a consideration at all. That's just wrong.
This is hardly incompetent. I don't want to defend the fighter as the best thing ever, but so what if they take 5.2 rounds longer than the wizard or expend 35.4% more resources to solve a problem?
With a well designed set of encounters/adventures, fun can still be had, even if people play fighters.
And if some people play fighters and some people play wizards? Is that uncommon or something?
If the wizard is doing everything the fighter does, but faster, flashier, and more efficiently, does it not strike you as reasonable for the player of the fighter to feel like he is unable to meaningfully contribute on the same level as the other players? Does it strike you as unreasonable that this would limit the fun that player was having?
A number of people participating in this discussion seem not to care that, for a significant group of people, the concern being discussed here is very real, and it makes the game less enjoyable.
Fall behind other characters? I don't expect the fighter to be more effective across the board than a wizard.But it's okay that the wizard is more effective across the board than the fighter, of course.
More effective when the wizard is out of spells? Yes.When the wizard (or druid, or cleric, or sorcerer) is out of spells, the party is either sleeping or running for its life. If they don't the spellcaster's player is the one having a crappy time, because he can't do any of the thematic things his class allows him to do.
No. That's not my point at all. My point there was only that there is an imbalance between the classes. That's my expectation.
So what you're saying is that the DM can't challenge the wizard when he is either sleeping or running, because that would not allow him to play to his class-defined strengths?
What kind of game is this that wizards, the most powerful class, have to be coddled like this? Seriously? You're saying: "Wizards are so much more powerful than fighters that fighters are useless, but it's not fair to attack a wizard when they have no spells, because that's the only class feature they get?"
How about trying to make the game exciting and/or interesting? To challenge a high level character, you must go after their weaknesses.
I mean, really, what the point you're trying to make here boils down to is that the fighter can only contribute meaningfully to something when the spellcasters are not able to contribute meaningfully to anything.
No. That's your point. It's like we're speaking two different languages, or playing two totally different games. It's really weird. To you, is it really true that fighters never have anything to do whenever the wizard has spells left? I can't wrap my head around that.
Why doesn't the wizard just fireball the whole room, neutralizing the mooks and harming the BBEG at the same time?
Maybe he doesn't want to destroy the treasure? Or harm his allies in the room?
Capable of keeping the BBEG occupied while the wizard knocks off the mooks? Yes.Or the wizard can just do both. At the same time. Without exposing himself to danger.
Again, I think we have vastly difference experiences. I can't imagine a game in which the GM sets up encounters that one player can solve by themselves, with everyone else standing around. It sounds horribly boring for everyone except that one player (who can't be challenged, because then they wouldn't be able to make use of their class features).
Ok, but that's not a problem with the system so much as it is with the DM, who should design encounters better than that, to include opponents to keep the fighter busy too.
If there are opponents the fighter is capable of keeping busy, the wizard can deal with them easier than the fighter can. Adding easier opponents doesn't give the fighter more to do unless the wizard is purposefully ignoring them.
I don't see the rogue doing any better in that situation.
You're absolutely right! The rogue doesn't do any better! He's a martial class incapable of participating on the same level as the spellcasters.
His situation is marginally better than the fighter's, but only because he has a strong purpose outside of combat - scouting, and trapfinding. The fighter's out-of-combat utility is usurped by a battering ram and a pack mule.
Or the fighter uses a magic item to level the playing field a bit.
With whose money did he buy the item? The fighter has a built-in drain on his share of the party loot, because he has to continually upgrade his armor and weapon(s) (and shield) to be able to hit targets and avoid being hit. Furthermore, he is limited in which magic items he can use because he lacks a spell list (and doesn't have Use Magic Device on his class skill list).
Or waits for a better tactical opportunity to attack when those spells are not in effect or can't be used effectively (lures the opponent into a low ceilinged cave etc.).
Why wait? The wizard can deal with the problem right now.
And that's not much different from putting a wizard in a room with an anti-magic field and a bunch of hill giants - the wizard is going to die. The fighter wouldn't.
Except an anti-magic field is a very specific "Screw you!" to spellcasters. A flying opponent is incredibly commonplace. Really, are you unable to see the significant difference between a dragon/roc/beholder/flying wizard/winged devil/wyvern and an anti-magic field?
Look, I get it that there are more situations that the fighter can't handle than that the wizard can't handle - the fighter will have a tougher time against spell casters than a wizard will against non-spell casters. And it is challenging to design encounters that are equally fun for both characters at the same time, especially at high level.
What would you do in that situation (flying, wind-wall casting opponent)? Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? Tell him/her to play a wizard next time if he/she wants to have fun?
I'd make sure that the players were made aware of the trap choices that exist built into the system. And, as soon as a revision of the game came around that addressed the problems in question, I'd switch to the newer game.
The problem I'm still having with this (after a break for a psionic sandwich - tasty, but I hadn't thought I liked mustard before....) is that it seems to capture only one dimension of the game - the mechanics in a mathematical sense. Since we're talking here about having fun, I don't see how this is the only relevant consideration.It's not. But there are a lot of people acting like it isn't a consideration at all. That's just wrong.
Fair enough - I'm not sure I took such an extreme position, but I agree that a middle ground is better.
And if some people play fighters and some people play wizards? Is that uncommon or something?This is hardly incompetent. I don't want to defend the fighter as the best thing ever, but so what if they take 5.2 rounds longer than the wizard or expend 35.4% more resources to solve a problem?
With a well designed set of encounters/adventures, fun can still be had, even if people play fighters.
That's not uncommon at all. It is harder to design appropriate encounters at high level when the fighter and wizard are in the same battle.
If the wizard is doing everything the fighter does, but faster, flashier, and more efficiently, does it not strike you as reasonable for the player of the fighter to feel like he is unable to meaningfully contribute on the same level as the other players? Does it strike you as unreasonable that this would limit the fun that player was having?A number of people participating in this discussion seem not to care that, for a significant group of people, the concern being discussed here is very real, and it makes the game less enjoyable.
Of course that limits the fun of the fighter.
One solution that has been argued for is to ban the fighter. Tell people they can't play them at all. Other solutions to this imbalance are to ban the wizard. These both seem unnecessarily severe. (go for it, if your group wants, but not for me)
What I'm arguing is that it's possible (albeit difficult) to design a game/adventure in which both classes can be used with both players having fun. This imbalance does not necessarily have to destroy the fun of the game. I'm trying to find solutions in a middle ground - it may require creative DM solutions. It may require challenging the different players in different ways.
No. That's not my point at all. My point there was only that there is an imbalance between the classes. That's my expectation.
So what you're saying is that the DM can't challenge the wizard when he is either sleeping or running, because that would not allow him to play to his class-defined strengths?
What kind of game is this that wizards, the most powerful class, have to be coddled like this? Seriously? You're saying: "Wizards are so much more powerful than fighters that fighters are useless, but it's not fair to attack a wizard when they have no spells, because that's the only class feature they get?"
That's the complete opposite of what I was saying. Not only do the spellcasters control when the party rests, but even while resting the spellcaster remains powerful because he has access to the entire array of magic items available to PCs, and has the extra money to purchase contingency-based items to allow him to rest in relative peace that martial characters are stuck spending to keep up with the +X enhancement bonus game.
And none of that matters, since the idea of fearing for your life in the middle of the night stops being a concern for any decent spellcaster past 9th level or so.
How about trying to make the game exciting and/or interesting? To challenge a high level character, you must go after their weaknesses.
I have a really hard time thinking of a reliable weakness that spellcasters have. A well-played spellcaster has practically all its bases covered, all the time. Anything you could do to seriously challenge spellcasters would just destroy any non-spellcaster character.
EDIT: And darnit, A Man In Black, stop posting exactly what I'm posting hours ahead of me! I'm actually going to have to read the thread all the way through just to make sure I'm not repeating something someone else has already said! ;P
Of course that limits the fun of the fighter.
One solution that has been argued for is to ban the fighter. Tell people they can't play them at all. Other solutions to this imbalance are to ban the wizard. These both seem unnecessarily severe. (go for it, if your group wants, but not for me)
I agree. Not only is this removing options from the game that were supposed to be viable, but these are iconic options. People went nuts over bards not making it into the 4e PHB, and they're nowhere near as iconic as fighters and wizards.
What I'm arguing is that it's possible (albeit difficult) to design a game/adventure in which both classes can be used with both players having fun. This imbalance does not necessarily have to destroy the fun of the game. I'm trying to find solutions in a middle ground - it may require creative DM solutions. It may require challenging the different players in different ways.
Yes, it is. It's very difficult, though. The best solution would be to identify the problems we're experiencing, design fixes for them into a new version of the game, and then play that game. That's what 4e was for me.
Don't the casters have an extremely limited duration compared to the melee guys (who perhaps can't do as much but can basically do it all day)?Nope.
First and foremost, a wizard who is trying to be a fighter is less effective than he could be. No one is best off doing what the fighter does. Heck, the fighter is best off doing something else.
That said, if you want to have a spellcaster take the fighter's role, there are plenty of ways to make it last. Many of the best buffs last practically an entire day. Some last 10 minutes per level, but once you hit 5th level or so that's effectively your entire adventuring day (and you can always recast it).
And, most importantly, spellcasters running out of spells doesn't make the fighter better. The fighter is still going to be resting for the evening once the party wizard runs out of spells. The fact that he could keep fighting means very little.
We've had our mages burn their best spells on something which turned out to be an illusion. We've retired to rest, only to find ourselves harried, ambushed, interrupted and thus not have regained our spells. It seems to me (from an admittedly ignorant point of view) that discussions like this tend to focus on a mage or cleric being able to supplant all other roles in a one-off situation (presuming they've prepared the spells appropriate to the situation), without paying attention to how long they can do that for. In a twenty four hour day I would expect a better strategy to be preserving your resources - sure the fighter may take longer fulfilling the role you could do with a click of your fingers. However, he can do it for three, four, five battles in a row - providing you keep him alive (which seems much easier to me, in the sense of using less resources, than taking his place).Any spellcaster worth his salt will be packing plenty of wands, scrolls, potions and other contigency-based items for those...
*shrug* Maybe we're just not very good at playing spellcasters then. It isnt broken for us - everyone contributes and everyone gets a chance to shine. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. :)
EDIT: One minor point. I didnt mean to imply that spellcasters running out of spells will make the fighter better. I meant to imply that a party whose spellcasters conserve their abilities and allow the mere-mortals to fulfill some function will do better than a party whose spellcasters run in all guns blazing. Do the people who think mages can do everything also think that 3.5 suffers from the fifteen minute adventuring day? Because clear a room-rest-clear a room-rest is something which doesnt happen in our group. We usually play through quite a number of battles between rests - I just dont see how a party of four spellcasters is going to be able to stay the distance compared with a more balanced party. Again though - I'm happy in my incompetence if it just boils down to the fact that I'm doing it wrong. :)
His situation is marginally better than the fighter's, but only because he has a strong purpose outside of combat - scouting, and trapfinding. The fighter's out-of-combat utility is usurped by a battering ram and a pack mule.
wow. the fighter really gets no respect at all!
Or the fighter uses a magic item to level the playing field a bit.With whose money did he buy the item? The fighter has a built-in drain on his share of the party loot, because he has to continually upgrade his armor and weapon(s) (and shield) to be able to hit targets and avoid being hit. Furthermore, he is limited in which magic items he can use because he lacks a spell list (and doesn't have Use Magic Device on his class skill list).
It is so inconceivable that a fighter could have a utility magic item that might be useful?
Or waits for a better tactical opportunity to attack when those spells are not in effect or can't be used effectively (lures the opponent into a low ceilinged cave etc.).Why wait? The wizard can deal with the problem right now.
I assumed in this example there was no wizard. It appeared to me to be a specific screw-you to the fighter.
And that's not much different from putting a wizard in a room with an anti-magic field and a bunch of hill giants - the wizard is going to die. The fighter wouldn't.Except an anti-magic field is a very specific "Screw you!" to spellcasters. A flying opponent is incredibly commonplace. Really, are you unable to see the significant difference between a dragon/roc/beholder/flying wizard/winged devil/wyvern and an anti-magic field?
It seems like it would have to be a very common screw-you to spellcasters, who would otherwise have absolutely nothing stopping them! Can't you see a possibility that any of those flying things could also dispel magic? A beholder is nothing but a flying anti-magic field (in a handy cone shape). Fighters can make ranged attacks. Why is this so hard?
Just a couple more, then I have to sleep...
No. That's not my point at all. My point there was only that there is an imbalance between the classes. That's my expectation.
So what you're saying is that the DM can't challenge the wizard when he is either sleeping or running, because that would not allow him to play to his class-defined strengths?
What kind of game is this that wizards, the most powerful class, have to be coddled like this? Seriously? You're saying: "Wizards are so much more powerful than fighters that fighters are useless, but it's not fair to attack a wizard when they have no spells, because that's the only class feature they get?"
That's the complete opposite of what I was saying. Not only do the spellcasters control when the party rests, but even while resting the spellcaster remains powerful because he has access to the entire array of magic items available to PCs, and has the extra money to purchase contingency-based items to allow him to rest in relative peace that martial characters are stuck spending to keep up with the +X enhancement bonus game.
And none of that matters, since the idea of fearing for your life in the middle of the night stops being a concern for any decent spellcaster past 9th level or so.
Well, then the DM has lost control of the game, if the spellcasters dictate when they get to sleep/rest. The wizard won't be purchasing magic items in the midst of the wilderness, particularly once all teleport spells have been used up.
With a wizard in the mix, why do melee characters worry about they +X bonus game, they're just standing around anyway....
And if the characters aren't fearing for their lives in the middle of the night, then the DM is being lazy :)
How about trying to make the game exciting and/or interesting? To challenge a high level character, you must go after their weaknesses.I have a really hard time thinking of a reliable weakness that spellcasters have. A well-played spellcaster has practically all its bases covered, all the time. Anything you could do to seriously challenge spellcasters would just destroy any non-spellcaster character.
The major reliable weakness is either running out of spells or not having the right spells. If the players cry foul when the DM tries to exploit this, then the game has a meta-problem.
If the fighters are standing around doing nothign while the wizard rules, then they (fighters) should be at full strength when the things in the night go 'bump'.
What I'm arguing is that it's possible (albeit difficult) to design a game/adventure in which both classes can be used with both players having fun. This imbalance does not necessarily have to destroy the fun of the game. I'm trying to find solutions in a middle ground - it may require creative DM solutions. It may require challenging the different players in different ways.Yes, it is. It's very difficult, though. The best solution would be to identify the problems we're experiencing, design fixes for them into a new version of the game, and then play that game. That's what 4e was for me.
Then enjoy.
It is so inconceivable that a fighter could have a utility magic item that might be useful?
No, it's possible.
Not likely, certainly.
And far more probable that the spellcasters would have one before the fighter would. Maybe they loaned it to him? Out of pity? ;P
The major reliable weakness is either running out of spells or not having the right spells. If the players cry foul when the DM tries to exploit this, then the game has a meta-problem.
With 50-charge wands, cheap scrolls, contigency spells (and my personal favorite, Craft Contingency), and warding magic, it's pretty tough to catch a spellcaster without an adequate supply of spells.
The reality of the situation is that most spellcasters can effectively win a fight with a single strong spell (Color Sprat, Glitterdust, Evard's, etc.). A well-played wizard has a lot of staying power.
What I'm arguing is that it's possible (albeit difficult) to design a game/adventure in which both classes can be used with both players having fun. This imbalance does not necessarily have to destroy the fun of the game. I'm trying to find solutions in a middle ground - it may require creative DM solutions. It may require challenging the different players in different ways.Sure. Come up with five of them that actually work.
Off the top of my head.
1. Use the flow of events to through the story to force full length adventure days:
Don't let spell casters dictate rest times, by threatening things that the spell caster can't take into dimensional bubles.
2.Find inventive ways to disrupt sleep patterns:
Use dominated members of the party,cursed items or monsters specificially designed to Hitch their way into/break their way rope trick pockets and similar 'protected sleep area'.
3. Setting specific social limits:
Introduce cultural, legal, religious restrictions on the use of magic. This can take the form of taxation and licencing, raised prices due to bigotry, through to being made the target of religious orders knights. Oh dear, its a saints day, you'll burn in the nine hells for ever if you kill with magic today.
4. Setting specific meta-physicial restrictions:
Limiting mechanics based on the specific campaign setting, such as backlash, codes of conduct or paradigm specific spell preperation(Sure, you don't need to have a restful night sleep each night, but you do need a ritual space and one hours worth of ritual per spell level you wish to prepare).
5.Setting/character background based benifits to other characters.
Sure the wizards powerful, but if the fighter is the heir to the kingdom and can control entire armies, then sure, so is he in a completely different way.
What would you do in that situation (flying, wind-wall casting opponent)? Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? Tell him/her to play a wizard next time if he/she wants to have fun?Redesign the game so that players don't sit out the game because they picked the wrong class.
Let the fighter take precautions like acquiring a potion of fly (750 gp), winged boots (16,000 gp), etc. The options are there for people who want to use them. In mid to high level play, a fighter with no method of flying is deliberately gimped. Whether this is through ignorance or malice is another issue.
Heck, throw in a potion of invisibility (300 gp) or a ring of invisibility (20,000 gp) and the fighter can play the "flying, invisible opponent" game that some wizards are so fond of, too... and they can deal a lot of damage at high level when they full attack a single target; even more after using a simple potion of enlarge person (50 gp).
|
This seems to have degraded into 3e vs 4e so I'll throw in (again) 1e.
1e AD&D
=======
Wizards get their spell ruined by ANY interuption.
Wizards need large amounts of time to learn ALL of their spells.
Fighters get the best saves.
In melee a fighter with multiple attacks ALWAYS strikes first.
Result
------
*Spells aren't something to rely on in the middle of a combat, DMG suggests use of Wands.
*Against a high level fighter you are almost certainly going to die unless you are prepared. The fighter of course has zero prep needed to accomplished this wizard dispatching feat.
*Unless the party is doing a cake-run or is really close to safe places or the Wizard is low level then the amount of magic they are packing is likely to be sub-maximum. An 18th level Archmage takes more than a week to learn ALL of their spells. A DM "may" be kind and have a 15 min adventuring day, but I think even the most push over DM would be not keen on a 15 min adventuring week (i.e. Wizard has to choose their moment for spells, going nova will not work).
Bold statement 1e had it right, 4e has it right (but in a different way of course), 3e screwed it up.
Regards,
S.
I will second that 1e was more towards what I would considered (on paper) balanced in regards to fighters and wizards and as you stated 4E is balanced; in regards to using the same mechanics for everyone.
Off the top of my head.
1. Use the flow of events to through the story to force full length adventure days:
Don't let spell casters dictate rest times, by threatening things that the spell caster can't take into dimensional bubles.2.Find inventive ways to disrupt sleep patterns:
Use dominated members of the party,cursed items or monsters specificially designed to Hitch their way into/break their way rope trick pockets and similar 'protected sleep area'.3. Setting specific social limits:
Introduce cultural, legal, religious restrictions on the use of magic. This can take the form of taxation and licencing, raised prices due to bigotry, through to being made the target of religious orders knights. Oh dear, its a saints day, you'll burn in the nine hells for ever if you kill with magic today.4. Setting specific meta-physicial restrictions:
Limiting mechanics based on the specific campaign setting, such as backlash, codes of conduct or paradigm specific spell preperation(Sure, you don't need to have a restful night sleep each night, but you do need a ritual space and one hours worth of ritual per spell level you wish to prepare).5.Setting/character background based benifits to other characters.
Sure the wizards powerful, but if the fighter is the heir to the kingdom and can control entire armies, then sure, so is he in a completely different way.
1. Fighters are limited in hp the same way wizards are in spells. In other words, they have to rest, too (or at least the cleric, who is keeping the fighter on his feet, needs to rest).
2. See above. Also, you're now introducing new rules specifically designed as a "patch" on the spellcasters' supremacy -- enough new rules, and you've got a new edition! :)3. Not applicable in a dungeon or wilderness adventure, or in an urban adventure if they can avoid getting caught at it.
4. Again, we're adding new rules here -- enough of that, and you're playing a new edition! :)
5. Armies were a big fighter class feature in 1e. Unfortunately, a mid-level wizard with planar binding can now destroy armies of any size without any risk to himself. Nerfing planar binding is a step, but again, that means changing the core rules.
In my opinion, then, 3/5 of your proposed "fixes" push us ever closer to a much-needed new edition of the game in which high-level casters aren't infinitely better than warriors. I've rewritten the melee classes, changed action efficiency, and made disruption easier; you rely on more spell nerfs and more corner cases to limit magic. Either way, it's an admission that the core rules aren't working right. The other 2/5 don't work or aren't applicable, for the reasons shown.
|
I have a really hard time thinking of a reliable weakness that spellcasters have. A well-played spellcaster has practically all its bases covered, all the time. Anything you could do to seriously challenge spellcasters would just destroy any non-spellcaster character.
There is one Scott, rest, and it's one that I've never understood why casters get such lee-way on, In my games time is always a major component, I mean nobody ever gets a chance to rest in dungeons in my games not because they can't pocket dimension but because when they rest whatever they were in the dungeon for usually either a)leaves making it wasted time, b) finishes whatever it was they were doing that the PCs were trying to stop, or c) traps the party where they fight a way over their CR encounter. I've had characters die because the party tried to rest, and leaving the dungeon isn't always an option either, hell most of the times my spellcasters get to the BBEG with very few spells left. The fighters however get there with the only resource they need tracking (HP) mostly in tact because of healing. It's not very hard to make time a significant part of your games, in fact I've always found it harder to allow it to not be in a story, where the party can stop and rest for 8 hours.
Look, I get it that there are more situations that the fighter can't handle than that the wizard can't handle - the fighter will have a tougher time against spell casters than a wizard will against non-spell casters. And it is challenging to design encounters that are equally fun for both characters at the same time, especially at high level.Yes. This is the problem. The classes have greatly imbalanced problem-solving ability.
And that's not much different from putting a wizard in a room with an anti-magic field and a bunch of hill giants - the wizard is going to die. The fighter wouldn't.Antimagic Field is an ability that almost always only appears on enemies who are also chock-full of magical abilities, so it is vanishingly rare. Flying is up there with Darkvision for abilities that many foes have.
There are too many common things that non-casters rely entirely on magical items or magical classes to deal with, and this is on top of all of the normal abilities that make melee difficult and dangerous (reach, DR, hideously huge damage, etc.) The list of things casters cannot deal with consists entirely of Antimagic Field.
What would you do in that situation (flying, wind-wall casting opponent)? Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? Tell him/her to play a wizard next time if he/she wants to have fun?Redesign the game so that players don't sit out the game because they picked the wrong class.
Ok I'm jumping back into this one with teeth and claws because of these two sentances.
Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? & Redesign the game so that players don't sit out the game because they picked the wrong class.That to me sounds like nothing more than a poor player.
When my casters run out of spells I dont just sit there I have a lot of options to either get in with my crossbow or hey how about helping the rouge flank someone.
If my cleric cant hit the monster because the fighter can barley hit the thing on a 19 or 20 then my cleric is going to be behind the fighter with heals and buffs to help him.
The bard can sing his lungs out at anytime, and has on many occasions. Heck last night the bard we had failed his save and died from a wail of the banshee spell, low rolls happen. He had the charecter from lvl 1 to 16 and he died in the final battle agaisnt the 20th lvl shadow mage and the shadow dragon mount plus the shadow sillucum. The player wasnt upset he simply reminded us that his song benifits lasted for 5 more rounds after he died.
All of this leads up to one point that I hope will help end this pointless debate.
It's up to the player to build the charecter that they want to play, whether it be for fun or optimization or both if your happy with it then dont worry about what others can or cant do. If your not then quite the game or find a class that makes you happy.
I've been watching this thread a while, and Scott and AMIB finally got to the answer I've been waiting for. There's never been that much disparity between the melee-ers, even pre-Bo9S, and the casters in my games, heck in one of my past campaigns the Knight was easily top problem solver when it came to combat when she wasn't tied neck-and-neck with the Erudite and/or the Binder.
Thanks to those two gentlemen, I've discovered the reason why:
1. My players rarely buy "contingency" items like wands, and only the melee types typically buy potions (healing wands and potions, of course, are the exception). My players also almost NEVER make any magic items. We had one alchemist in a party once, and he screwed stuff up so badly with his creations that Boccob himself came and smacked him over the head, taking his powers away for a day.
2. My players NEVER use summon magic. Other than one psionicist who used Astral Construct regularly, one Frost Mage with the feat that turned summons into Ice Constructs, and one Dread Necromancer, the players stick to what they themselves are capable of and don't rely on planar allies or anything like that.
3. My casters tend to be very conservative, saving almost all their spells/power points for big fights. The wizard/psion/whatever will regularly sit in the back and let the melee-ers and the "unlimited shots a day guys" (Warlock, Binder, DFA, people with reserve feats, etc.) wipe the floor with the Mooks until they reach the local BigBad. The Erudite mentioned in the above paragraph? Extended Psionic Invisibility, extended Psionic Levitate, follow the party (Knight, Binder, Scout, Monk, Bard) reading his book while they kill things.
Thanks for clearing this up, I always wondered why my players don't seem to fall into the whole "Wizards are a thousand times better than every other class" niche and now I know. I now leave you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
There's never been that much disparity between the melee-ers. I've discovered the reason why
Yes! If the casters using only half their abilities, and otherwise pull their punches -- consciously or unconsciously -- then the disparity is a lot less, or even vanishes. Of course, an argument could be made that the game itself should have been designed with casters at half-capacity, rather than relying on the players to self-nerf.
It's not as much of a problem anymore. My group are big fans of Bo9S, and we've even houseruled some changes to the more troublesome base classes - Fighters and Monks get Warblade and Swordsage (respectively) progression of maneuvers on a Paladin-like scale, and Paladins themselves can choose between their normal spells or a similar progression of Crusader maneuvers.
Most of the time though they just opt to play the actual Bo9S classes, with a few exceptions. :P
That said, we have a pretty wide spread in every campaign. My last game was Crusader/Hellreaver, Swordsage/Master of Nine, Warlock/HFWarlock, Psion, and Healer/Hierophant. The game before that was the party listed in my post above. So my players tend to be all over the spectrum, and I don't know if its just my DMing style, the players intentionally or unintentionally limiting their more powerful abilities, or just dumb luck but we've never had problems with one player always feeling useless. Does the rogue feel worthless when the party's fighting zombies? Sure (until I noticed that Pathfinder got rid of that restriction on most undead, much to the rogue's elation), but she gets her place back next encounter when the target is significantly more stabbable.
Some fights some players will feel useless and sometimes they'll shine, but I've never run into a situation where one player is shining all the time and another never is. Maybe my players are just more considerate to each other that way, sounds like a lot of you don't have that luxury.
I for one have no problems Gibbs-smacking a powerplayer who's overshadowing a party and telling him/her "Stop being a douchebag." ;)
1. Fighters are limited in hp the same way wizards are in spells. In other words, they have to rest, too (or at least the cleric, who is keeping the fighter on his feet, needs to rest).
By the level range we are looking at, PCs can purchase items like Rings of Regeneration. which remove such limits to a great extent
2. See above. Also, you're now introducing new rules specifically designed as a "patch" on the spellcasters' supremacy -- enough new rules, and you've got a new edition! :)
Making a new monsters, making a new magic item, figuring out cool ways to use spells. These things are entirely within the normal range of behaviour a Storyteller should be undertaking. Come on, Kirth. Don't pretend not to understand :P (sorry, went to watch have i got news for you being filmed recently, Grayson Perry came out with that line and i fell in love with it.)
3. Not applicable in a dungeon or wilderness adventure, or in an urban adventure if they can avoid getting caught at it.
Well that falls into answer. Firstly, most simply, only use this option when the story your planning can make use of these option. Secondly, some of these are self-regulatory. People, kneel down and pray as they are butchered, blow them selves up, or burn themselves alive for things they believe in this world where such things are a matter of faith alone.
4. Again, we're adding new rules here -- enough of that, and you're playing a new edition! :)
Is dark sun a different edition form that it was published for? Was ravenloft? Forgotten Realms?
We are forever, making rule to represent truths of the campaign setting in which we are playing. This does not represent an new edition.
5. Armies were a big fighter class feature in 1e. Unfortunately, a mid-level wizard with planar binding can now destroy armies of any size without any risk to himself. Nerfing planar binding is a step, but again, that means changing the core rules.
'Men, target those pesky fire elementals with the lightning ballista.
Champions hold them off.'
5. Armies were a big fighter class feature in 1e. Unfortunately, a mid-level wizard with planar binding can now destroy armies of any size without any risk to himself. Nerfing planar binding is a step, but again, that means changing the core rules.'Men, target those pesky fire elementals with the lightning ballista.
Champions hold them off.'
Zombie just earned a soda point... my sinuses... :D
Zombie just earned a soda point... my sinuses... :D5. Armies were a big fighter class feature in 1e. Unfortunately, a mid-level wizard with planar binding can now destroy armies of any size without any risk to himself. Nerfing planar binding is a step, but again, that means changing the core rules.'Men, target those pesky fire elementals with the lightning ballista.
Champions hold them off.'
It is an entirely serious point though :D
I am a huge fan of the artesia comic series. Amongst other things, it does a very good job of showing what fantasy warfare is like.
In the second series of comic, the army which artesia is leading is face by a large group of Hathaz-ghul(ghouls on PCP, equiped in magic armour and weapons, who cannot be harmed at all by non-magical weapons.) Artesia calls her champions to the front line, has them fight the Hathaz-ghul with their enchanted weapons.
Heck, throw in a potion of invisibility (300 gp) or a ring of invisibility (20,000 gp) and the fighter can play the "flying, invisible opponent" game that some wizards are so fond of, too...
No, they can't.
Wizards play the flying, invisible opponent game by using Greater Invisibility, which doesn't render them visible when they attack, and cannot be made into a potion.
A ring of invisibility is great. For one round. It's also expensive.
The best part? A wizard can get a wand of Greater Invisibility made for half the cost of the ring of invisibility, and the wand contains fifty charges, each of which lasts long enough for your average combat to be over by the time the wizard would reappear.
There is one Scott, rest, and it's one that I've never understood why casters get such lee-way on, In my games time is always a major component, I mean nobody ever gets a chance to rest in dungeons in my games not because they can't pocket dimension but because when they rest whatever they were in the dungeon for usually either a)leaves making it wasted time, b) finishes whatever it was they were doing that the PCs were trying to stop, or c) traps the party where they fight a way over their CR encounter. I've had characters die because the party tried to rest, and leaving the dungeon isn't always an option either, hell most of the times my spellcasters get to the BBEG with very few spells left. The fighters however get there with the only resource they need tracking (HP) mostly in tact because of healing. It's not very hard to make time a significant part of your games, in fact I've always found it harder to allow it to not be in a story, where the party can stop and rest for 8 hours.
Past a certain level it's usually only as complicated as finding a plane with the proper flowing time trait and resting in there.
But you're right, making time crucial is a great way to control spellcasters. It's also a great way to control everyone else - the healer is a spellcaster, and once the healer has run out of spells, the party better rest whether they like it or not. It's tough, though, to create circumstances where the spellcasters will actually find themselves out of spells. Given that, in many fights, a single spell can effectively win the battle, packing a wand of Glitterdust and a wand of Black Tentacles is going to last you a looooooong time.
Past a certain level it's usually only as complicated as finding a plane with the proper flowing time trait and resting in there.
Presuming, of course, your DM allows that trick. Some don't.
Ok I'm jumping back into this one with teeth and claws because of these two sentances.
Let the fighter lose interest in the game completely? & Redesign the game so that players don't sit out the game because they picked the wrong class.That to me sounds like nothing more than a poor player.
When my casters run out of spells I dont just sit there I have a lot of options to either get in with my crossbow or hey how about helping the rouge flank someone.
Your options are to pull out a crossbow (which you can't hit with, and which does practically no damage), or to flank with someone who can hit, but in the process expose yourself to melee combat, which will get you slaughtered?
These are not good options. And neither of them are thematic.
If my cleric cant hit the monster because the fighter can barley hit the thing on a 19 or 20 then my cleric is going to be behind the fighter with heals and buffs to help him.
That's what the cleric should be doing in 3.5. Except, he should be doing it to himself, not the fighter. Forget the fighter. The fighter can't benefit from Divine Favor, Divine Power and Righteous Might.
The bard can sing his lungs out at anytime, and has on many occasions. Heck last night the bard we had failed his save and died from a wail of the banshee spell, low rolls happen. He had the charecter from lvl 1 to 16 and he died in the final battle agaisnt the 20th lvl shadow mage and the shadow dragon mount plus the shadow sillucum. The player wasnt upset he simply reminded us that his song benifits lasted for 5 more rounds after he died.
Oh, I love this one.
"Okay, it's the bard's turn. Whatcha doing?"
"Singing."
"Anything else?"
"I can't cast spells while I'm singing. I mean...I've got this crossbow here, but in all likelihood I'd be wasting a bolt."
All of this leads up to one point that I hope will help end this pointless debate.
It's really a shame that you view a discussion over a topic that clearly has affected a lot of people's play experiences in a negative fashion as pointless.
It's up to the player to build the charecter that they want to play, whether it be for fun or optimization or both if your happy with it then dont worry about what others can or cant do. If your not then quite the game or find a class that makes you happy.
I agree. And when one of my players would accidentally decide that playing a fighter was a good idea, I'd be there to steer him far, far away. Trap choices suck.
Past a certain level it's usually only as complicated as finding a plane with the proper flowing time trait and resting in there.Presuming, of course, your DM allows that trick. Some don't.
That's absolutely true. But you can't argue that it's not part of the rules of the game. It is reasonable to assume that, past a certain point, there is nothing preventing a wizard for hopping into another plane for 1 round, where he experiences an entire day, rests completely, regains all his spells, maybe even crafts an item, and then returns (mere seconds after he left) to continue on in the dungeon.
That's absolutely true. But you can't argue that it's not part of the rules of the game. It is reasonable to assume that, past a certain point, there is nothing preventing a wizard for hopping into another plane for 1 round, where he experiences an entire day, rests completely, regains all his spells, maybe even crafts an item, and then returns (mere seconds after he left) to continue on in the dungeon.Past a certain level it's usually only as complicated as finding a plane with the proper flowing time trait and resting in there.Presuming, of course, your DM allows that trick. Some don't.
I consider it cheesy and annoying, personally.
Also most of my planes run on the same time. The players have even visited the clock that runs things in one campaign. An old guy and a dragon live there, the old guy likes tea and wears a bowler hat and the dragon reminds you not to step on the twelve, it's loose.
There are exceptions of course but any wizard who plane-hops to Pandaemonium, Limbo, or the Abyss to rest will get a nice note from the DM describing how he was gobbled up in his sleep.
Oh, I love this one.
"Okay, it's the bard's turn. Whatcha doing?"
"Singing."
"Anything else?"
"I can't cast spells while I'm singing. I mean...I've got this crossbow here, but in all likelihood I'd be wasting a bolt."
Wow, your bard player is boring. Nine times out of ten in my groups, the rounds the bard is doing nothing but singing are the best rounds. One of the girls in my group is an amazing alto, and one of the guys is really good at funny oratory; I myself am a pretty good tenor. And then of course there's always the story of the guy who's Bard Song of choice was "Albuquerque"... :D
|
|
There is one Scott, rest, and it's one that I've never understood why casters get such lee-way on, In my games time is always a major component, I mean nobody ever gets a chance to rest in dungeons in my games not because they can't pocket dimension but because when they rest whatever they were in the dungeon for usually either a)leaves making it wasted time, b) finishes whatever it was they were doing that the PCs were trying to stop, or c) traps the party where they fight a way over their CR encounter. I've had characters die because the party tried to rest, and leaving the dungeon isn't always an option either, hell most of the times my spellcasters get to the BBEG with very few spells left. The fighters however get there with the only resource they need tracking (HP) mostly in tact because of healing. It's not very hard to make time a significant part of your games, in fact I've always found it harder to allow it to not be in a story, where the party can stop and rest for 8 hours.Past a certain level it's usually only as complicated as finding a plane with the proper flowing time trait and resting in there.
But you're right, making time crucial is a great way to control spellcasters. It's also a great way to control everyone else - the healer is a spellcaster, and once the healer has run out of spells, the party better rest whether they like it or not. It's tough, though, to create circumstances where the spellcasters will actually find themselves out of spells. Given that, in many fights, a single spell can effectively win the battle, packing a wand of Glitterdust and a wand of Black Tentacles is going to last you a looooooong time.
I never said a healer wasn't a spellcaster, but they use their resources on healing they don't have as many divine favor, flame strike, miracle, etc. I don't seperate healers from spellcasters as a group that needs control.