|
Personally I think in terms of actual combat viability Casters have lost out to Melee over the years. Outside of combat they are far more effective, but inside of combat they can't match the staying power and damage of a melee type.
Casters tend to equal out with melee if there are more then 3 enemies at once, but less then 3 its almost a waste of time to cast spells. Also as levels tend to increase lower level spells due to damage caps tend to become less and less effective in combat. Honestly Magic missile on a Stone Giant does all of 25 hp at most Average Fireball is 30 damage.
A well made Fighter at lvl 10 will do 20-30 points of damage per swing..
Longsword 1d8 +4 str +6 power attack + 2 weapon training +2 spec
So a 10th level fighter with a normal weapon no buffs using a longsword will average about 18 points a hit.
With a normal greatsword 2d6 +6 str +9 pa +2 wt +2 spec
25 points of damage.
In terms of actual statistical dps casters will lose to fighters except against multiple targets.
So if you want to do actual damage play a fighter type if you want to do a lot of unique things in combat play a caster type.
Personally I think in terms of actual combat viability Casters have lost out to Melee over the years. Outside of combat they are far more effective, but inside of combat they can't match the staying power and damage of a melee type.
Casters tend to equal out with melee if there are more then 3 enemies at once, but less then 3 its almost a waste of time to cast spells. Also as levels tend to increase lower level spells due to damage caps tend to become less and less effective in combat. Honestly Magic missile on a Stone Giant does all of 25 hp at most Average Fireball is 30 damage.
A well made Fighter at lvl 10 will do 20-30 points of damage per swing..
Longsword 1d8 +4 str +6 power attack + 2 weapon training +2 specSo a 10th level fighter with a normal weapon no buffs using a longsword will average about 18 points a hit.
With a normal greatsword 2d6 +6 str +9 pa +2 wt +2 spec
25 points of damage.In terms of actual statistical dps casters will lose to fighters except against multiple targets.
So if you want to do actual damage play a fighter type if you want to do a lot of unique things in combat play a caster type.
At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).
Spellcasters' strength lies in their ability to completely lock down the entire enemy force with a single spell. Glitterdust is a great example of this. It deals no damage, but is incredibly ruinous to practically any group of monsters. It doesn't matter if the fighter can unleash a huge amount of damage in a given round. It's unnecessary. Lock down the enemy with a spell and slaughter them at your leisure. And besides, the fighter's ability to deal damage relies completely on whether or not he can actual hit the enemy. As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, a fighter can be completely foiled by invisibility, flying, warding, etc. And because his dependence upon the enhancement bonus game cripples him financially (and coupled with his inability to use wands, staves, scrolls, etc.), he is in a much worse position when it comes to having magic items available to deal with these problems.
At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).
That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.
At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.
I understand the temptation. The innate desire to roll dice - whether they be for attack or for damage - is a strong one. Relegating yourself to controlling spells strips you of this ability, by and large. But for those who are okay with leaving the dice in the pouch, there are very few who question the strength of such lockdown spells.
I understand the temptation. The innate desire to roll dice - whether they be for attack or for damage - is a strong one. Relegating yourself to controlling spells strips you of this ability, by and large. But for those who are okay with leaving the dice in the pouch, there are very few who question the strength of such lockdown spells.At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.
I've never been fond of the so-called God Mage. I'm more of a Glass Cannon player when it comes to casters, probably always will be. Given a choice between hurling a Fireball and casting Black Tentacles to tie up the enemy force? Fireball every time.
If it weakens the mage to the point where he's not the most powerful thing in the party and the others can make meaningful contributions? Double bonus.
Also, I prefer Sorcs over Wizards, if it makes any difference.
I understand the temptation. The innate desire to roll dice - whether they be for attack or for damage - is a strong one. Relegating yourself to controlling spells strips you of this ability, by and large. But for those who are okay with leaving the dice in the pouch, there are very few who question the strength of such lockdown spells.At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.I've never been fond of the so-called God Mage. I'm more of a Glass Cannon player when it comes to casters, probably always will be. Given a choice between hurling a Fireball and casting Black Tentacles to tie up the enemy force? Fireball every time.
If it weakens the mage to the point where he's not the most powerful thing in the party and the others can make meaningful contributions? Double bonus.
Also, I prefer Sorcs over Wizards, if it makes any difference.
Oooh, yes, it does.
The sorcerer is often considered the gimped cousin of the wizard. With much more limited access to spells (and gaining new spell levels an entire level after the wizard does), you are seriously reducing your ability to adapt to upcoming situations and to make use of those awesome magic items that help round you out and make you an unstoppable force.
That said, some people do find them more fun. To each their own.
I guess in that manner I've managed to gimp myself, and my players seem to have done likewise. We're all under the general opinion that if all it takes to solve every single situation is a wave of the wizard's hand then he wanders off while everyone else butchers a helpless enemy, that's just plain boring.
My one complaint was that this thread went this long before finally just coming out and saying it. It's been page upon page upon page of "the mage can do anything, the fighter is useless" but it took this long for someone to just come out and say "because damage doesn't matter".
This is obnoxious and screws melee as well, since they rely on healing between battles to not die.
When you can’t argue with a point, insult it. Ad hominem fallacies do little to help your argument.
If you have an argument, beyond ad hominem comments, am dieing to here them. Please define why it is obnoxious?
This requires that the players respect the laws (and you've put them in an oppressive police state, so they probably won't) and that all encounters happen in front of the magic police.
I believe you mean the characters, not the players. It doesn’t matter what the player would do, unless the player is meta-gaming.
Oppressive police states you say? You mean like Amn? The Tyr City states regions of darksun? How about the war hammer world? Large chunks of historical earth? Hell, even the disc world. Magicial licensing and deep seated fear of mages by the general populous is an astoundingly common idea in fantasy literature, roleplaying games and the real world.
Not to mention that many of these things are self imposed restrictions, based within religion and culture. It doesn’t matter if your being observed, if you character is a member of a faith, who believes it is a religious crime to use magic during the day, there is a very good chance they aren’t going to be using their magic during the day.
So you're completely rewriting the magic rules. Weren't you suggesting that the much simpler suggestion of "don't play fighters" was completely rewriting the game?
I am no more ‘completely re-writing’ the magic rules, than ravenloft did in 3rd edition. Setting specific rules regarding magic are common, get over it. I also never argued that to my knowledge.
So you're suggesting rewriting the fighter class. Coolcool. I like that idea.
Not at all, who said anything about providing class feature. It was a specific, roleplay related benefit, without any mechanical backing. It could as easily be the rogue, the ranger or the bard who gains such benefits. Meta-balance which I am in favour off (where in the playing of the game, all elements combine to ensure that every one gets camera time, every one can do awesome things and every one has fun) is poorly achieve through mechanical balance alone. To truly achieve it, one would markedly need to change the face of DnD in all its forms, requiring the introduction of social conflict resolution systems, merits/flaws systems, a background definition system. You won’t get those things, I doubt you’d want them. It is rare I meet a player who shares your views, who would ever accept non-magical social manipulations resting control of your character from you.
Two of your five suggestions involve completely rewriting the classes so they aren't imbalanced, one of them screws melee too, one of them requires that the players be completely on board for an oppressive police state that restricts fireballs for some reason but not swords, and one of them requires running the players ragged which doesn't actually work after about level 7.
Fine, lets see you 10th level core only PF party of four, who can’t be run ragged, and I will provide you with an adventure that will leave them wanting a holiday
I understand the temptation. The innate desire to roll dice - whether they be for attack or for damage - is a strong one. Relegating yourself to controlling spells strips you of this ability, by and large. But for those who are okay with leaving the dice in the pouch, there are very few who question the strength of such lockdown spells.At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.I've never been fond of the so-called God Mage. I'm more of a Glass Cannon player when it comes to casters, probably always will be. Given a choice between hurling a Fireball and casting Black Tentacles to tie up the enemy force? Fireball every time.
If it weakens the mage to the point where he's not the most powerful thing in the party and the others can make meaningful contributions? Double bonus.
Also, I prefer Sorcs over Wizards, if it makes any difference.
Oooh, yes, it does.
The sorcerer is often considered the gimped cousin of the wizard. With much more limited access to spells (and gaining new spell levels an entire level after the wizard does), you are seriously reducing your ability to adapt to upcoming situations and to make use of those awesome magic items that help round you out and make you an unstoppable force.
That said, some people do find them more fun. To each their own.
Ah, but scott. He has already stated that he prefers the direct damage approach, which he is entirely entitled to do. And sorcerers are considerably better at being a glass cannon than a wizard is. If that is the concept he wants to play, surely it is the optimal choice to play a sorcerer rather than a wizard.
|
To compare it to the system modled in Spellfire just isn't a fair really. And let's be honest, Spellfire is probably one of the worst books ever written by TSR or any company. It's the shining example of why I hate Ed Greenwood's books. So why would you want a system modled after Spellfire? UGH!
Yep awful book (I was in France and it was the only englidh 2nd book I could find - in my defense).
But the book was based on the system - a few liberties here and there, but a a core it presented events that "could" happen in game (ignoring Spellfire itself of course).
S.
When you can’t argue with a point, insult it. Ad hominem fallacies do little to help your argument.
If you have an argument, beyond ad hominem comments, am dieing to here them. Please define why it is obnoxious?
A) That wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to start playing the fallacy game, you first need to learn what they are.
"You are obnoxious," is an ad hominem attack.
"This argument is obnoxious," is not an ad hominem attack.
B) He did have an argument. "This screws melee because they need healing to," follows the textbook definition of an argument: "A is true because B is true."
All of this put together makes your dismissal very curious. You were presented with an argument and no ad hominem attack, and proceeded to call it an ad hominem attack with no argument.
What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this?
I believe you mean the characters, not the players. It doesn’t matter what the player would do, unless the player is meta-gaming.
The player is (almost) always in control of his character. It always matters what the player would do; the player is the only person in the game capable of telling you what his character would do.
Oppressive police states you say? You mean like Amn? The Tyr City states regions of darksun? How about the war hammer world? Large chunks of historical earth? Hell, even the disc world. Magicial licensing and deep seated fear of mages by the general populous is an astoundingly common idea in fantasy literature, roleplaying games and the real world.
These are pretty solid examples of settings where the players might easily want to rebel against the authority they're chafing under. I know this firsthand, having played in Dark Sun.
Not to mention that many of these things are self imposed restrictions, based within religion and culture. It doesn’t matter if your being observed, if you character is a member of a faith, who believes it is a religious crime to use magic during the day, there is a very good chance they aren’t going to be using their magic during the day.
Either you make this a choice available to players, or you enforce it. If you enforce it, you're altering the rules to fix a problem. If you make it a choice, there's not a lot of incentive to take it.
Ah, but scott. He has already stated that he prefers the direct damage approach, which he is entirely entitled to do. And sorcerers are considerably better at being a glass cannon than a wizard is. If that is the concept he wants to play, surely it is the optimal choice to play a sorcerer rather than a wizard.
No, it's still not (arguably).
The sorcerer receives more of his own spell slots per day, sure.
But for half the game, the sorcerer is lagging behind the wizard an entire spell level. The wizard gets more powerful spells half the time. And should the wizard run out, he can make use of wands and scrolls just as easily as the sorcerer can.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I understand the temptation. The innate desire to roll dice - whether they be for attack or for damage - is a strong one. Relegating yourself to controlling spells strips you of this ability, by and large. But for those who are okay with leaving the dice in the pouch, there are very few who question the strength of such lockdown spells.At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).That would be the other reason there's no big disparity in my group, then. Our casters would much, much rather simply blast an opponent than bother with disabling one.
I must be the only person who's ever played a caster that seemed to suffer from Ungodly DM Saving Throws. I'd rather play a nuke-slinging evoker than a nancy SoD caster any day, cause my DM has an incredible knack for rolling monster saving throws. Srsly if I sling a fireball at 8 monsters who have a statistically 50-50 shot at making the save, 6 will make it. If I were spamming SoD spells, even with totally optimized DCs, I'd land one maybe 10-20% of the time. At least with most damaging spells I still get 1/2 damage. And I am not accusing my DM of cheating, either, just seems to be my luck.
Case in point. I had a warlock with the at-will charm monster invocation, idr the name. EVERY ENCOUNTER for an entire character level I opened with this ability in attempt after vain attempt to gain a charmed minion. NOT ONCE did this ever stick, and my Cha was through the roof (28 or so). I ended up switching it out for something else.
Having said that, even in a group with an astoundingly effective meleer (Monkey Grip Large greatsword fighter/barb), my fire-shtick evoker was always pretty devastatingly effective with damage spells. Nothing "controls the battlefield" like piles of charred enemy corpses. Natch if you subscribe to the "personal experience is invalid" school of thought then nothing will persuade you except math, in which case you should probably reconsider this hobby entirely. In a roleplaying game, personal experience is maybe the only arbiter of good game design: if you have fun with it, it succeeds.
Ah, but scott. He has already stated that he prefers the direct damage approach, which he is entirely entitled to do. And sorcerers are considerably better at being a glass cannon than a wizard is. If that is the concept he wants to play, surely it is the optimal choice to play a sorcerer rather than a wizard.No, it's still not (arguably).
The sorcerer receives more of his own spell slots per day, sure.
But for half the game, the sorcerer is lagging behind the wizard an entire spell level. The wizard gets more powerful spells half the time. And should the wizard run out, he can make use of wands and scrolls just as easily as the sorcerer can.
It doesn't matter, the greater number of slightly lower level spells works out better for the blaster sorcerer. They can dish out more damage, and do it faster.
I've never been fond of the so-called God Mage. I'm more of a Glass Cannon player when it comes to casters, probably always will be. Given a choice between hurling a Fireball and casting Black Tentacles to tie up the enemy force? Fireball every time.
If it weakens the mage to the point where he's not the most powerful thing in the party and the others can make meaningful contributions? Double bonus.
Also, I prefer Sorcs over Wizards, if it makes any difference.
I think I can relate. I mean I'm reading these discussions and hearing about how the mage can cast this-and-that and just blow past a challenge and whether or not that's true I'm thinking "............Boring."
I think there are just certain kinds of magic which have uses only at critical story moments, and when you bring them into a non-story-determined environment they loose that nice regulation.
EDIT: Also I'm more of a person who likes to imagine physicality, so spells that bypass that bore me.
Just because you think it's boring doesn't mean it's not possible, optimal, or done all the time as part of the game.
Deliberately pulling your punches because it's more fun that way actually means the problem is worse than first described: not only does this huge power discrepancy exist, but it's less fun to play the class well than it is to hold back!
Ah, but scott. He has already stated that he prefers the direct damage approach, which he is entirely entitled to do. And sorcerers are considerably better at being a glass cannon than a wizard is. If that is the concept he wants to play, surely it is the optimal choice to play a sorcerer rather than a wizard.No, it's still not (arguably).
The sorcerer receives more of his own spell slots per day, sure.
But for half the game, the sorcerer is lagging behind the wizard an entire spell level. The wizard gets more powerful spells half the time. And should the wizard run out, he can make use of wands and scrolls just as easily as the sorcerer can.
It doesn't matter, the greater number of slightly lower level spells works out better for the blaster sorcerer. They can dish out more damage, and do it faster.
They can dish out more damage with their own spell slots, yes. Faster? No. The wizard is capable of unleashing higher level spells than the sorcerer over the same amount of time.
And longevity doesn't matter when both of them can (and should) pack wands.
I must be the only person who's ever played a caster that seemed to suffer from Ungodly DM Saving Throws. I'd rather play a nuke-slinging evoker than a nancy SoD caster any day, cause my DM has an incredible knack for rolling monster saving throws. Srsly if I sling a fireball at 8 monsters who have a statistically 50-50 shot at making the save, 6 will make it. If I were spamming SoD spells, even with totally optimized DCs, I'd land one maybe 10-20% of the time. At least with most damaging spells I still get 1/2 damage. And I am not accusing my DM of cheating, either, just seems to be my luck.
I've had a similar experience in the past, but I'm pretty sure the DM was fudging things, much of the time. It certainly didn't help that we all knew she didn't actually stat up her monsters most of the time.
When you can’t argue with a point, insult it. Ad hominem fallacies do little to help your argument.
If you have an argument, beyond ad hominem comments, am dieing to here them. Please define why it is obnoxious?
A) That wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to start playing the fallacy game, you first need to learn what they are.
"You are obnoxious," is an ad hominem attack.
"This argument is obnoxious," is not an ad hominem attack.
B) He did have an argument. "This screws melee because they need healing to," follows the textbook definition of an argument: "A is true because B is true."
All of this put together makes your dismissal very curious. You were presented with an argument and no ad hominem attack, and proceeded to call it an ad hominem attack with no argument.
What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this?
I choose my wording poorly, so let me try to make my point a little more elagantly.
This is obnoxious and screws melee as well, since they rely on healing between battles to not die.
Two seperate clauses within the sentance. According to his statement, it is not that it effects the meleeist that makes it obnoxious.He is stating as fact that is obnoxious, but not providing an argument as to why it is obnoxious.
With regards to disturbed rest effecting fighters also; i had already provided one example of a magic item which reduces the negative effect on the meleeist, a ring of regeneration and potions are easy examples, but are far from alone.
I believe you mean the characters, not the players. It doesn’t matter what the player would do, unless the player is meta-gaming.The player is (almost) always in control of his character. It always matters what the player would do; the player is the only person in the game capable of telling you what his character would do.
The player may control the PC, but he is roleplaying poorly if his choices conflict with what the PC would do.
requires that the players respect the laws
The choice here is not about the what the player thinks of the laws, it isn't about what the player accepts, it is about what the Character would accept. Disassociating your own views from that of your character is a skill, one of the most important to being a good roleplayer.
Oppressive police states you say? You mean like Amn? The Tyr City states regions of darksun? How about the war hammer world? Large chunks of historical earth? Hell, even the disc world. Magicial licensing and deep seated fear of mages by the general populous is an astoundingly common idea in fantasy literature, roleplaying games and the real world.These are pretty solid examples of settings where the players might easily want to rebel against the authority they're chafing under. I know this firsthand, having played in Dark Sun.
And how exactly does that prevent the social difficulties for producing soft balance? I am not sure how your desire to rebel against the secret police of the horrible evil people out there in any way means you are less likely to suffer as a result of the power of said individuals.
Either you make this a choice available to players, or you enforce it. If you enforce it, you're altering the rules to fix a problem. If you make it a choice, there's not a lot of incentive to take it.
I play for the most part with some pretty decent roleplayers. Primerally i leave such things as character choices. My players respect the mind sets of the characters they are playing so mechanical backing is not needed in most cases.
That said, i am perfectly willing to make mechanical changes, if it makes the mechanics fit better to the setting.
I've never been fond of the so-called God Mage. I'm more of a Glass Cannon player when it comes to casters, probably always will be. Given a choice between hurling a Fireball and casting Black Tentacles to tie up the enemy force? Fireball every time.
If it weakens the mage to the point where he's not the most powerful thing in the party and the others can make meaningful contributions? Double bonus.
Also, I prefer Sorcs over Wizards, if it makes any difference.
I think I can relate. I mean I'm reading these discussions and hearing about how the mage can cast this-and-that and just blow past a challenge and whether or not that's true I'm thinking "............Boring."
I think there are just certain kinds of magic which have uses only at critical story moments, and when you bring them into a non-story-determined environment they loose that nice regulation.
EDIT: Also I'm more of a person who likes to imagine physicality, so spells that bypass that bore me.
Just because you think it's boring doesn't mean it's not possible, optimal, or done all the time as part of the game.
Deliberately pulling your punches because it's more fun that way actually means the problem is worse than first described: not only does this huge power discrepancy exist, but it's less fun to play the class well than it is to hold back!
You manage to make roleplaying sound like checkers. As far as i am concerned, your playing well when the story is engaging, your portraying your character accurately and every one is having fun,and that is it.
You manage to make roleplaying sound like checkers. As far as i am concerned, your playing well when the story is engaging, your portraying your character accurately and every one is having fun,and that is it.
I concur!
I'm in this thread because I'm trying to understand the mentality of players who would play a Wizard, Archivist, whatever in such a manner. I simply don't understand it.
And longevity doesn't matter when both of them can (and should) pack wands.
Meh. I never had the money to spare. Much simpler just to conserve my spells for when they're really needed and stick to reserve feats and watching the Fighter and Rogue (or Archer or Martial Adept or Warlock or whatever) kill all the Mooks until I get to the big fight. :)
I'm in this thread because I'm trying to understand the mentality of players who would play a Wizard, Archivist, whatever in such a manner.Put me down for this too. Although include the use of mind-controlling, paralysis/petrification, insta-death, and other such spells labeled as problems.
Me three.
if you subscribe to the "personal experience is invalid" school of thought then nothing will persuade you except math, in which case you should probably reconsider this hobby entirely. In a roleplaying game, personal experience is maybe the only arbiter of good game design: if you have fun with it, it succeeds.
This is the type of thing I guess I was trying to say earlier.
I don't want to discount the case that folks like Scott Betts and AMIB are making, especially not with the "Yay fun!" argument. They may be right, maybe the situation is lopsided!
But I have played this game for 20 years now, and I am pretty sure that it defies analysis on this level. Since the end result is to have fun, the "Yay fun!" argument must be relevant, but additionally I think the whole damn thing is so subjective that all the math in the world tells us very little about how people are playing the game. All we have is subjective reports!
Because of the fluid nature of RPG scenarios, math can be made to prove a number of points. I have no doubt that both camps are arguing from their own experience and well reasoned analysis. This is a really hard situation to reach meaningful conclusions in.
So "Yay fun!" is the best recourse, I think. We play these games to have fun. There may be a systemic imbalance, but it is not consistent in people's reports. So people should focus on redressing problems in game, especially the GM, since the presence or absence of a good GM is what makes analysis difficult and experience subjective to begin with!
Unless of course, picking apart the math and finding systemic imbalance is your idea of fun, as I imagine to be the case for some people. In that event, not even the "Yay fun!" proclamation cannot stop you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
good stuff about Yay Fun vs. Statistical Analysis Game Design D&D
Don't get me wrong, if game design and getting into the crunchiness and setting mechanical balance is your thing, rock on. kyrt-ryder's doing just that sort of thing in his PBP iirc. And I'd be among those defending the psion's mathematical balance vs. wizards and sorcs on the psionics threads, IF I thought that the mathematical argument would convince those whose in-game experiences have led them to believe that psionics were unbalanced, which I don't (***please do not take this last point and threadjack off it***). The point I was attempting to make is that good design is very, very subjective and the underlying math isn't necessarily a predictor or indicator of good design.
I'm trying to catch up here, and contribute a bit to points that flew past me as I was sleeping and then working today.... I won't quote specific argument from 50 posts ago, but will try to paraphrase why I'm making particular statements.
To the argument that goes - once the wizard has run out of spells, he/she may still have wands, staves, etc., and so not be completely out of magic.
This is certainly true, but unless the wizard has a large number of different wands or staves, the wizard is not even as effective as a sorcerer in this situation. A wand of fireballs may have lots of charges, but won't necessarily be useful, or may even be the wrong tool for the job.
To the one poster who mentioned 1e, and rules for disrupting spells, etc. My groups only very rarely actually used these rules. We never bothered to (it required looking at rounds in terms of segments sometimes, which was a pain). Maybe the tactics by our magic-users weren't very good, or maybe the 1e fighter was simply superior than the 3e fighter, but this was not a huge problem. And, a lot of the problem 1e spells were reduced in power for 3e (magic missile, wish, polymorph other, etc. - lots of them). We also never really cared about the amount of time spent studying each day to regain spells, just an hour or so. So while the system had balances in place, we didn't use them, and still didn't have huge problems.
To the challenge to provide 5 situations that challenge both a wizard and a fighter there have already been several mentioned, that I've missed out on the arguments regarding, but I will add a few more.
Scrying, etc. Let the enemy learn the tactics favored by the players, and then adjust their own tactics accordingly.
Wizard prefers fireball or other area effect spells? Have the enemies attack singly or from multiple positions simultaneously.
Wizard prefers battlefield control spells? Set up an enemy caster with similar spells, who can change the face of the battlefield. If half the party is isolated behind walls of force etc., the fighter may be the only one who can take out certain opponents easily or stop a certain event from happening.
These are both aimed at neutralizing or occupying the party wizard, while additional combat goes on at the same time. These situations require multiple opponents, including enemy casters, who use smart tactics of their own.
On top of this, since the PCs are typically in the BBEG's territory/castle/dungeon/etc., the advantage of knowing the terrain goes to the enemy. This should not be insignificant, and could be used to split the party. Once the party is split, every character has chances to contribute.
High level opponents should use tactics that they could easily have learned that make the party work hard. Their goal is to survive, not give up their loot on a platter. They should be working just as hard to control the battlefield and tactical situations as the players. if done right, the wizard should be kept busy (challenged), giving the fighter plenty of opportunity to shine (challenged).
2. Fight fire with fire. A high level group of evil PCs that includes wizards, clerics, and melee types should be able to challenge an entire party, with everyone contributing. Superior group tactics should win.
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.
The sandwich knows. The sandwich always knows. (And actually, there's a story behind the psionic sandwich. The way I heard it, there was a discussion on how to make the weakest possible character with twenty class levels, so someone came up with the psionic sandwich. Have a friend cast Polymorph Any Object on a sandwich to turn it into a human. Humans are subject to mind spells, so cast True Mind Switch, and you're permanently in the sandwich's body. When the PAO ends, you're now a sandwich. So, the question becomes, do you still have an intelligence score, and can you still manifest powers? Are you the weakest character imaginable, or are you the world's most powerful sandwich?)
And we're talking about the system. Nothing more. The problems being discussed already encompass far more than mathematics (many Wizard abilities circumvent mathematics outright), but the Fighter's primary problem is that they cannot win the math duels with ever more powerful monsters (save the few paths) and have no way to get around them.
The problem that arises when you start talking "fun" is that you stop talking about the system and start talking about your own group's RP habits, which have precisely zero bearing on the system. You get cases like excusing design flaws because your group doesn't care about the system and hardly even uses it.
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).
And then, you're back to where you have to realize the problem in the first place in order to treat it. Here, you've basically saying you have to acknowledge and compensate for the class tiers, which is precisely the point.
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?
If the Fighter takes 5.2 rounds longer, the Fighter is dead, because she only lasts three rounds against a legitimate threat (or even a foe at CR) before running out of hit points. That's a big deal. That's incompetent.
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.).
The DM should be able to design normal and fair encounters without having to throw out a quarter of the Monster Manual because the Fighter can't counter flight. The Fighter should have a broad enough and effective enough ability set that she can contribute in most circumstances without the special consideration.
And yes, the Fighter can and pretty much has to use magic items for flight. The problem there is the Fighter's already really strapped for cash, and all the add-ons she has to buy cut a piece out of the basic gear she absolutely needs.
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.
It's wildly different. The AMF is an extremely rare effect that you're not gonna see much of, and whose sources are usually as gimped by it as you are; beholders lose their eye rays, high level Wizards/Clerics lose their spells. One of the few creatures that can put it to good use are extremely high-level dragons, which are gonna squish the Fighter like a pancake as soon as they're deprived of their magic gear (including their source of flight) by the AMF.
Or running out of spells.... (which suddenly makes their list much much longer)
A day's worth of encounters may take twelve spells for a tough day. And those include low-level spells.
I see. So you think it's too broken to try to work with, and your solution is to play a different game?
"Fix the game" is vastly different from "play a different game," chief.
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?
Except Fighters can't fight all day. In fact, they often only have three rounds of fight in 'em if they're taking the brunt of a level-appropriate encounter.
While mages are limited by their supply of spell slots, Fighters are limited by hit points. Hit points are, by far, the more limited resource. Sure, the Fighter could down some healing potions, but the Cleric has the far more cost-effective healing wand, and the mages can carry scrolls, wands, staves themselves, and they can actually spare the money to keep a solid supply of the lot.
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)
Except they're not remotely severe. Many games ban Psions and Warblades and Artificers as a matter of course. How is it any different to remove Fighter or Wizard? They're just two more classes from another splat, after all.
And banning the Wizard class doesn't take anything from the game but a metagame tag of "Wizard." You still have wizard characters all the same. They're just represented by Psion and Warmage and Beguiler and Wu Jen; far more balanced classes. If you get so hung up over that class that happens to bear the title, "Wizard," and enshrine it just because a few other systems also happen to have a class called "Wizard," you're just getting worked up over nothing.
wow. the fighter really gets no respect at all!
The Fighter really gets no abilities at all.
It is so inconceivable that a fighter could have a utility magic item that might be useful?
A level X Commoner could have a useful utility magic item. That's not the Fighter's class pulling the weight, or even being relevant. What's more, the Fighter has the least liquid funds to acquire the magic item in the first place, since they need to keep on top of weapons and armor, and they least ability to actually use magic items, tied with Barbarians. Even a Paladin can use a slim array of useful wands.
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.
Past low levels, mages have so many spells that running out is scarcely a concern, and the typical mage carries a folder full of scrolls in case they need a spell they don't have prepared. Or, in Pathfinder, they just cast it anyways thanks to their bonded item.
By the level range we are looking at, PCs can purchase items like Rings of Regeneration. which remove such limits to a great extent
Actually, the Ring of Regeneration is so tremendously expensive that by the time you can afford it, the problem has been in place big time for a very long time, and also by the time you can get it, the mages have spells so powerful and have so many spells that can often last so long that it's long since stopped mattering.
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."
Don't underestimate the Bard.
I consider it cheesy and annoying, personally.
Doesn't mean it ain't a part of the rules, and we are talking about the rules. And there are quite a few stories that, when something big needs to be done in an extremely short period of time, have magic dilate time, or put something in a plane with different time flows.
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.
And in a long day, the healer can't spare spells on Cure that need to be spent on spells that actually win the fights, meaning the melee'rs ability to function is briefer still.
At the risk of sounding like an elitist jerk, a spellcaster trying to out-damage anyone is Doing It Wrong (tm).
Actually, there are ways to make it work. I have casters who can dish out enough raw damage to kill pretty much any god but Kossuth and a few others with a 4th and a 5th level spell slot (though the gods' AC is completely insane to the point where I'd only hit on a 20, but it's still enough to kill anything mortal). Mind you, I never actually use that build, because it's completely bloody insane, but if you can pile on enough metamagic, your damage spells can amount to, "You lose, no save."
The sorcerer is often considered the gimped cousin of the wizard. With much more limited access to spells (and gaining new spell levels an entire level after the wizard does), you are seriously reducing your ability to adapt to upcoming situations and to make use of those awesome magic items that help round you out and make you an unstoppable force.
That said, some people do find them more fun. To each their own.
See, all that stuff is why the Sorcerer (which is still one of the game's most powerful classes) is a well-balanced class, and the Wizard is not.
I guess in that manner I've managed to gimp myself, and my players seem to have done likewise. We're all under the general opinion that if all it takes to solve every single situation is a wave of the wizard's hand then he wanders off while everyone else butchers a helpless enemy, that's just plain boring.
Actually, it can be quite intense and exciting if everyone has the power to participate.
The game is called rocket tag. Get hit with Glitterdust? You're pretty much screwed. Get hit with a full volley of dual-wielding acid vial sneak attacks? You're probably dead. Take the brunt of a full attack from that fire giant? Odds are, you're on your last legs now.
The issue is not that rocket tag exists, but that not everyone can participate. Fighters don't have any rockets. Rogues have one in sneak attack, plus expensive magic items. The Fighter really doesn't have anything. Their full attacks are pretty much limited to whittling, not devastating, and they have no defenses against rockets; only AC that probably won't matter and a bag of hit points that isn't big enough.
And do remember that monsters have their own brutally devastating rockets to fire, as well.
No, it's still not (arguably).
The sorcerer receives more of his own spell slots per day, sure.
But for half the game, the sorcerer is lagging behind the wizard an entire spell level. The wizard gets more powerful spells half the time. And should the wizard run out, he can make use of wands and scrolls just as easily as the sorcerer can.
In the expanded game, Sorcerers have a pretty vast array of options open to them that make them uniquely suited to blasting, and some of which actually give them powerful tools that a Wizard may not necessarily have, like Arcane Spellsurge and Practical Metamagic (which can then be combined with Arcane Thesis, Rapid Metamagic, and Incantatrix for true lunacy). Then, there's Greater Draconic Rite of Passage for kobold Sorcerers, which can bring 'em to the same casting progression as Wizards, and if you're feeling particularly nasty, Dragonwrought can open the door to Loredrake to put them a full spell level ahead.
I must be the only person who's ever played a caster that seemed to suffer from Ungodly DM Saving Throws. I'd rather play a nuke-slinging evoker than a nancy SoD caster any day, cause my DM has an incredible knack for rolling monster saving throws. Srsly if I sling a fireball at 8 monsters who have a statistically 50-50 shot at making the save, 6 will make it. If I were spamming SoD spells, even with totally optimized DCs, I'd land one maybe 10-20% of the time. At least with most damaging spells I still get 1/2 damage. And I am not accusing my DM of cheating, either, just seems to be my luck.
Actually, the best spells still have powerful effects on a failed save, or even flat don't offer a save at all. Solid Fog and Sleet Storm basically read, "You don't exist for X rounds, no save."
Having said that, even in a group with an astoundingly effective meleer (Monkey Grip Large greatsword fighter/barb), my fire-shtick evoker was always pretty devastatingly effective with damage spells. Nothing "controls the battlefield" like piles of charred enemy corpses. Natch if you subscribe to the "personal experience is invalid" school of thought then nothing will persuade you except math, in which case you should probably reconsider this hobby entirely. In a roleplaying game, personal experience is maybe the only arbiter of good game design: if you have fun with it, it succeeds.
For the record, Monkey Grip is actually a horrible feat, at least in conjunction with a greatsword. You're spending a feat to add 1d6 damage at a -2 AB penalty. On average, +3.5 damage for -2 AB. Thing is, if you'd just Power Attack for two, you'd get +4 damage for -2 AB, so you're spending a feat to do less damage than you'd probably deal by just using a feat you're most likely taking anyways. And Strongarm Bracers offer the same effect as Monkey Grip without the penalty.
Also, odds are the enemies you were facing were non-threat mooks, which aren't much of a measure of balance, since they're not dangerous.
And longevity doesn't matter when both of them can (and should) pack wands.
When you're talking about dealing damage, you're not talking about wands unless you're playing an Artificer. Damage wands are flat too expensive, as you need to have them holding some of the higher-level spells available at high caster level, boosting their costs through the roof.
For blasting, you pretty much have to cast from your own spell reserve, and because blasting spells generally do turn obsolete in short order (save uncapped gems like the Sorcerer-only Wings of Flurry), you have to cast from your limited supply of high-level spells until you can start to really pile the metamagic on your lower-level spells.
You manage to make roleplaying sound like checkers. As far as i am concerned, your playing well when the story is engaging, your portraying your character accurately and every one is having fun,and that is it.
I can do all of that without ever touching a single die or wielding a single rule. I can do all of that freeform. If that's all you want from your game, why bother with a game system?
When I play D&D, I want to play the game. I want to consider the mechanics, I want to make effective characters within the rules, I want to pull off cool stunts within the rules, all while having the engaging story, the interesting characters, the fun, and the Fritos.
But I have played this game for 20 years now, and I am pretty sure that it defies analysis on this level. Since the end result is to have fun, the "Yay fun!" argument must be relevant, but additionally I think the whole damn thing is so subjective that all the math in the world tells us very little about how people are playing the game. All we have is subjective reports!
The "Yay fun!" argument holds absolutely zero weight, because you can have fun with any system. F.A.T.A.L. is generally accepted as one of the worst systems in the world, yet believe it or not, there is at least one case in recorded history of someone having fun playing it. When you start talking "Yay fun!" you often stop talking about the system and start talking about system-independent roleplay and your individual group's social dynamics, which hold no bearing on the system as a whole.
And there is indeed a fundamental level of objectivity in discerning the difference between, "to my taste," and, "of exceptional quality."
Scrying, etc. Let the enemy learn the tactics favored by the players, and then adjust their own tactics accordingly.
Wizard prefers fireball or other area effect spells? Have the enemies attack singly or from multiple positions simultaneously.
Wizard prefers battlefield control spells? Set up an enemy caster with similar spells, who can change the face of the battlefield. If half the party is isolated behind walls of force etc., the fighter may be the only one who can take out certain opponents easily or stop a certain event from happening.
These are both aimed at neutralizing or occupying the party wizard, while additional combat goes on at the same time. These situations require multiple opponents, including enemy casters, who use smart tactics of their own.
However, again, this is a scenario that the Wizard is better equipped to handle it as she has the most adaptability. The way the Fighter fights today, they pretty much have to fight tomorrow, making her easy to counter this way, but the Wizard is free to change her spell preparation completely every single day, and she's the one who's going to have that emergency Scroll of Teleport (or any of numerous other get out of jail free cards) when things turn south.
And if you have the enemies specifically setting out to counter the Wizard but not the Fighter, then you have the world admitting the Wizard matters and the Fighter doesn't, and pretty much ignoring the Fighter while they dogpile on the Wizard.
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.And we're talking about the system. Nothing more. The problems being discussed already encompass far more than mathematics (many Wizard abilities circumvent mathematics outright), but the Fighter's primary problem is that they cannot win the math duels with ever more powerful monsters (save the few paths) and have no way to get around them.
The problem that arises when you start talking "fun" is that you stop talking about the system and start talking about your own group's RP habits, which have precisely zero bearing on the system. You get cases like excusing design flaws because your group doesn't care about the system and hardly even uses it.
...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).
And then, you're back to where you have to realize the problem in the first place in order to treat it. Here, you've basically saying you have to acknowledge and compensate for the class tiers, which is precisely the point.
Sure, that has been the point for some time now. The goal is to try to find solutions that work to challenge a mixed party - particularly when someone wants to play a fighter.
As an aside, I'm not sure I could believe that you would argue that the player should be told not to play their character concept as a fighter.
This is not easy. Although the FAQ to the tier system post covers a lot of this ground, including some interesting thoughts on how to do this.
If the Fighter takes 5.2 rounds longer, the Fighter is dead, because she only lasts three rounds against a legitimate threat (or even a foe at CR) before running out of hit points. That's a big deal. That's incompetent.
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?
Ok, but that assumes a toe-to-toe fight - appropriate for an abstract comparison, but not necessarily indicative of how a well-played fighter would approach things in a real game.
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.).The DM should be able to design normal and fair encounters without having to throw out a quarter of the Monster Manual because the Fighter can't counter flight. The Fighter should have a broad enough and effective enough ability set that she can contribute in most circumstances without the special consideration.
And yes, the Fighter can and pretty much has to use magic items for flight. The problem there is the Fighter's already really strapped for cash, and all the add-ons she has to buy cut a piece out of the basic gear she absolutely needs.
I also think this underestimates tactics that can be used to counter flight. I'm not saying they'll always work, but ranged weapons and cover that forces the flying creature to close to attack you aren't irrelevant. The fighter only can't counter flight in comparison to a class that can deal with it more efficiently.
It's a far different thing to say the fighter can't do it as well as the wizard (I agree with this) than to say that the fighter could never take a creature capable of flight (I don't agree).
It's wildly different. The AMF is an extremely rare effect that you're not gonna see much of, and whose sources are usually as gimped by it as you are; beholders lose their eye rays, high level Wizards/Clerics lose their spells. One of the few creatures that can put it to good use are extremely high-level dragons, which are gonna squish the Fighter like a pancake as soon as they're deprived of their magic gear (including their source of flight) by the AMF.
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.
A wizard in concert with a bunch of fighters can put it to very good use. Once the spell casters are gimped, there had better be some melee types or the wizard's not going to be happy. AMF doesn't have to be rare, though like anything else it will get boring if the DM relies on it to consistently take the casters out of the fight. It can make for an interesting challenge, but too much of it wouldn't be fun.
A day's worth of encounters may take twelve spells for a tough day. And those include low-level spells.
Or running out of spells.... (which suddenly makes their list much much longer)
then the party has it too easy.
"Fix the game" is vastly different from "play a different game," chief.
I see. So you think it's too broken to try to work with, and your solution is to play a different game?
I'm not the chief you're looking for here...
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)Except they're not remotely severe. Many games ban Psions and Warblades and Artificers as a matter of course. How is it any different to remove Fighter or Wizard? They're just two more classes from another splat, after all.
And banning the Wizard class doesn't take anything from the game but a metagame tag of "Wizard." You still have wizard characters all the same. They're just represented by Psion and Warmage and Beguiler and Wu Jen; far more balanced classes. If you get so hung up over that class that happens to bear the title, "Wizard," and enshrine it just because a few other systems also happen to have a class called "Wizard," you're just getting worked up over nothing.
Lots of classes are "banned" when people don't have the books. It can be more easily expected that people have the core books - this is as much a 'common ground' issue as a playability one.
Banning the wizard removes more than just the tag, it removes the wizard mechanics. You can have 'wizard' characters with these other classes, but they can't do exactly what metagame tagged wizards could do, or these classes wouldn't solve the problem posed by the wizard, and then what would the point be? This seems like a substantive issue, rather than nothing.
<skipping a bunch of stuff here - I don't necessarily agree, but the arguments are bogged down enough already >
Scrying, etc. Let the enemy learn the tactics favored by the players, and then adjust their own tactics accordingly.
Wizard prefers fireball or other area effect spells? Have the enemies attack singly or from multiple positions simultaneously.Wizard prefers battlefield control spells? Set up an enemy caster with similar spells, who can change the face of the battlefield. If half the party is isolated behind walls of force etc., the fighter may be the only one who can take out certain opponents easily or stop a certain event from happening.
These are both aimed at neutralizing or occupying the party wizard, while additional combat goes on at the same time. These situations require multiple opponents, including enemy casters, who use smart tactics of their own.
However, again, this is a scenario that the Wizard is better equipped to handle it as she has the most adaptability. The way the Fighter fights today, they pretty much have to fight tomorrow, making her easy to counter this way, but the Wizard is free to change her spell preparation completely every single day, and she's the one who's going to have that emergency Scroll of Teleport (or any of numerous other get out of jail free cards) when things turn south.
And if you have the enemies specifically setting out to counter the Wizard but not the Fighter, then you have the world admitting the Wizard matters and the Fighter doesn't, and pretty much ignoring the Fighter while they dogpile on the Wizard.
I think the world had better admit that the wizard matters - they are a substantial threat. Fighters are not entirely more limited in their options. They have fewer options that they are specialized in, but different tactics can be used. They don't always have to charge in and fight toe-to-toe, even if this is what they do best.
The point of this though is not to set up situations in which the fighter is ignored, but to set up situations in which both a wizard and a fighter can contribute.
You seem quite adept at analyzing the game - I refuse to believe that this is a problem you couldn't solve if you wanted to. That is, design a real-game set of encounters that challenges two particular characters, one of each class (fighter and wizard) acting together. (You don't have to actually do this of course, I'm not giving you homework. I just don't believe that you couldn't.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
a bunch of stuff about how wizards pwn ur face
Sheesh, so play a wizard and don't play a fighter. Groups don't adventure on a blank battle mat. Everything is situationally dependent, and the game assumes at least a somewhat balanced party with the 4 food groups (meleer, arcane and divine casters, skill monkey). Fighters are going to get buffs from their caster buddies. If you're the DM and you're so concerned about the system being broke, houserule it. If you aren't the DM, play a wizard and bask in the glow of your uber leetness.
I can do all of that without ever touching a single die or wielding a single rule. I can do all of that freeform. If that's all you want from your game, why bother with a game system?
When I play D&D, I want to play the game. I want to consider the mechanics, I want to make effective characters within the rules, I want to pull off cool stunts within the rules, all while having the engaging story, the interesting characters, the fun, and the Fritos.
Because having a frame work or rule allows consistant decisions over credablity.
I have played a lot of modern and science fiction roleplay games over the years. To me, arguments that magic is considerably more powerful in many ways than hitting people with bits of steel sound so like the 'guns are to powerful man, when people start shooting, every one dies' arguments that occationally pop up with games like CP2020. Well guess what, thats what happens when guns get envolved in fights. Frankly, when i am playing a game about men and woman trying to live free, with a gun in their hands, in the last days before governmental and corperate authocracy stamps out the last vestages of freedom, the fact that the rules reflect the laws of physics in a believeble manner matters more to me than any idea of 'game balance.'
The player may control the PC, but he is roleplaying poorly if his choices conflict with what the PC would do.
Yes, except what the PC "would do" is something that ought to be left to the player. You're the DM. It's not your character. You have control over the entirety of the game world, minus the space contained by the PCs - over them, your control is limited. That's the trade you make in running the game. You are in charge, on the whole, but the players get their slice of the pie.
What this boils down to is that you are no more the arbiter of what a PC "would do" than the player controlling it is (and arguably less so!). What you think the PC "would do" might not be at all what the player who actually created and developed the PC "would do". In such a situation, who are you to say that your vision of the PCs' motivations or reactions is more accurate than the player's?
This is the reason that alignments are descriptive rather than prescriptive, for example.
It's obnoxious because the PCs are helpless and cannot do anything about this, and you're taking advantage of this weakness. It's an interesting plot once. It ceases to be interesting with repetition.
Question. Is it obnoxious when player wizards use ‘effective tactics’ to take advantage of monster weaknesses? Is it Obnoxious when such tactics are used repeatedly by PCs?
Melee classes employ magic items they can't make to cover their weaknesses, and you politely don't take them away while you do step on the casters.I notice a theme of "be a jerk to the casters only" here. That doesn't fix the imbalances; it just makes half the group feel put upon. Remember, the idea is to spread the awesome, not have equal measures of misery. Increasing the amount of misery in the game and dumping it disproportionately doesn't make melee more fun to play.
NPCs shouldn’t be allowed to come to the same conclusion you have that wizards are dangerous and fighter arn’t? A genius bad guy has to was effort on something he considers beneath his notice.
Personally I am more than willing to have villains target all members of a pesky adventuring party, for all sorts of reasons but when you claim that fighters are irrelevant, you should not be surprised if an NPC might share your view, rightly or wrongly.
wut.Did you just argue that the Tyr city-states and the frickin' Warhammer world aren't oppressive police states? Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has a base class that specializes in burning witches at the stake.
No, I am pointing out that ‘police states’ as you put it, are very common settings element in many worlds.
The player also creates the PC, and is unlikely to make a character who is a quietly accepting member of a police state unless you play in a really weird setting. Few players are going to take an oppressive government as something other than a challenge, and fewer still make characters who will politely accept repression.
It may work for a group but it's not a systemic fix.
Also, idea that character living within a oppressive setting are likely to revolt against it, is far from certain. Warhammer is a wonderful example of this. I first played WFRP in the very early nineties, and I have yet to see anywhere a wizard character, dedicated to overthrowing the status quo.
In vampire: the masquerade, my experience is that oppressive rulership is either met with three options, join up and enjoy the privileges and relative safety, Rage ineffectually against it and wait an eternity you don’t have, or make your self into a monster to over throw a monster.Cyberpunk, struggle and die fighting a system that cant be beaten, but live a life that will shine brightly, or sell out.
Mage: the Ascention, fight the system in a war that is already lost, or do what you can to make the system a little less bad on the other side of the lines.
Ravenloft, fight the evil overlord and risk becoming him, perhaps even destroying everything you love to achieve it, or fight for small victories.
If they wish to challenge it, let them, give them the consequences of doing so. But not every character will, many don’t.
There's Ravenloft and...um...
Yeah I dunno. Dark Sun I guess. Most games don't have miserable house rules that stack random extra penalties on spellcasters, seeing as there aren't any rules like that whatsoever in core.
There are also some bit is forgotten realms, within magic of faerun. The Scared lands also has setting specific changes to it metaphysics, as does spelljammer if I remember correctly.
Almost every non-d20 game does this as a matter of course, because such considerations are hard wired into their core system, as deadlands, WFRP, Ars Magica, Artesia:AKW, mage and so on. All of these include setting specific magic systems that would not function the way they do, if the system was a designed as a generic system.Core DnD is a base line. It can’t say, ‘all wizards atheists thanks to the astounding revelations understanding of the universe provides. They know that gods are figments the sentient subconscious, given power by belief. Miracles are just another form of magic, fuelled by the belief of the caster and those being targeted. Such knowledge has its prices; wizards cannot benefit from divine magic, because they do not believe in it.’ Because the system also has to deal with setting where gods are real, and when wizards gain their powers by literally selling their souls, where magic burns the flesh when channelled and where magical power is gain from the use of an addictive drug.
Can you write one that doesn't have the melee falling down dead before the casters get tired? I'd be extremely surprised to see it.
If you don't believe it can be done, what have you got to loose. Make the party of four, and I will give it a go :D
I have played a lot of modern and science fiction roleplay games over the years. To me, arguments that magic is considerably more powerful in many ways than hitting people with bits of steel sound so like the 'guns are to powerful man, when people start shooting, every one dies' arguments that occationally pop up with games like CP2020. Well guess what, thats what happens when guns get envolved in fights. Frankly, when i am playing a game about men and woman trying to live free, with a gun in their hands, in the last days before governmental and corperate authocracy stamps out the last vestages of freedom, the fact that the rules reflect the laws of physics in a believeble manner matters more to me than any idea of 'game balance.'Well, we were talking about D&D where the Laws of Physics were chewed up and spat out long age by every character who had enough hit points to get up after jumping fifty feet down a cliff and charge their enemies. Where Michelangelo can not only sculpt like a genius and paint like a genius but is also a pretty effective warrior. Where giant spiders wander around without breaking their legs every time they move. So I'd suggest an argument about how real-world science/reality is of particular relevance is probably not a good one to make
You miss understand.
The fact that guns are considerably better than melee weapons, that melee weapons are considerably better than unarmed combat is important because it is internal consistancy between setting(real world in the near future) and mechanics.
If the setting says magic can raise mountains, make cities fly, slay a mans soul with a glance and make kingdoms fall in love with you, while swords are just swords, which admittedly swong by amazing people and the mechanics say that either swinging a sword is capable taking destroying a mountain, or that magic might be able to boil you a nice cup of tea and hit someone with the same forces as a sword, then there is a dissonance between the setting and system, which can be far more distructive to a game than balance issues ever could.
The player may control the PC, but he is roleplaying poorly if his choices conflict with what the PC would do.Yes, except what the PC "would do" is something that ought to be left to the player. You're the DM. It's not your character. You have control over the entirety of the game world, minus the space contained by the PCs - over them, your control is limited. That's the trade you make in running the game. You are in charge, on the whole, but the players get their slice of the pie.
What this boils down to is that you are no more the arbiter of what a PC "would do" than the player controlling it is (and arguably less so!). What you think the PC "would do" might not be at all what the player who actually created and developed the PC "would do". In such a situation, who are you to say that your vision of the PCs' motivations or reactions is more accurate than the player's?
This is the reason that alignments are descriptive rather than prescriptive, for example.
A group of roleplayers form a shared imagained space(SIS) when roleplaying, each individual has a slightly different take on it. The SIS is in manyways a Consensus reality, an exceptionally delicate one. Actions that disrupt the SIS, break the suspension of disbelief preventing players and storytellers. You control your character certainly, but you have a responciblity not to act in a ways that conflicts with the SIS, because your choices affect the other players within the game.
Certainly, one have an open atheist character who has survived since childhood expressing such views in a theocracy that punishs such beliefs with death, sure one can make a noble woman, heir to the household, well educated, intelligent and destined for greatness, and yet play them as an air-hear with the vocabulary of a south london Chav, who is for ever talking about face book, if you so desire. I won't even argue with you if you say that is 'what your character would do', but i would ask you to play a different character or not to play, by your preference, because such an action damages the other players game. Individuals may be the person who decides a characters actions, but the rest of a group has a right to point out when those actions are not in keeping with the character described.
Ok, but that assumes a toe-to-toe fight - appropriate for an abstract comparison, but not necessarily indicative of how a well-played fighter would approach things in a real game.
Now you're suggesting that we consider abilities the Fighter doesn't have.
The Fighter doesn't have any abilities that aid in skulduggery. Less than any other class. What's more, if you assume things get fancy, any intelligent monster can pull its own stunts as complicated. Like the fire giant grappling the Fighter then dragging off a cliff and into a lava pit. All hail fire immunity.
And raw, toe-to-toe power is something you have to consider, and very nearly all you can consider when talking about Fighters. Go much farther and you're ascribing abilities that Fighters don't have and the rules don't support, that oftentimes amount to DM fiat that the Fighter wins without looking at the rulebooks; that has no bearing on the rules. What unusual options the Fighter has available, most monsters have far more of.
And the Fighter class is supposed to be able to fight toe-to-toe with a strong chance to come out on top; that's their class. That's their job.
I also think this underestimates tactics that can be used to counter flight. I'm not saying they'll always work, but ranged weapons and cover that forces the flying creature to close to attack you aren't irrelevant. The fighter only can't counter flight in comparison to a class that can deal with it more efficiently.
You're getting back into the realm of taking eight rounds longer when you have three rounds to live. In theory, if given infinite time, perhaps the Fighter could do something eventually, but she's probably going to die first.
It's a far different thing to say the fighter can't do it as well as the wizard (I agree with this) than to say that the fighter could never take a creature capable of flight (I don't agree).
No one ever said the Fighter could never take a flying creature.
A blind hill giant can kill someone. It's not very good at it, but it can be done. It's still pretty much helpless. Likewise, a landlocked melee Fighter can hurt a flying creature, but is most likely so bad at it that it doesn't matter.
A wizard in concert with a bunch of fighters can put it to very good use. Once the spell casters are gimped, there had better be some melee types or the wizard's not going to be happy. AMF doesn't have to be rare, though like anything else it will get boring if the DM relies on it to consistently take the casters out of the fight. It can make for an interesting challenge, but too much of it wouldn't be fun.
And now, you're getting back to the fundamental problem; Fighters aren't equally contributing members, they're NPC mooks. In fact, the entire issue stems from D&D's wargaming roots, where casters were leader units of tremendous power and and warriors were zerglings only useful in great numbers (which gets pretty meaningless when everyone's supposed to have only one character).
A day's worth of encounters may take twelve spells for a tough day. And those include low-level spells.then the party has it too easy.
A twelve-spell combat day is a heavy fighting day and a hard fighting day. D&D combat is swift and brutal. Fights are won or lost within a couple rounds. We're talking four hefty encounters that can bring the melee types to the brink of death or worse.
Lots of classes are "banned" when people don't have the books. It can be more easily expected that people have the core books - this is as much a 'common ground' issue as a playability one.
A popular unbalanced splat is still just another unbalanced splat.
Banning the wizard removes more than just the tag, it removes the wizard mechanics. You can have 'wizard' characters with these other classes, but they can't do exactly what metagame tagged wizards could do, or these classes wouldn't solve the problem posed by the wizard, and then what would the point be? This seems like a substantive issue, rather than nothing.
There is no problem here. What the class that bears the metagame tag of "Wizard" can do is inappropriate and gamebreaking if played by the rules and run tactically. Being a wizard does not require that you be able to do exactly what is listed under the Wizard class in the PHB. What is required is that you be able to fulfill the vision of a character, who is herself a wizard. And that has absolutely no requirement of the Wizard class.
If a mechanic is gamebreaking, you either fix it or cut it out. And there's enough balanced 3.5 source material out there that fixing it is pretty much pointless.
The point of this though is not to set up situations in which the fighter is ignored, but to set up situations in which both a wizard and a fighter can contribute.
You seem quite adept at analyzing the game - I refuse to believe that this is a problem you couldn't solve if you wanted to. That is, design a real-game set of encounters that challenges two particular characters, one of each class (fighter and wizard) acting together. (You don't have to actually do this of course, I'm not giving you homework. I just don't believe that you couldn't.)
I am extremely capable of solving the problem; I cut out the unfair mechanics and bring in the fair ones.
The big secret to balancing out games is to get it out of the way during character creation so that you don't have to spend the entire game precision-tailoring encounters to the "strengths" of characters that ultimately don't have any while simultaneously screwing one person over as much as possible. Rather, I'm going to balance out the game by actually balancing out the game, by making sure the mighty warrior is actually a mighty warrior within the confines of the rules, and that the mage's vast cosmic powers aren't so vast and so cosmic that they break the game and eclipse everyone else.
Once the game begins, the game should be balanced such that the DM can throw out a standard array of normal challenges without worrying that one person will be able to solve everything while another can scarcely contribute at all.
Sheesh, so play a wizard and don't play a fighter. Groups don't adventure on a blank battle mat. Everything is situationally dependent, and the game assumes at least a somewhat balanced party with the 4 food groups (meleer, arcane and divine casters, skill monkey). Fighters are going to get buffs from their caster buddies. If you're the DM and you're so concerned about the system being broke, houserule it. If you aren't the DM, play a wizard and bask in the glow of your uber leetness.
You are missing the point.
I don't want to utterly eclipse my friends. I also don't want to be hideously gimped. I don't want to have to pull my punches to keep from making my friends feel useless. I don't want to be pitied and get lavished with goodies and spells to the detriment of the team.
I want to be able to play the game to the fullest, to have my character contribute meaningfully and every other character doing the same without anyone having to shoot themselves in the foot at regular intervals. And that's why all of this is every bit as much a problem when I'm playing as when I DM.
And again, buffing the Fighter uses up valuable spell slots that could be put to better use actually winning fights. Plus, if the Fighter cannot do her job without the mages lavishing her with spells, then she cannot do her job under her own power. That's a Bad Thing.
Because having a frame work or rule allows consistant decisions over credablity.
I have played a lot of modern and science fiction roleplay games over the years. To me, arguments that magic is considerably more powerful in many ways than hitting people with bits of steel sound so like the 'guns are to powerful man, when people start shooting, every one dies' arguments that occationally pop up with games like CP2020. Well guess what, thats what happens when guns get envolved in fights. Frankly, when i am playing a game about men and woman trying to live free, with a gun in their hands, in the last days before governmental and corperate authocracy stamps out the last vestages of freedom, the fact that the rules reflect the laws of physics in a believeble manner matters more to me than any idea of 'game balance.'
Except you're forgetting that different games are advertised in different ways.
Case 1: A sci-fi western game in which guns reign supreme, this is explicitly stated, and the classes are Sharpshooter, Gunslinger, The Heavy, and Machinist who may only be mediocre at gunplay, but can significantly improve the other three classes' gear and might eventually get a tank or something.
In this game, guns reign supreme, guns are advertised as reigning supreme, and it's put on the box that guns are supposed to reign supreme. So, the heroes are all gun-centric as a matter of balance. That's fine. That's good. That's the game operating as advertised. Go forth and shoot people.
Case 2: A sci-fi western game in which guns reign supreme, but this fact isn't advertised. The game presents as equals the Gunslinger, who's ultimately the undisputed most powerful class in the game, the Medic, who's ultimately useless in the face of a gunslinger because guns kill things too fast, the Machinist, whose petty gizmos aren't very useful anyways, the Damsel class, whose only class ability is to get kidnapped, and the Town Drunk class whose only ability is a bonus to saves against alcohol poisoning.
That is a problem. Everyone is advertised as being of heroic-caliber and standing on equal ground, but they can't. The Gunslinger trumps them all, and if you have a Gunslinger alongside a Town Drunk, all the drunk can really do is sit there as supporting cast to the mighty Gunslinger.
Case 3: A sci-fi western game, again in which guns reign supreme, and again where you have the Gunslinger/Town Drunk mess, but this time, it's advertised more as a simulation and they openly admit that the Damsel class isn't going to be standing on equal ground with the Gunslinger.
This may make for a crappy game, but if it's just a representation tool you want, a simulation, it works well and as advertised.
If that game then released a supplement with the Martial Artist class that's presented as being so supernaturally good at martial arts that they can go toe-to-toe with the Gunslinger, but mechanically, they're not much better off against guns than the Damsel, you're back to the Case 2 problem of false advertising and failed design.
However, D&D is a Case 2, not Case 3. That you want magic to be the supreme almighty force doesn't change the fact that, as advertised, a level 20 Fighter is supposed to be able to stand as an equal of a level 20 mage by the advertised design of the game. They're both supposed to be heroic-caliber characters. They're both supposed to be powerful and viable, as the system claims them to be.
NPCs shouldn’t be allowed to come to the same conclusion you have that wizards are dangerous and fighter arn’t? A genius bad guy has to was effort on something he considers beneath his notice.
Personally I am more than willing to have villains target all members of a pesky adventuring party, for all sorts of reasons but when you claim that fighters are irrelevant, you should not be surprised if an NPC might share your view, rightly or wrongly.
The problem is that it shouldn't have to be that way. Yes, as things stand, the enemies would be better off ignoring the Fighter and focusing on the Wizard while the Fighter flails for piddly. But the problem is that the enemies may as well ignore the Fighter while she flails for piddly. That the Fighter is treated like the non-threat she is, and all attention is focused on taking down the mage.
|
|
Glitterdust = 10 ft spread will save negates.
Not even a mild threat...
Sleetstorm blocks all vision with in it including your own and has a pathetic 10 acrobatics check that anything can make...
Solid fog halves movement so omg the monsters have to make a full round move or pop off a gust of wind to get rid of it.
People with GMs that can't neuter these "tactics" aren't real GMs...
The Lamia's we fought had true sight, mirror image, haste, shield, Righteous might, heroism oh and thier newest counter freedom of movement, resist fire and bless.
I was amazed at thier lack of a couple fly spells.
We have fought pairs of evil clerics who deathwarded themselves. Necromancers who used plague zombies.
Enchanters whose charms and confusion damn near got us to kill each other.
Maybe its just when we GM we use so many varied different tactics for the monsters that preparing for a particular encounter to neuter our opponents is impossible...
Or to sound like an elitest jerk our games do not consist of
GM: You find a room full of 30 Orcs
Player1: I cast sleetstorm.
GM: The orcs fall down and can't seem to get up...
Player2: I cast fireball do 40 points of damage
GM: the orcs are dead...
Glitterdust = 10 ft spread will save negates.
Not even a mild threat...
I don't think you've played in a game where the wizard has Glitterdust.
Solid fog halves movement so omg the monsters have to make a full round move or pop off a gust of wind to get rid of it.
I don't think you've played in a game where the wizard uses Solid Fog.
Or Evard's. Or Tasha's. Or any number of other spells that allow the wizard to completely control and dominate the fight in a round.
Also, the idea that a monster just happens to be packing Gust of Wind is laughable.
People with GMs that can't neuter these "tactics" aren't real GMs...
That could be true, or you could just have no idea what you're talking about.
Glitterdust = 10 ft spread will save negates.
Not even a mild threat...Sleetstorm blocks all vision with in it including your own and has a pathetic 10 acrobatics check that anything can make...
Solid fog halves movement so omg the monsters have to make a full round move or pop off a gust of wind to get rid of it.
People with GMs that can't neuter these "tactics" aren't real GMs...
The Lamia's we fought had true sight, mirror image, haste, shield, Righteous might, heroism oh and thier newest counter freedom of movement, resist fire and bless.
I was amazed at thier lack of a couple fly spells.
We have fought pairs of evil clerics who deathwarded themselves. Necromancers who used plague zombies.
Enchanters whose charms and confusion damn near got us to kill each other.Maybe its just when we GM we use so many varied different tactics for the monsters that preparing for a particular encounter to neuter our opponents is impossible...
I think your missing the point of the pro mage advocacy group. Essentially the nastier the monsters are the more desperately you want a good mage in your corner.
If the encounter starts to boil down to the DM saying - "I nerf your attack and hit back for 150 points of damage", then only the mage likely has the tools to keep herself alive long enough to try a whole slew of different options looking for the weak point.
|
|
I think this is the crux of the Pro-4e power balance argument though. In both systems you want a balanced party, especially at earlier levels, but at higher and higher levels in 3.5 a Wizard is a required element. While a Wizard is often helpful in 4e, his role can be suplemented by one of the other controller classes fairly easily. I think the part that I like most about 4e is that the new structure of roles in the party (Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader) has shifted the emphasis away from balancing the party with specific classes and towards these general roles, making no one class actually required for play.In theory, anyway. In practice, there are strikers (most strikers and some controllers), bad strikers (the rest of the strikers, the rest of the controllers, pretty much all of the defenders), stunlockers (some controllers), and healers.
4e's class balance isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Also if you think about it;
Striker, Controller, Defender, Leader are now "classes" and under each you have many sub-classes (what we call classes). 4e says a balanced party has one of each "class".
S.