I don't much credit arguments along the lines of "Well, what if the spellcaster has used up all his spells?" because that generally means that the spellcaster used up all his spells solving problems. If the nonspellcasters had better problem solving toolboxes, he wouldn't have had to use his spells in the first place.
To compound matters further, when a wizard runs out of spells he falls back on skills (if we pretend he doesn't have a metric ton of scrolls anyway). That means that the wizard is just as likely to solve any problem as the fighter is unless the answer to the problem really is "kill it!" What's worse is that skills aren't even a class feature, everyone gets skills. They get varying amounts of points, sure, but ultimately anything you can do with a skill can be done by someone else with that same skill, regardless of class.
A more powerful effect is going to be more reliable for problem solving, because overkill is rarely an issue, and many problem-solving effects are resisted by (scaling) foes.
I'm totally agreeing with you as I cook my dinner with a plasma torch, it's way more reliable then a stove.
Dominate Monster is more reliable than Diplomacy because it is more powerful.
Unless your target is in a room full of people, or the situation calls for tact, or they are tougher then you, or they are immune to mind-affecting.
Overland Flight is more reliable than Climb because it is more powerful. Et cetera.
Overland flight can be dispelled, climb can't.
You're right that a spellcaster often won't have the spell to solve a certain problem. But, again, a non-spellcaster will never have the spell to solve a problem. Instead, (in most cases) they'll have a much smaller toolbox of problem-solving abilities, and there are few or no circumstances where they can easily supplement that small toolbox with additional abilities.
Are you really suggesting that there is no way for a rogue to supplement there thieving skills? Or a monk to become more maneuverable? And why would someone with stealth need to cast invisibility to sneak?
On any given day, a wizard has a larger set of problems he can solve than a rogue.
Unless you need someone to solve a series of the same problem, then the rogue will be far superior. One might even say more reliable.
In addition, if the party is confronted with a problem that neither the wizard nor the rogue can solve, the wizard may be able come back tomorrow with the tool to solve the problem, whereas the rogue rarely can.
In addition, if the party is confronted with a problem the caster has run out of spells to solve, the rogue may have the tool to solve the problem right now. One might even say the rogue is more reliable.
I don't much credit arguments along the lines of "Well, what if the spellcaster has used up all his spells?" because that generally means that the spellcaster used up all his spells solving problems. If the nonspellcasters had better problem solving toolboxes, he wouldn't have had to use his spells in the first place.
Reliability doesn't have anything to do with better, it has to do with being repeatable and reliable.
To compound matters further, when a wizard runs out of spells he falls back on skills (if we pretend he doesn't have a metric ton of scrolls anyway). That means that the wizard is just as likely to solve any problem as the fighter is unless the answer to the problem really is "kill it!" What's worse is that skills aren't even a class feature, everyone gets skills. They get varying amounts of points, sure, but ultimately anything you can do with a skill can be done by someone else with that same skill, regardless of class.
Disarm a magic trap? Move at normal speed while tracking. Hide in plain sight. Take 10 in combat. Reroll a failed knowledge check.
Disarm a magic trap?
-suggestion- Hey fighter, go stand over there. Also dispell magic, stone shape, summoned Thoquas to burrow around the trap, summoned anything to set the trap off..
Move at normal speed while tracking.
-Turn into anything with scent.
Hide in plain sight.
-invisibility
Take 10 in combat.
-if you can't kill it on a 1 you're doing something wrong.
Reroll a failed knowledge check.
-summons in intelligent critter "Hey! don't worry, this isn't a combat assignment, but could you tell me if this rash is fatal or not?"
To compound matters further, when a wizard runs out of spells he falls back on skills
-suggestion- Hey fighter, go stand over there. Also dispell magic, stone shape, summoned Thoquas to burrow around the trap, summoned anything to set the trap off..
-Turn into anything with scent.
-invisibility
-if you can't kill it on a 1 you're doing something wrong.
-summons in intelligent critter "Hey! don't worry, this isn't a combat assignment, but could you tell me if this rash is fatal or not?"
Try and pay attention. The claim was everyone has skills, they don't make anyone special, to which I replied some classes can do special things with skills, and then you replied "Spells R Cool" which was a bit of a non sequitur.
Disarm a magic trap?
You require a class feature to do so. Class features that modify skills are not gained from skills. Fighters lack skill modifying abilities.
Move at normal speed while tracking.
There are a lot of high level creatures that cannot be tracked in any reasonable manner. They fly or teleport or travel between multiple worlds or have pass without trace or whatever. Divinations ARE how you find people at high level. If the wizards out of spells your likely out of luck. But lets say for some reason you had to track someone over land. Even than, many times it is faster and safer to just wait a day and cast a spell.
Hide in plain sight.
That's not a skill. That is a class feature that modifies a skill and gives the rogue an edge, albeit a minor one. If a caster and a rogue both want to sneak it isn't the skill points that is giving the rogue the edge. It is miscellaneous bonuses and class features. Again, the fighter is particularly lacking in skill modifying class features.
Take 10 in combat.
At level 20? Do you even care about taking 10 at level 20? Or even level 15? Or ever actually? Usually if you're good at a skill you will succeed whether or not you take 10. Of course, skills don't grant you the ability to take 10 either. This is an ability you have that modifies a skill. So again you haven't discredited my position any.
Reroll a failed knowledge check.
Also not an ability granted by skills.
My point still stand on solid ground. Skills don't say anything about you're fighter.
EDIT: May have unintentionally been rude. Altered to remove the snark.
Try and pay attention. The claim was everyone has skills, they don't make anyone special, to which I replied some classes can do special things with skills, and then you replied "Spells R Cool" which was a bit of a non sequitur.
Your admonishment (and snark) are badly misplaced. He isn't saying "Spells R Cool" just to be saying it -- he's pointing out how spells allow the caster to duplicate all of the supposedly unique things that other classes can do with skills.
That's a fair description of the consequences of JaronK's tier list, but not quite its intent. I mentioned before that breadth of ability, reliability, and invulnerability to mishap are the three factors of class balance; JaronK's essay places relatively little weight on invulnerability.
Wouldn't someone having an ability to do something be more reliable then a spell caster possibly having a spell? If a Commmoner has profession(ditch digger) he will more reliably be able to dig a hole then a caster who needs to have Expeditious Excavation 'readied'.
The tier system doesn't take invulnerability or reliability into account, just each classes potential in a vacuum.
The caster can probably charm or dominate someone to dig the ditch for him. <---An example of using a spell to fill another purpose that I mentioned earlier.
There is also planar binding or planar ally. I am sure some big outside can dig faster than a commoner.
Reliability doesn't have to do with power though, use another word. And the chance of a caster not having a spell is often times greater then the chance of failure of someone who simply possesses the ability to achieve a desired result.......
You're right that a spellcaster often won't have the spell to solve a certain problem. But, again, a non-spellcaster will never have the spell to solve a problem. Instead, (in most cases) they'll have a much smaller toolbox of problem-solving abilities, and there are few or no circumstances where they can easily supplement that small toolbox with additional abilities.
On any given day, a wizard has a larger set of problems he can solve than a rogue. In addition, if the party is confronted with a problem that neither the wizard nor the rogue can solve, the wizard may be able come back tomorrow with the tool to solve the problem, whereas the rogue rarely can.
I don't much credit arguments along the lines of "Well, what if the spellcaster has used up all his spells?" because that generally means that the spellcaster used up all his spells solving problems. If the nonspellcasters had better problem solving toolboxes, he wouldn't have had to use his spells in the first place.
Listed
But if the spellcaster has used up all his spells applicable to a situation solving other problems, he's now dead weight.
Arguing that casters get skills is a non-point. The skills casters invest in are knowledges, magic centered, with one or two utilarian skills. They have little to no effect on the adventuring paradigm unless you're making a really skewed build for lack of a skill monkey. And in those skills that are 'adventuring skills', almost any class will do them better then a wizard. Wizards do NOT win opposed rolls against just about anything.
And a very specific situation is that if a wizard is out of combat-usable spells, he's a complete dead weight with crappy AC, low hit points, and unable to hit anything. Again, total dead weight. That's a severe problem...the exact obverse of the fighter who can't fight, except the fighter can still be a meat shield, and the caster would just be a speed bump.
Both instances are glossed over because of situations wizards can shine in. Tiering does NOT take such things into account. Furthermore, Tiering is inherently biased towards higher level spellcasters with access to more spells, because low level spellcasters not only lack flexibility, they lack magical staying power and almost HAVE to have the 15 minute work day.
The uberness of spellcasters simply doesn't exist in normal play in a balanced campaign. There's too many situations that can happen, and the casters can't be ready for all of them...and eventually, they run out. But nobody plays them running out.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Above low levels, I have never run out of spells, scrolls, and wands before. Ever. Never mind a 15-minute day; we ran the entire "Kings of the Rift" adventure in AoW without resting -- dozens of encounters -- and the wizard was still useful in and out of combat.
On the flip side, I've seen fighters run out of hp and healing -- barring a personal healbot to follow them around and keep them useful.
But if the spellcaster has used up all his spells applicable to a situation solving other problems, he's now dead weight.
Arguing that casters get skills is a non-point. The skills casters invest in are knowledges, magic centered, with one or two utilarian skills. They have little to no effect on the adventuring paradigm unless you're making a really skewed build for lack of a skill monkey. And in those skills that are 'adventuring skills', almost any class will do them better then a wizard. Wizards do NOT win opposed rolls against just about anything.
And a very specific situation is that if a wizard is out of combat-usable spells, he's a complete dead weight with crappy AC, low hit points, and unable to hit anything. Again, total dead weight. That's a severe problem...the exact obverse of the fighter who can't fight, except the fighter can still be a meat shield, and the caster would just be a speed bump.
Both instances are glossed over because of situations wizards can shine in. Tiering does NOT take such things into account. Furthermore, Tiering is inherently biased towards higher level spellcasters with access to more spells, because low level spellcasters not only lack flexibility, they lack magical staying power and almost HAVE to have the 15 minute work day.
The uberness of spellcasters simply doesn't exist in normal play in a balanced campaign. There's too many situations that can happen, and the casters can't be ready for all of them...and eventually, they run out. But nobody plays them running out.
==Aelryinth
How common is it for a caster to run out of spells after 7th level? I have seen entire campaigns played without that happening. I have yet to see a campaign where the casters were twiddling their thumbs while the non caster had a solution. Even if the spell is not prepared he has scrolls.
I find it really darn humorous that people talk about all these limited resources that the spell-casters apparently have, and then talk like the Fighter or other classes don't have some limited resources. Fighter? Ever hear of a thing called Hit Points? Yeah, wanna know how the Fighter doesn't run out of that resource? Spellcasters, either directly or via magic items like potions and wands which they have to make.
How about Paladins? They can heal themselves right? They don't kill as well as fighters unless its in a specific situation, and even they have limited smites, limited LoHs, and limited spells.
Barbarians? Rage doesn't last forever.
Anyone seeing the point here? At low levels spellcasters rarely have something they can't do. I've seen a 1st level wizard save the party's bacon so many times, and spam Daze to slow damage when she didn't need to drop a "real spell" like colorspray. Meanwhile, the warriors were taking heavy damage as well. Several of the warriors were in critical HP levels after the first two combats. They were looking to heal and/or rest before the spellcaster was (even after the spellcaster had dropped about 8 enemies over 2 encounters with 2 spells).
Exactly who gets this idea that somehow spellcasters aren't able to keep up with noncasters, or this idea that somehow noncasters have some sort of supreme super endurance. If you've got a lot of encounters during the day and the spellcaster is wiped out in terms of usefulness, the warriors are either A) untouched because the spellcaster facilitated this longevity by neutering the opposition or enhancing the party, or B) brutally beaten on but still going because the spellcasters kept them going (clerics spending spells on healing for example), or C) are going to be beaten up and ready to take a break as well - especially without caster support (in a world of magic, that would be like going into a gunfight with unarmed martial arts. Even Bruce Lee wasn't crazy like that).
Because trust me, I've never seen an adventure in my 11+ years of playing 3E where the fighters somehow more longevity than the spellcasters unless those casters somehow gave it to them, because they suffer damage and battle fatigue through every encounter as well, and if they have gone through so many encounters that were so harsh as to wipe out a spellcaster's resources, then the fighter is likewise going to be on his last leg.
At level 1 Daze might be usable. At level 3? And if the fighters were not there to tank for the wizard, exactly how long would the wizard survive? Not long at all...whereas the fighters could still win without him, they just need to get healed. Remove the fighters from the equation and the wizard was toast and dead weight. Add them back in and the wizard can contribute...because the fighters are there.
As for hit points, there's tons of threads around about how to get cheap healing. A fighter can effectively have infinite access to hit points if he wants to spend money to do so. A wand of CLW is less then most potions he can buy.
Nor does a Barb need to rage in every fight. A Rage is a nice buff, but not mandatory in a fight. Plus, there's now feats and gear to earn back rage points you spend! Heh.
The wizard using a spell to solve a problem quickly doesn't replace the fact there were other, non-magical ways to solve it by other classes. But it does mean he used up some of his ammunition. Just because the wizard solved the problem doesn't mean he was the only one who could, but ignoring that fact makes a wizard glitter all the more.
If spellcasters have infinite scrolls, fighters have infinite healing potions. Don't play the resources game. If you've got tons of wands, the fighter can have a couple CLW wands, and healing should NEVER be an issue. At higher levels, an ioun stone or ring of regeneration is effectively a never-ending stream of hit points. Gear is not an argument, especially consumables. If your fighters needed a healbot, they should have spent some gold on healing. Bad play example, not a good example of class viability.
==Aelryinth
If spellcasters have infinite scrolls, fighters have infinite healing potions. Don't play the resources game. If you've got tons of wands, the fighter can have a couple CLW wands, and healing should NEVER be an issue. At higher levels, an ioun stone or ring of regeneration is effectively a never-ending stream of hit points. Gear is not an argument, especially consumables. If your fighters needed a healbot, they should have spent some gold on healing. Bad play example, not a good example of class viability.
==Aelryinth
O, rly? I mean, I didn't notice Fighters have class feature craft wands?
They don't? Where are you buying the infinite wands? The wizard can make his own infinite scrolls.
At level 1 Daze might be usable. At level 3? And if the fighters were not there to tank for the wizard, exactly how long would the wizard survive? Not long at all...whereas the fighters could still win without him, they just need to get healed. Remove the fighters from the equation and the wizard was toast and dead weight. Add them back in and the wizard can contribute...because the fighters are there.
The wizard casts daze BECAUSE the fighter's are there. That's what they do at low levels when they want to assist without bothering to expend any resources because the fighters are their to take out the trash. The wizard might be able to solo an encounter, but will probably die. Wanna know what would most likely happen if a Fighter soloed the encounter? Probably die. Even afterwords, do you think the Fighter is going to want to keep going out to solo encounters with 2/12 or so HP left? Heck no.
You're being inordinately unfair. You're basically saying "har har the fighter's got friends, the wizard doesn't har har". The wizard can keep contributing to the encounters, while the Fighters do as well. My point was is that it is unusual for the wizard to suddenly find themselves out of options or power and suddenly have to stop without the Fighters being out of power as well, because like you said, Fighters need to heal, and you know how you do that? Those pesky spellcasters everyone moans about, or by choking up a ton of cash to heal themselves, and a ton of cash to buff themselves, etc (and possibly a ton of cash and 2-3 feats if they plan to craft it themselves).
As for hit points, there's tons of threads around about how to get cheap healing. A fighter can effectively have infinite access to hit points if he wants to spend money to do so. A wand of CLW is less then most potions he can buy.
So the Fighter either invests in enough UMD that he can reliably heal up between encounters, hoping he doesn't roll a 1 and lose the ability to activate that wand for a day, or he passes the baton to the cleric, druid, ranger, or bard and has them do the healing for him since they don't have to make UMD checks. Good show, the Fighter is basically expending resources to make his resource go further. Meanwhile spellcasters have stuff like scrolls, wands (yeah spellcasters use those too, not just 'dem fighters), pearls, staffs, etc. Most of these the spellcasters can craft themselves at a discount.0
Nor does a Barb need to rage in every fight. A Rage is a nice buff, but not mandatory in a fight. Plus, there's now feats and gear to earn back rage points you spend! Heh.
Which is great because neither do spellcasters. You don't have to unload your guns in every fight. Fighting a strong single foe? 5th level wizard with a party vs the opponent? Use your 1st or 2nd level spells (you have a 3d4+3 magic missile at 150 ft at this level, or you could just cast enlarge person on that barbarian and let him kill everything while you stand behind him enjoying a total defense and soft cover while he murders everything). Got an encounter that the barbarian might wanna rage in? Well then you might want to drop a 3rd level spell and haste him and the rest of your party, multiplying the barbarian's killing potential and boosting his stats and speed as well.
Oh and we got feats which let spellcasters force two saves vs the same spell (that's almost like getting a second slot), and we have scrolls, wands, pearls, staffs, and all that other fun stuff that we mentioned before.
The wizard using a spell to solve a problem quickly doesn't replace the fact there were other, non-magical ways to solve it by other classes. But it does mean he used up some of his ammunition. Just because the wizard solved the problem doesn't mean he was the only one who could, but ignoring that fact makes a wizard glitter all the more.
Nope. But that doesn't make fighters somehow more versatile. The point others were making is the wizard might have the option. You got a rogue in your party who can open the lock? Awesome. You don't? Use Knock. You got a rogue in the party but this door needs to be opened RIGHT NOW because the party is fleeing from some sort of Indiana Jones trap or something? You whip out your scroll of knock, say Allo Hamora, and kick the door open because you needed to right then.
If spellcasters have infinite scrolls, fighters have infinite healing potions. Don't play the resources game. If you've got tons of wands, the fighter can have a couple CLW wands, and healing should NEVER be an issue. At higher levels, an ioun stone or ring of regeneration is effectively a never-ending stream of hit points. Gear is not an argument, especially consumables. If your fighters needed a healbot, they should have spent some gold on healing. Bad play example, not a good example of class viability.
Scrolls are half the price of healing potions. They can then be crafted for half of that price. Fighters cannot even invest feats to make potions, scrolls, or wands, so they have to all be invested in at market value, meaning less gold for other things. You're also being asinine, as no one suggested spellcasters have infinite scrolls. They suggested that smart casters keep scrolls around for if they really need them (see knock example above), and that's only for if they really need it right then (either they are out of spells from some heavy adventuring and have been ambushed or they needed an option they weren't prepared for).
Likewise, at higher levels, acquiring tons more spells isn't exactly difficult. Ioun stone regeneration is too slow to use in actual combat, and basically requires you to take long breaks between combat for it to be worthwhile, which limits its usefulness at being for those people who apparently don't need to rest.
I find it odd that you have to resort to extremes and strawmanning (no one said spellcasters had infinite anything), since most of your posts are rather good. Unfortunately this is not one of them. Spellcasters are no more limited in their resources than casters are if they are played intelligently. A wizard that doesn't drop a spell every round (or a powerful spell every round at high levels) isn't going to fret, just as a Fighter isn't going to fret because he decided to wear armor instead of fighting dragons naked and taking huge HP damage.
EDIT: A pearly white ioun stone restores 1 hp per 10 minutes or 6/hour. That means in 8 hours you get 48 hp. Now that's pretty awesome. However a 1st level orc can deal 10.5 damage per swing with an axe and it's CR 1/3. Are you seriously - seriously - going to suggest that that 48 hp over 8 hours is going to be enough to really increase your longevity to the point of being effective through more encounters?
Perhaps if you invested in a lot of those ioun stones at 20,000 gp a piece, and your GM says they can stack (I see no reason they shouldn't stack), so perhaps this constellation of HP regeneration has some potential merit. Hmmm, I shall think on this. With 10 of them (200,000 gp) you could regenerate 60 hp per hour or 480 hp every 8 hours. That's pretty cool (it's kind of like having a couple of heal spells once a day, only without the combat usefulness).
Are you two really gonna recapitulate the whole caster v. martial thing right here?
Every case you are making has been made before.
Some people just play that way. You know, the way you're arguing against for some reason. Both of you.
If you're a GM, you work toward the parameters where all of your players are having a good time. Contrary to some assertions, it can be achieved with the RAW, although the requirements are subtle.
If you're a player arguing here about class balance, please be quiet, pick the class you think is "best" and go play it.
I agree with the evil president.
The only time I've seen a castor make the rest of the party languish in irrelevance was when that player cheated. Does magic solve a lot of problems? Yes. Can it replicate class abilities and creatively be used to get by traps and other non combat encounters? Of course, no one is denying this.
However, even if Magic *is* able to do this, and even if it's able to do this better than more mundane methods, that doesn't discredit mundane methods of solving problems of still being potential options.
Holy crap are you two really gonna recapitulate the whole caster v. martial thing right here?
Every case you are making has been made before.
Some people just play that way. You know, the way you're arguing against for some reason. Both of you.
If you're a GM, you work toward the parameters where all of your players are having a good time. Contrary to some assertions, it can be achieved with the RAW, although the requirements are subtle.
If you're a player arguing here about class balance, please be quiet, pick the class you think it "best" and go play it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing about class balance. I'm discussing things based on a logical standpoint. To reiterate how this came about, someone was misrepresenting the tier system, and then I explained what the tier system represented, and then some noted that the tier system was somehow flawed because it was based on the 15 minute work day, which likewise is not accurate and has nothing to do with the tier system at all, whereas the overall cap of power and versatility is measured instead.
Someone - multiple people - incorrectly suggested that spellcasters apparently have some sort of exceptionally limited resource that runs out and can no longer contribute, while Fighter-types can go on much, much longer without pause, which is blatantly false (as warriors are just as limited by their resources as spellcasters) and have to resort to expending extra resources above and beyond their daily recharging resources to push through more encounters longer, while likewise not meeting the versatility that others were suggesting they had while trying to somehow discredit the tier system.
Please don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing X class is better than Y. I was arguing logical issues with the "fighter is the energizer bunny" and "wizard is a firecracker" type comments.
EDIT: Also, I wanted to add I love Fighters and I think that all the core classes are great in their own ways for their own things. :)
|
Does power creep into a gaming system? Invariably.
It's almost unavoidable in fact. New books come out that the players want the business needs for cash flow and everyone is happy.
The open play systems try to control the pier creep by banning those MUST have feats/spells/items or restricting(house ruling it some way where it will be usable when used in the neighborhood of 30K+ players.
Time passes. And New books will come.what does the company do when power creep has become " unmanageable". What does company do....of course there are multitudes of reasons companies come out with rule sets...this one possible explanation. I won't wax poetic on other reasons.
Release new rules and reset the power base for the power creep.
For 1st Ed it was1974ish to 1988-89
2ndEd 1988-89-2000
3rd was 2000-2003
3.5ed 2003-2008
Pathfinder 2008-?
Just play the game and have fun....otherwise play checker or something else that tickles your fancy. It's what Gary would've said. All this arguing is moot.
Lerch
For me, the test is "That ability used to be underpowered until splatbook X came along and fixed it". That's creep.
I'd suggest looking at it as "Is a character made from this book just with then a core character who fills the same role?" For example a half-drow knight was just flat out better then a half-elf ranger.
At low levels spellcasters rarely have something they can't do. I've seen a 1st level wizard save the party's bacon so many times, and spam Daze to slow damage when she didn't need to drop a "real spell" like colorspray.
I taught a GM to hate that spell a few weeks ago. I just spammed the boss and the party surrounded him and chopped him up. :)
At low levels spellcasters rarely have something they can't do. I've seen a 1st level wizard save the party's bacon so many times, and spam Daze to slow damage when she didn't need to drop a "real spell" like colorspray.I taught a GM to hate that spell a few weeks ago. I just spammed the boss and the party surrounded him and chopped him up. :)
Hahaha. Yeah, it's a wonderful spell. I was GMing an adventure where the party basically had to sneak into a fortress filled with orc berserkers and such, and try to take out their warlord. Problem is, their primary brutes are of course the orc berserkers who are incidentally CR 1/4 each (CR 1/3, -1 for having no gear other than greatclubs and slings and effectively naked), so they came up in groups of 4-12 at different points in the game. Now these guys are horrible if they can melee with you. Each had a stupid high strength and a 2 handed weapon, a low AC, and a lower (-3) Will save. The party was half terrified of these naked berserkers, until the mage began spamming Colorspray and knocking them down by the tons. After that, it let them mop up the rest and then coup de grace those who were unconscious. It was great. :P
On the subject of the 15-minute day.
Unfortunately, he missed four words that invalidate the rest of his essay: rope trick et al.
At low levels spellcasters rarely have something they can't do. I've seen a 1st level wizard save the party's bacon so many times, and spam Daze to slow damage when she didn't need to drop a "real spell" like colorspray.I taught a GM to hate that spell a few weeks ago. I just spammed the boss and the party surrounded him and chopped him up. :)
Not to be Mr. Unfun, but you may have missed the part of Daze where you can't spam a boss with it; after a target has been affected by it, they are immune to it for a minute.
Its still decent for bouncing around multiple targets in an encounter, but not so much for locking down any one thing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
IMHO, the 15-minute workday is a result of lazy, uncreative GMing. Once in a while, it's okay to let the caster go nova and call it a day*, but you have a responsibility to the non-casters to build an adventure that stretches out a bit, so that they serve a purpose.
*just as once in a while, it's okay to steal a spellbook or have marathon encounters until the wizard is tapped out. All of these things should happen at least once in a campaign, but the majority of encounters shouldn't thwart the PCs like that. The majority should be encounter sites with timers that force the casters to think about spell use, but ultimately prevail.
You can disregard this and run the game however you want, but if you want to play with the RAW and see it work, this is mandatory.
Tangent
We ran through a mid to high level encounter once, where the party was Fighter, Cleric, Battle Sorcerer (me), Rogue. The mooks kept coming (Mook = Hill Giant and up) The fighter had been optimized for damage, using Goodman Game's improved enlarge person and some other tricks, and was dropping mooks in one or two rounds, the cleric and I were both running low on spells (3.x so channelling wasn't an option for healing). Finally having only 5th level spells left (just hit 10th level, so I was short on variety) I said 'frak it' and used Draconic Polymorph to do a mountain troll and stood on the front lines. I couldn't keep up with the fighter with direct damage, and was out of tricks elsewise. It was one of the most draining and exciting combats we had in 3.x, and that the fighter could 'keep going' is what saved the day.
Rope trick is one reason I'm considering enforcing a 'one set of spell slots per 24 hours' rule.
That's a good start (although the PCs could still nova, then use their last spell -- an insta-rest like rope trick, magnificent mansion, etc. -- to get a good night's sleep and regain spells).
Forced timelines work once in a while, but that gimmick gets old and seems really forced if you overuse it -- and at higher levels there's no real reason why the party can't plane shift to someplace with fast time, rest for a day, and then return to find that only a few minutes have gone by.
You can also use the "adventure takes place on a demiplane barred from extraplanar travel" thing once or twice, but again, using the same gimmick too many times is obvious and annoying.
That's the problem with world-altering spells: they all have counters, but if you overuse any one counter, your game suffers badly for it. And there are a finite number of ways to thwart each spell before it becomes obvious you're trying to say, "look, etherealness, magnificent mansion, rope trick, plane shift, wind walk are all banned," without actually coming out and saying it.
|
That's a good start (although the PCs could still nova, then use their last spell -- an insta-rest like rope trick, magnificent mansion, etc. -- to get a good night's sleep and regain spells).
I don't think you understand. I mean you have to wait 24 hours from the time you last regained spell slots before they renew. Not after 8 hours sleep.
Also, not going to allow 'alternate time planes' either.
Someone - multiple people - incorrectly suggested that spellcasters apparently have some sort of exceptionally limited resource that runs out and can no longer contribute, while Fighter-types can go on much, much longer without pause, which is blatantly false (as warriors are just as limited by their resources as spellcasters) and have to resort to expending extra resources above and beyond their daily recharging resources to push through more encounters longer, while likewise not meeting the versatility that others were suggesting they had while trying to somehow discredit the tier system.
I think I was one of those making the assertion? In any case, I wasn't attempting to discredit the tier system. Overzealous advocates of tiers tend to do that without my help. ;) I actually have full faith in tiers, but I think I view them and use them differently than most.
Casters don't run dry completely like that, it's true. They do lose their ability (over many encounters) to fill the niches of other PCs. Only the higher level spells count for replacing a fighter outright in a situation that really calls for direct damage, for instance.
Ideally, a full caster in the party is taking the long view about the endgame encounter and the reactive NPC BBEG. This encourages them to let the "help" solve problems as much as possible, so that they will retain their best spells to counter the enemy's best spells.
It takes a little GM-player training to get the game working like this. Once the full-caster realizes he can win any encounter but lose the adventure by solving problems he could leave to mere mortals, the game hits a kind of sweet spot. The caster player feels like Gandalf, holding back to deal with the really staggering evil later on. The rest of the party feels useful.
I'm sure that what I'm saying will fall apart in the face of a group really determined to break the game, or worse yet, determined to prove the game is somehow broken. I say pifflesnort. For 90% of groups (total bs that statistic) times, reactive NPCs, and appropriate sequential encounter length will make the RAW play just fine.
Please don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing X class is better than Y. I was arguing logical issues with the "fighter is the energizer bunny" and "wizard is a firecracker" type comments.
I hear you loud and clear. It may be tactful to acknowledge that a caster who chews through his top three levels of spells is downgraded somehwhat. He is not hobbled. You are right, martials lose resources too. The reality is somewhere in the middle of the two arguments, IMO.
The method I suggest is that over the course of a series of encounters, it is wise to leave the biggest spells in reserve for the biggest enemies. This tends to make things more enjoyable for everyone, and this is the thing that breaks (hard) if you let casters control the resting schedule without consequence.
But here we are... caster-martial disparity. Some old gems never really die, do they?
I don't think you understand. I mean you have to wait 24 hours from the time you last regained spell slots before they renew. Not after 8 hours sleep.
An Extended rope trick by a 12th level guy lasts 24 hours, so you put off the problem, but don't eliminate it. And magnificent mansion lasts 2 hours/level right out of the box.
Which means you're back to forced timetables and/or "no plane shifting" caveats that prevent rest, which means your campaign will end soon, because those sorts of gimmicks get stale very quickly.
The other alternative is to play using Evil Lincoln's method, where by agreement the casters just don't use those spells. That can work, but when you come right down to it, it's the same as outright banning the offending spells.
|
|
An Extended rope trick by a 12th level guy lasts 24 hours, so you put off the problem, but don't eliminate it.
Into the level range where things are already breaking down left and right, and that you yourself have said you don't like to play in. ;)
Banning spells is also an option I've been considering, along with making every preparation caster a spontaneous one.
Tangent
** spoiler omitted **
Counterpoint: Sometimes it is the caster who can keep going when the martial is spent.
A good campaign has enough variation that all of these permutations occur, some of the time. As I said above, sometimes the wizard gets his books destroyed. Sometimes there is no chance to rest for days... weeks even, depending on the scenario. Sometimes, the caster really does control the rest schedule (through superior planning and intelligence I would hope) and can really nail the opposition with a scry-n-die.
The problem comes when a GM sees a pattern evolving, or a prevailing attitude amongst the players that there is "one way" to deal with every problem. The world shouldn't conspire to f--- the players, it's true; NPCs should conspire to f--- the players, though.
If you have an indulgent, repetitive GM, it becomes very easy to see the game as broken and lopsided in favor of whichever class has the "winning tactic". In truth, the game has so many hooks for balance that a GM should use some percentage of the time (but not all the time), that it shouldn't end up that way.
Sorry for the threadjacking and the rant. For some reason, I want to talk caster-martial disparity this morning. Weird. I'm gonna res that thread, meet me there if you don't value your sanity.
Into the level range where things are already breaking down left and right, and that you yourself have said you don't like to play in. ;)
And now you know a lot of the reason why! PCs get magnificent mansion and plane shift starting at 9th level, which means the clock is ticking for that campaign. Unless they agree not to use those spells (aka they're banned), then you can only prevent nova casters by a finite number of limited-use gimmicks. After that, it's time to start over.
In 1e, dungeons like Tomb of Horrors (for 10th to 14th level PCs), were "high level." I agree. After 14th or so, when you've used the obvious things like timelines and no-plane-shift zones enough times, then the game becomes Ars Magica unless you start preventing the use of a broad swath of the higher-level spells.
Your comment about 24 hours to regain spells got me thinking, TOZ. What if higher-level spells took even longer? So that even generous timelines get overrun if you wait for high-level spells. Something like (spell level x 6 hours) before you can regain that slot. It doesn't cure the problem, but it gives you a bit more wiggle room.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to summarize:
No. Ultimate combat doesn't inspire a lot of creep.
It gives a lot of options. And maybe some are slightly better than current options, but only at specific things. And taking those options involves giving up other options that make you better at other specific things.
Monks got way better, but I'm not sure that's 'creep' at all, because Monks, while technically playable, were probably underpowered.
NO FIGHTERS ARE OP AND THIS BOOK MADE THEM OP-ER
NO FIGHTERS SUCK, WIZARDS ARE OP
NUH UH
YUH HUH
NUH UH
YUH HUH
Guys, we're talking about ultimate combat.
SHUT UP, WIZARDS VS FIGHTERS.
...That about right?
...That about right?
On the money.
|
|
Your comment about 24 hours to regain spells got me thinking, TOZ. What if higher-level spells took even longer? So that even generous timelines get overrun if you wait for high-level spells. Something like (spell level x 6 hours) before you can regain that slot. It doesn't cure the problem, but it gives you a bit more wiggle room.
Something like UA recharge times. You're right, it wouldn't fix anything, but it would push the problem even further up the level scale.
Of course, you could just change the offending spells to rituals that take days to cast.
If spellcasters have infinite scrolls, fighters have infinite healing potions. Don't play the resources game. If you've got tons of wands, the fighter can have a couple CLW wands, and healing should NEVER be an issue. At higher levels, an ioun stone or ring of regeneration is effectively a never-ending stream of hit points. Gear is not an argument, especially consumables. If your fighters needed a healbot, they should have spent some gold on healing. Bad play example, not a good example of class viability.
==Aelryinth
O, rly? I mean, I didn't notice Fighters have class feature craft wands?
They don't? Where are you buying the infinite wands? The wizard can make his own infinite scrolls.
No, he can't. He's restricted by available gold. Just like the fighter. And only the very poorest establishments will not have wands of CLW for sale. You can make one in a day. Cheap and easy to come by.
The point being that Fighters have only ONE resource that needs to be managed, and its very, very easy to manage with a little forethought. It seems to be 'expert casters thinking ahead' and 'dumb fighter hit bad guy, duh' as far as I can see, from the examples posted.
Regeneration: I mentioned Ioun Stones, they are a low level cure for healing over time. At high levels, you get the Ring, which is 1 hp/rd now. That's 600 hp/hour. That pretty much takes care of healing if you've got 10-20 minutes between encounters. Or you invest in UMD and use a wand, or grab a level of ranger.
If that door is closed and you need it open now, the fighter can also sunder it, kick through the remnants of it, and he doesn't burn the scroll, or need the scroll.
====
I've always wondered...where do you find a plane with reliable fast time, that isn't variable time, that is also perfectly safe to Plane Shift to? The only one that comes to mind is the Deep Ethereal, and that's anything but safe.
Is Magnificent Mansion not dispellable? Can you not block the way out? If a tactic is common then anyone who is anyone will know about it and seen it before...simple tactics should not work. Rope Trick especially.
Potential versatility is not complete versatility. It's potential. And it only dominates when you cater to it. as others noted, mages should shine at times, and suck at others, just like every other class.
===Aelryinth
SHUT UP, WIZARDS VS FIGHTERS.
...That about right?
Hey, I tried to start a spinoff.
Nobody taking the bait...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Tangent
** spoiler omitted **Counterpoint: Sometimes it is the caster who can keep going when the martial is spent.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to counterpoint, thus the tangent comment.
I'm just saying that it was a very thrilling, nail biting moment, and a moment when the martial character shined.
There were other times when I was the party killer (Form of the red dragon, shared between me and my familiar = two full attack routines on one target, another time the BBEG taken down by shivering touch afterwhich I asked the GM to let me swap the spell because it was too good). And there were times when deliverance came from a surprising source (encounter with a many eyed piece of WotC IP came to and end when my pseudodragon familiar, in round one, charged, stung, and the thing failed it's save. Picture a little dragon doing the cabbage patch on top of it's sleeping form.)
The variety is key, like you said. I was just giving an example. ;-)
Aside the second on 'sprinting' characters: When I play psions, I usually divide their points by 5. Gives me four encounters/day plus a spare 'budget' to work in.
Hey, I tried to start a spinoff.
Nobody taking the bait...
Seriously, though, the only thing missing in this thread derail here is good ol' CoDzilla.
What ever happened to him?
So to summarize:
No. Ultimate combat doesn't inspire a lot of creep.
It gives a lot of options. And maybe some are slightly better than current options, but only at specific things. And taking those options involves giving up other options that make you better at other specific things.
Monks got way better, but I'm not sure that's 'creep' at all, because Monks, while technically playable, were probably underpowered.
NO FIGHTERS ARE OP AND THIS BOOK MADE THEM OP-ER
NO FIGHTERS SUCK, WIZARDS ARE OP
NUH UH
YUH HUH
NUH UH
YUH HUH
Guys, we're talking about ultimate combat.
SHUT UP, WIZARDS VS FIGHTERS....That about right?
Ultimate Combat: pitting Wizards against Fighters!