You meant 10 rounds of combat?  Because that's not what you said here:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.

For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.

combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells

combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell

combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario

combat 4 the MU is still not effective.  Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.

Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.  

the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells.  But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.

Considering it was quoted about a half dozen times, and you have the Wizard casting two spells in combat #1 (which, if you meant rounds, I find difficult to comprehend), I'd think that if you had meant rounds of combat you would have addressed it before now.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578031You meant 10 rounds of combat?  Because that's not what you said here:
.

Yeah, and in that conversation, it was 10 encounters.  But like I said, in the fighter v cleric scenario, it was 10 rounds.  Different conversations.


It's not that hard folks.

Quote from: Bill;577961Battle of Brindol rules!  I love the red hand of doom module!

Red Hand of Doom is really cool.

Quote from: jibbajibba;578030Hmm.... I prefer to go with averages than rolled HP for these examples ... with 15 Con the Cleric ought to get (4.5 x 7) + 7 = 38 HP

Like wise I can't see how a 16 Str Fighter (+0/+1) gets +4 +6 with a +2 Axe.
I can see single Spec giving +3/+5 2 attacks per round at 7th level.
I can see double Spec giving +5/+6 with 5/2 at 7th level.

Maybe I am just misrembering.
.

The HP really aren't that important in this context.  I can't recall who said it (I think Lord Mistborn) that said even after spells, a 2e cleric was still a comparable fighter to the fighter.  It's not even close.  Even if you throw in the complete books and give the cleric weapon spec, that would bring his THAC0 from 17 to 16, compared to the fighter's 10 or 11 (depending on how he's specc'd), and still would do less than half of the damage output.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578038The HP really aren't that important in this context.  I can't recall who said it (I think Lord Mistborn) that said even after spells, a 2e cleric was still a comparable fighter to the fighter.  It's not even close.  Even if you throw in the complete books and give the cleric weapon spec, that would bring his THAC0 from 17 to 16, compared to the fighter's 10 or 11 (depending on how he's specc'd), and still would do less than half of the damage output.

No he gets figther THACO as well so ... he is basically a figther with d8 HP and spells.

The suggested balance for this is to have 3 classes of Priests. Martial / Average/ Weak (roughly) . The midle ones get 1/3 THACO D8 HP and All armour they are the standard Cleric equiv. The weak guys get more spells d6 HP and 1/4 THACO . The tough ones get less spells or less Spheres d8 HP and 1/1 thaco and specialisation which means extra attacks. This only applied to his 'focus' weapon.

The odd thing of course is that it never occurs to them that if you make the Priest as good as the figther and fighting and only a little worse at casting spells, he may be roughly equal to the average combat priest but he is way better than the figther because he can fight like a fighter and cast spells.... in exchange for topping off at 16 CON, not having exceptional Strength and gettign D8 HP rather than D10. Since two are stat related at the top end they can statisitcally be pulled so it comes down to d10HP vs D8 HP and spell casting....

But like you say 2e is much better balanced than 1e or earlier

7th level characters aren't particularly germane to the conversation.  In 3.x the problems as advanced by the 'denners' are just becoming apparent at this level of play, and everyone has agreed (or at least has not argued against) the proposition that 3.x is the least balanced of the various editions.  In 3.x, it's pretty clear by 10th level, and exceedingly clear by 15th.  

In earlier versions of D&D, the issues are still apparent, but at higher levels of play.  I would say by 15th level it's very clear in 2ed.  Of course, others have recognized and admitted that the disparity exists - remember, it's a bug, not a feature.  Wizards are 'relatively weak' at low levels, so it's okay that they're really strong at high levels - because in the course of a campaign they're balanced (weaker at first, stronger later).  

That doesn't really work if the game starts at high levels, and it's not as fun for me, personally, as generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play.  

I don't understand why people would try to claim that Fighters are equal in power to Wizards at high levels, even in earlier editions of the game, and at the same time claim that it's okay that they're not even since wizards are weaker at the beginning.  

A lot of ink has been spilled describing an observation that was made by Gygax himself and reaffirmed by lots of observations from actual play in various editions of the game.  I don't understand why there are still people trying to claim with a straight face that Fighters aren't less powerful than Wizards at high levels.  The claim is pretty easily disproven.

Quote from: jibbajibba;578042No he gets figther THACO as well so ... he is basically a figther with d8 HP and spells.

They do?  I'll have to check.  I swear they "only" got weapon spec.  2e kits weren't all that balance altering, and usually only gave a +1 bonus and that was it to something.  Well, except Bladesingers They were more for flavor.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578045They do?  I'll have to check.  I swear they "only" got weapon spec.  2e kits weren't all that balance altering, and usually only gave a +1 bonus and that was it to something.  Well, except Bladesingers They were more for flavor.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall that.

I might be wrong.

The kits were fine but the class changes, specialist theives, Specialisation, martial Clerics, were pretty major changes.
I like them on the whole I limit Clerics through as I think they are ruinous. Most obvious when S&P kick ina nd they realise to replicate a 1e/2e cleric they need to give them 200 points compared to 10 for a fighter  

Quote from: jibbajibba;578047I might be worng.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think your numbers for spec/double spec weren't right.  I remember them as being (at first level if your DM let you drop your WP's into them) +1Hit +2Dmg 3/2Atk for spec and +3/+3 2/1 Atk for double.  And the Fighter's resident bonus attacks would put you at 3/1 Atk at 7th level.

But I dont have any books here and it's been years for me too, so maybe I'm off on that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578043In earlier versions of D&D, the issues are still apparent, but at higher levels of play.  I would say by 15th level it's very clear in 2ed.  Of course, others have recognized and admitted that the disparity exists - remember, it's a bug, not a feature.  Wizards are 'relatively weak' at low levels, so it's okay that they're really strong at high levels - because in the course of a campaign they're balanced (weaker at first, stronger later).

The issues may be apparent, but they aren't nearly as game-ruining as in 3.x. Fighters are not as effective damage-wise as MUs are very high levels, but they are not anywhere near totally useless in combat. This is especially true for people still playing TSR editions, chances are they are playing them because the LIKE the way the game works -- including most of the "scared cows" that people who don't like TSR D&D say need to be slain before they could even think about liking the game - like MUs that start out very weak at very low levels but end up being very strong at very high levels.

QuoteThat doesn't really work if the game starts at high levels, and it's not as fun for me, personally, as generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play.

Most people playing TSR D&D do not start the game at high levels and the way they play it can take years of weekly play to get to your 15th level mark. By the time the game gets to those levels (if it ever does), the focus of the campaign has likely shifted to domain management and adventures where PC group vs monsters combat is even less likely to be the best solution to most problems the party encounters. Therefore the problem is minimized and often not even noticed in play.

While you may prefer "generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play," TSR D&D has never really been about that. Those who still play TSR D&D generally like the way TSR D&D handles this, however, and -- like other "sacred cows"  do not want to see it changed to satisfy people who do not like it.

QuoteI don't understand why there are still people trying to claim with a straight face that Fighters aren't less powerful than Wizards at high levels.  The claim is pretty easily disproven.

It's only "easily disprovable" if you measure "power" mainly as combat damage. Combat damage/combat control isn't a very good measure of power for most TSR D&D campaigns that have worked up to very high levels through play. Political power in the game world, military power in the game world, etc. are often much more important in such campaigns than how much damage each character can spam per round in a party vs monsters encounter. So unless you clearly limit "power" to that in your statement about how fighters are less powerful than magic-users even in TSR D&D, people who actually play the games with characters that have worked up to those levels may disagree because they have a much broader view the power of high characters.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;578049Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think your numbers for spec/double spec weren't right.  I remember them as being (at first level if your DM let you drop your WP's into them) +1Hit +2Dmg 3/2Atk for spec and +3/+3 2/1 Atk for double.  And the Fighter's resident bonus attacks would put you at 3/1 Atk at 7th level.

But I dont have any books here and it's been years for me too, so maybe I'm off on that.

The specialisation rules override the base fighter attacks .

You don't get additional attacks for specialisation and for being a fighter.

Spec at 7th would get you +1/+2 and 2/1  (upto 7th its +1/+2 and 3/2)
Double Spec at 7th gets you +3/+3 and 5/2 (upto 7th its +3/+3 2/1)

So you are correct except you do not stack multiple attacks.

Its another reason Specialising Clerics is to me a step too far.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578013Lord Mistborn, with the cleric v fighter, I wasn't talking about 10 encounters.  I was talking about 10 rounds of combat.  Are you now going to say that that's too high?

Gah, I've been trying to respond to two points at once.

I just thought It was amusing that your hypothetical fighter's damage weighted against AC was less than Magic Missile damage because 3e magic missile is the exact same an noone uses it.

Let me go back to my main point. You claimed that partys are going to face 10 encounters before they rest in 2e. So what I did is see how much healing a party has access to per day. I found that if those encounters do more than 10 points to your hypothetical fighter then the fighter will be a corpse at the end of the day even if he gets all the cleric's healing. Given this observation I have to assume that these encounters are not a threat to the party. A game where in most encounter are the wizard sitting out while the fighter grinds on mobs, except in important encounters where the wizard novas off and reduces the monsters to quivering lumps of flesh.

Quote from: Bill;577986No one died, and the party managed to evacuate brindol except for one stubborn local man that refused to leave.

The party took a beating though, and fled!

We ran the through the battle about as intended and faced the General on the steps of the church. Over the course of the day we had completely run out of consumables and by the end of the battle I didn't have any spells over 1st level. So it was basically one of the most epic battles I've ever played in.

Edit

Quote from: RandallS;578058It's only "easily disprovable" if you measure "power" mainly as combat damage. Combat damage/combat control isn't a very good measure of power for most TSR D&D campaigns that have worked up to very high levels through play. Political power in the game world, military power in the game world, etc. are often much more important in such campaigns than how much damage each character can spam per round in a party vs monsters encounter. So unless you clearly limit "power" to that in your statement about how fighters are less powerful than magic-users even in TSR D&D, people who actually play the games with characters that have worked up to those levels may disagree because they have a much broader view the power of high characters.

Oh yeah are we going to do this because I think we're going to do this
Charm Person, All the Illusion spells, Clairvoyance, Animate Dead, Domination, Teleport, Stone Shape, Wall of Stone. These spells give you options out of combat that some chump with a sword will never have.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577932I also notice that you gave the Dwarf + 6 damage so I assume he has a +2 axe and +4  from Strength and Spec. that confused me a bit as he either has 18 Strength and you didn't give him exceptional Strength roll or he is double specialised (+3/+3) and you haven't given him enough attacks. I can't recall if Double Spec is in the Compelte Fighter though or if its core.

Has to be the former. By the way, PO:S&P terms "double specialized" Weapon Mastery. And no, it is in neither PHB core or Complete: Fighter. Further, you're (later on) right, Weapon Mastery does not give an increase to weapon attacks. However Weapon Spec moves you one step up on the #atk progression table.

The THAC0 answers the riddle. It's THAC0 14 at 7th lvl. To get 10 add +2 for the Axe+2. That's THAC0 12. THAC0 11 if Axe Weapon Spec (also +2 dmg), and 10 if STR of flat 18 (gives +1atk/+2dmg). Total comes to THAC0 10, 1d8+6, and 2/1 atks/rd.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577932Likewise the fighter's THACO of 10 which is +6 for level and +4, 2 from the axe and I guess, 1 Strength and 1 Spec  - this indicates single Specialation so I think you gave him 18 Strength but didn't give him the % roll.  
Also a footman's mace is 1d6+1 damage so a +2 is 1d6 +3

See, you already knew it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577932Up post you will also see how my example of how a Cleric in 2e and previous can easliy defeat a fighter in a "Thunderdome" using the Command spell for which a fighter under 5th level gets no save at all (assuming less than 13 Int which is reasonably safe bet).

PHB pg. 199.
Command
Range: 30 yds (aka: just 3 if outside)
Component: V
Duration: 1 round (aka: one minute)
Casting Time: 1
AoE: 1 Creature
Save: None (unless INT 13+ or HD/lvl 6+, then save v. spell, adj. for WIS)

A minute is nothing. The thunderdome is big. Besides, that's trading your action for nulling one of theirs that round -- that's a push. That and the range, unless indoors, is far too dangerous. Oh, and you have to win initiative to avoid being hit anyway for spell disruption.

Let's just say I disagree here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578013That also assumes that the MU memorized all of his 1st level spells on MM, which is probably not true because you keep arguing that the MM has stuff like sleep, color spray, enlarge, etc memorized in order to be better than the rest of the classes.

Would it be worthwhile to again request they come up with the spell load-out they are using to make all these claims?

Quote from: StormBringer;578201Would it be worthwhile to again request they come up with the spell load-out they are using to make all these claims?

All spells at all times!  Scrolls, wands and infinite magical items for sale in the multiverse!