Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585747Actually I was specifically arguing 2e here. Limited healing is not an issue in 3e.

Level 1-4 is a luck based mission anyway if you have combat at those levels people drop like flies and there isn't much you can do about it.

How much second edition have you played?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585747Level 1-4 is a luck based mission anyway if you have combat at those levels people drop like flies and there isn't much you can do about it.

I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first four levels wizards drop like flies. Fighters and clerics tend to do okay. If you play a wizard its pretty clear at first level everyone else can handle more combat than you. You have a single spell (unless you are a specialist) and d4 HP. You get do to your thing once and then you have to fall back on crappy attacks and HP. A fighter on the other hand can continue to do his thing until he runs out of HP. If there is a cleric with cure light wounds in the party, that can keep the fighter going even longer. It is one of the reasons I tend to play fighters in 2E, because they are reliable and consistent at early levels. They have a pretty good chance of making it through those first four levels. Wizards have a much lower chance of making it through alive . And during that time they can cast a handful of spells. I have never been in a group that rested because the first level wizard cast his magic missile for the day. Usually rests, if they are determined by resources and not the situation we are in, are governed more by HP totals than spells totals.

Quote from: StormBringer;585594"Nuh uh, you are!"

You must have taken the same formal logic classes as DDM.  You have certainly earned the high regard Lord Mistborn has for you.

Hey look, it can make empty and useless posts...

Oh wait, I'm not surprised. It's just more of the same dodging from the bad players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585622A person who happens to have memorized all the splat books and min/maxes their character with that knowledge to "win" as much as possible, and then say that people who made inferior classes (maybe they didn't memorize all the splat book loopholes, maybe they didn't want to play a wizard or psionist or paladin, whatever) is met with "Not my fault you're playing with a worthless character."

That player is a dick, and a blight to our hobby.  That was my point.  You don't win at D&D by being able to min/max your character better than the other players.

Someone that refuses to make an adventurer that can adventure, then tries to adventure anyways while knowing they cannot keep up is a dick. If you didn't tell them, then it might be on you, but otherwise play will go like this:

Worthless character dies in under a round.

Player gets mad.

"Hey, we tried to warn you. Not my fault you insisted on a worthless character."

Usually though, because I game with people that are not idiots they either realize right away that they should make adventurers that can adventure, or they realize it after it is pointed out to them once...

Because even the basket weavers want to succeed, they just don't want to work for it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585632*A phrase I recently heard that comes to mind in response to "you ran out of spell, what now?" was "We rest.  Whenever I need to, we rest, regardless of what the party is doing or wants.  If I'm winning all encounters for them, then they should rest whenever I need it."

Out of spells = out of resources. You fight one fight without resources, everyone dies.

On a side note, if you don't have any casters you are constantly in this state.

If you have many you have a ton of resources and can go do 6... 8... 10... fights, no problem.

In the scenario you assume, where Wizard carries bad party? Yeah, they'll shut up and rest, or they'll all die... and perhaps next time they won't rage about dirty optimizers and make characters that can actually help.

Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first two levels all characters of all classes drop like flies.

If this is 1st or 2nd edition, all characters of all levels die quickly and easily.

Fixed.

Also spell totals = HP totals, and any Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585726Hopefully the Fighter is doing something pretty awesome because otherwise his contribution is that the Cleric gets to summon fewer angles and see less of the future.

I don't know what game you are playing, but I have never seen a cleric summon a single angle in any edition.

Out of curiosity what types do you see summoned more often, the traditional right, or are obtuse, straight, and acute more common in actual play, and what exactly does the cleric do with them once summoned?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585759Fixed.

Also spell totals = HP totals, and any Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Have you even played or read either edition of AD&D?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585759.
 Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Whether it is magic missile, sleep, unseen servant or detect magic, the point is he gets one spell a day. What spells he has access to isn't entirely under his control. My last 1E wizard for example failed to know the spells i really wanted (despite a 17 intelligence) and magic missile ended up being one of his two best spells early on.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585761Have you even played or read either edition of AD&D?

Yup. I only stuck with it because I was too young to realize that suicide shuffling was bad design.

Counter question:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition. Is casting Haste:

A: A good idea.
B: A great idea.
C: An amazing idea.
D: A pants on head retarded idea.

Edit: Not the point. The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763Counter question:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition. Is casting Haste:

A: A good idea.
B: A great idea.
C: An amazing idea.
D: A pants on head retarded idea.
).

it depends on the situation, what you are dealing with and what spells you happen to have. If you are in combat and the double movement/attacks from non casters (or casters engaged in melee or ranged combat) it can be a big boost. The more multi-attack well equiped fighters you have around you the better the spell functions. The downside is you age the people (so it is better if they are demihumans).

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763Edit: Not the point. The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

That isnt relevant to my point, which was we don't stop to rest when the first level wizard casts his one spell (whatever spell that may be).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

Actually, yes. I think you're conflating 'across' a campaign (ie, considered as a whole) and 'throughout'. Consider the adventures of Charles the Chef and Bert the Plumber: it is clearly undesireable to have them face all culinary challenges, all the time. Bert will get bored and frustrated, and rightly so. Likewise, you wouldn't run a campaign about pipes, for the same reasons: Bert is good at everything, and Charles contributes best by standing back, out of the way. Finally though, if you ran a dozen pipe-based sessions, then moved to all culinary, all the time, that would still suck. You would still have only one character contributing; it's just that the misery would be spread around.

Similarly, when you say wizard and fighter are balanced, because their relative effectivnesses are about even when averaged over an entire campaign, that isn't helpful. Whether or not it's strictly true is a matter of semantics, but it doesn't say anything about how often one player (figuratively) goes and stands in the corner.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585767That isnt relevant to my point, which was we don't stop to rest when the first level wizard casts his one spell (whatever spell that may be).

If you are at first level, you're resting after every fight, spell or not because if you somehow luck out and handle one without anyone dying instantly you won't be able to take a second.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first four levels wizards drop like flies. Fighters and clerics tend to do okay. If you play a wizard its pretty clear at first level everyone else can handle more combat than you. You have a single spell (unless you are a specialist) and d4 HP. You get do to your thing once and then you have to fall back on crappy attacks and HP. A fighter on the other hand can continue to do his thing until he runs out of HP. If there is a cleric with cure light wounds in the party, that can keep the fighter going even longer. It is one of the reasons I tend to play fighters in 2E, because they are reliable and consistent at early levels. They have a pretty good chance of making it through those first four levels. Wizards have a much lower chance of making it through alive . And during that time they can cast a handful of spells. I have never been in a group that rested because the first level wizard cast his magic missile for the day. Usually rests, if they are determined by resources and not the situation we are in, are governed more by HP totals than spells totals.

but at low levels it doesn't take much 2 hits will finish a 1st level fighter most of the time.
So when you say the fighter can carry on doing his thing until he runs out of hit points that might only be another 3 rounds .... Not sure that extends all the way up to 4th level but a 4L fighter with a couple of crappy HD rolls, which is entirely possible, is far from the duracel bunny of combat monsters. And rather like a student grant once you spend those hit points they take an awful long time to come back on their own.

I think the point being made, albeit a little hamfistedly, is that at low levels its a all a bit of a turkey shoot. Your plan to ambush the 4 orcs might work really well but if that one of them gets off a shot and rolls a 20 then meh .. even the fighter is going to have a bad day.

But surely we are not having That Debate again are we ?

Quote from: fectin;585768Actually, yes. I think your conflating 'across' a campaign (ie, considered as a whole) and 'throughout'. Consider the adventures of Charles the Chef and Bert the Plumber: it is clearly undesireable to have them face all culinary challenges, all the time. Bert will get bored and frustrated, and rightly so. Likewise, you wouldn't run a campaign about pipes, for the same reasons: Bert is good at everything, and Charles contributes best by standing back, out of the way. Finally though, if you ran a dozen pipe-based sessions, then moved to all culinary, all the time, that would still suck. You would still have only one character contributing; it's just that the misery would be spread around.

Similarly, when you say wizard and fighter are balanced, because their relative effectivnesses are about even when averaged over an entire campaign, that isn't helpful. Whether or not it's strictly true is a matter of semantics, but it doesn't say anything about how often one player (figuratively) goes and stands in the corner.

I think it is fine if you think this sucks, but not everybody does. I have acknowledged there is a power disparity between wizards and fighters in AD&D (though it is overblown) with wizards being much weaker at earlier levels and more poweful at higher levels. Whether i am playing a wizard or a fighter I find this not only acceptable but highly enjoyable. I like that trade off in play. So for me it is fun to balance it over the campaign in this way. It also achieves the flavor I am after in D&D.

This one approach to game balance. We have had this discussion many, many times here. If yo uwant to see my opinions (such as the one i expressed here to you, or my balance solutions for people who dont accept balance over a campaign but want to retain the spellcaster and fighter flavor of AD&D, check out the wizard versus fighter thread---you will also see counterpoints to my arguments there as well).

But i am not going to waste my time restating my position on an issue we have debated to death in recent months.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585772but at low levels it doesn't take much 2 hits will finish a 1st level fighter most of the time.
So when you say the fighter can carry on doing his thing until he runs out of hit points that might only be another 3 rounds .... Not sure that extends all the way up to 4th level but a 4L fighter with a couple of crappy HD rolls, which is entirely possible, is far from the duracel bunny of combat monsters. And rather like a student grant once you spend those hit points they take an awful long time to come back on their own.
 ?

It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.