Quote from: robiswrong;761622Depends on how you read the "Charm" spell.  I've always interpreted it as "you think you're friends now."  That doesn't mean that your new friend will start murdering his old friends.  It just ticks the reaction meter over to friendly.

And it's usually reasonable that your 'new friend' will help you deal with some 'problems' if they're not his existing friends.  But that's just one way a 'Fighter Replacement' might be on the table.  I haven't looked at the spell list, but in other versions of the game, besides charm and dominate, there were also things like summon monster.  If the monsters available to you for summoning are SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than your Fighter buddy of the same level...there is no role protection for Fighters.  

Quote from: robiswrong;761622The Fighter's real strength is that they can continue operating at a constant level of effectiveness all day.  Wizards and Clerics can operate at a heightened level of effectiveness, but not constantly.

Patently false.  A Fighter requires hit points to continue functioning.  Unless you're positing that a Fighter's 'job' is not to be on the front line, then there is a fixed number of hits that he can absorb before he ceases to be functional.  Now, the books aren't around yet, but let's assume a 2nd level Fighter has 20 hit points...  And we know that an Ogre is hitting for 2d8+4 with a +6 bonus.  Let's be generous and assume an AC of 18 for the Fighter (or if someone has more reasonable numbers, let's use those).

The ogre would hit 40% of the time, dealing on average 13 points of damage.  If the fight lasts more than 2 rounds, there is a better than even chance that the Fighter is reduced to 'half efficiency' for the rest of the 'day'.  

Without the ability to 'shrug off' or recover 'minor damage', a Fighter does not have any more ability to 'operate at a constant level of effectiveness all day'.  

Quote from: jadrax;761628Also, to be nitpicky, I am pretty sure Ogre's don't count as Humanoids, they are Giants. So you would need Dominate Monster, which is a level 8 spell.

If Ogres aren't subject to charm person (and I'll be reading that link in a moment - thanks!) they're still subject to charm monster.  I'd be surprised if Next doesn't have it, so no, you don't need dominate monster.  Of course, if you DO have it, then any arguments over whether a monster will fight on your side are moot.  You're just kicking the can up the road - you're saying at some point, when a wizard can reliably dominate monsters that are equal or more powerful than a Fighter of his level, a 'Fighter Replacement' can be brought to bear making the Fighter functionally redundant.  

And again, that's just ONE POTENTIAL area of spell effect.  Summoning and calling spells are ANOTHER.  Potentially, animate dead and similar spells are another.  'Pets', in whatever form they come in, are potentially able to fulfill the role of the 'Fighter', which indicates a lack of 'role protection' that other classes enjoy.  

Quote from: mcbobbo;761643So...  95 does not equal 100, that is true.  But 95% of the time is far from 'never'.

I'm away from my books, but some encounters are supposed to be 'totally easy', some are 'minor challenges', some are 'standard challenges', some are 'moderately difficult' and some are 'overwhelming'.  Overall, the percentage adds up to 100%, so, no, 95% of them are not 'balanced'.  If you care for the exact breakdown, I'll try to pull it tonight.  

As far as published modules, most of them have the potential for overwhelming combat - alerting all of the enemies or being attacked from multiple directions can make things very difficult very quickly.  Most of them assume you can avoid or escape from an overwhelming encounter, because if you can't, well, the module won't go very far.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761678Patently false.  A Fighter requires hit points to continue functioning. .

No it's not, unless you're being disingenuous and factoring hit points to a fighter but not the mage.  His statement was under the assumption that every class would have at least some HP remaining.  If you consider HP, it gets even worse for the mage.  One good hit and the mage goes down, regardless of how many spells he or she may still have left.

His point was that the fighter can keep doing his damage every round, every combat, or an indefinite amount of time.  Spell casters cannot.  They run out of spells and durations.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761679No it's not, unless you're being disingenuous and factoring hit points to a fighter but not the mage.  His statement was under the assumption that every class would have at least some HP remaining.  If you consider HP, it gets even worse for the mage.  One good hit and the mage goes down, regardless of how many spells he or she may still have left.

His point was that the fighter can keep doing his damage every round, every combat, or an indefinite amount of time.  Spell casters cannot.  They run out of spells and durations.

If the Fighter's 'job' is to stand up next to the guy with the big sword and the wizard's 'job' is to stand in the back and 'not get hit' then you can absolutely point out that a Fighter has a limited resource that limits how long they can remain effective.  

Further, if we assume that at least SOME OF THE TIME you can retreat and recover, the Wizard will have their full complement of spells the next day, but a Fighter (in any previous edition) would not recover to full hit points without magical aid.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761680If the Fighter's 'job' is to stand up next to the guy with the big sword and the wizard's 'job' is to stand in the back and 'not get hit' then you can absolutely point out that a Fighter has a limited resource that limits how long they can remain effective.  

Further, if we assume that at least SOME OF THE TIME you can retreat and recover, the Wizard will have their full complement of spells the next day, but a Fighter (in any previous edition) would not recover to full hit points without magical aid.

Again, you're applying different standards.  For one, who says the monsters can only attack the fighter?  Or why are you assuming the fighter is the only one who is at risk for hp loss?  Most intelligent opponents I've ever played with target the wizard first.  Heck, they don't even need to kill the wizard.  Just interrupt the spell.

Secondly, you're assuming that wizards and just go rest for a full night whenever they want.  I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but if that's happening that's a player problem, not a game design problem because any DM worth a shit is going to play the game world intelligently, and not pause it every time the wizard wants to rest up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761685Again, you're applying different standards.  For one, who says the monsters can only attack the fighter?  Or why are you assuming the fighter is the only one who is at risk for hp loss?  Most intelligent opponents I've ever played with target the wizard first.  Heck, they don't even need to kill the wizard.  Just interrupt the spell.

Secondly, you're assuming that wizards and just go rest for a full night whenever they want.  I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but if that's happening that's a player problem, not a game design problem because any DM worth a shit is going to play the game world intelligently, and not pause it every time the wizard wants to rest up.

I'm not applying different standards.  I haven't assumed that Wizards can cast 'all day long' or that they will 'always have the right spell'.  I have pointed out that if a 'Fighter Replacement' is available to the Wizard (as it has been in all previous editions), then the Fighter can be replaced.  

Having Fighters is good if you're a wizard.  They're good because they can stand in between you and your opponents and make sure you stay safe while you take care of the problems.  And if you get to the point of having 'fighter replacements' they're still useful as a backup.  You can 'use up' your disposable minions and you still have a resource to rely on.  But it can also quickly become 'the wizard show'.  

This is made much more abundantly clear when the area of conflict isn't 'kill this monster'.  IF wizards can particpate nearly as well or better than a Fighter in 'combat' (the area that the Fighter is supposed to really shine), and the Fighter cannot participate in the types of arenas that 'magic' can (such as planar travel, instantaneous movement, removing or creating barriers, quickly building structures, summoning armies), then there is a clear discrepancy.  

If the Fighter only has 'killing things', then he needs to be 'the best'.  If there's even an argument as to whether or not a Wizard can 'do the job as well', then the Fighter has already lost - because fighting isn't even SUPPOSED to be what a Wizard is for.

QuoteThis is made much more abundantly clear when the area of conflict isn't 'kill this monster'. IF wizards can particpate nearly as well or better than a Fighter in 'combat' (the area that the Fighter is supposed to really shine), and the Fighter cannot participate in the types of arenas that 'magic' can (such as planar travel, instantaneous movement, removing or creating barriers, quickly building structures, summoning armies), then there is a clear discrepancy.

This isn't some PVP scenerio it's a teamwork game. I just don't get why you would even think this way. What you are describing is a playstyle or possibly a player problem, so go ahead and play it that way but don't blame the game for your issue.

Quote from: Marleycat;761691This isn't some PVP scenerio it's a teamwork game. I just don't get why you would even think this way. What you are describing is a playstyle or possibly a player problem, so go ahead and play it that way but don't blame the game for your issue.

Because if you 'want your team to win' and you want to 'contribute to your teams success', you're going to want to create a character that does that.  

When the group that is wizard/wizard/rogue/cleric is outperforming the group that is fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric everytime, the person that chooses to play the fighter isn't contributing as much as he might want to.  

Now, maybe he never realizes, in part because he's unlikely to be playing in a 'more optimized group', but as someone who actually likes Fighters, it'd be nice if they were, you know, good.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761696Because if you 'want your team to win' and you want to 'contribute to your teams success', you're going to want to create a character that does that.  

When the group that is wizard/wizard/rogue/cleric is outperforming the group that is fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric everytime, the person that chooses to play the fighter isn't contributing as much as he might want to.  

Now, maybe he never realizes, in part because he's unlikely to be playing in a 'more optimized group', but as someone who actually likes Fighters, it'd be nice if they were, you know, good.

Again a pure playstyle issue with that I can't help you other then to say you might want to try 5e because the Fighter is really good at what he does this time around. And another good thing is that everybody can attempt any skill with a reasonable chance of success in ordinary situations. So that should help with the issues that 3e really let get out of hand. And what you're speaking about somewhat. The other is that wizards just don't have enough spell slots to be wasting spells trying to out fighter the fighter.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761689I'm not applying different standards.  I haven't assumed that Wizards can cast 'all day long' or that they will 'always have the right spell'.  I have pointed out that if a 'Fighter Replacement' is available to the Wizard (as it has been in all previous editions), then the Fighter can be replaced.  .

Man, you just changed goalposts so hard I just about got whiplash.  The context of this exchange was how the wizard has limited resources (spells), while the fighter can go all day.  Then you said the fighter can't go all day, because he has hp.  To which I mentioned "so do wizards, who have a lot less, and are often the target, so assuming fighters can't go all day because their hp won't last forever but not applying the same rules (being attacked) to wizards is disingenuous."  And now you've completely shifted again to a strawman here.  At least a strawman in this particular exchange because we're talking about hp, nothing to do with knowing the right spell.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761706Man, you just changed goalposts so hard I just about got whiplash.  The context of this exchange was how the wizard has limited resources (spells), while the fighter can go all day.  Then you said the fighter can't go all day, because he has hp.  To which I mentioned "so do wizards, who have a lot less, and are often the target, so assuming fighters can't go all day because their hp won't last forever but not applying the same rules (being attacked) to wizards is disingenuous."  And now you've completely shifted again to a strawman here.  At least a strawman in this particular exchange because we're talking about hp, nothing to do with knowing the right spell.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Which brings me to Wizards versus Fighters...  If monsters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are) and Fighters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are), Wizards need to not have access to 'Fighter substitutes'.  A charmed Ogre is probably as effective as a Fighter in terms of the party's effectiveness.  

Welcome to the multiple threads of this conversation.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761716Welcome to the multiple threads of this conversation.

That quote you just listed of yours has nothing to do with what he was saying.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his entire point of that post was that wizards run out of spells while fighters don't run out of attacks, and that's a very relevant factor.  One that you said is patently false, when it in fact is not false, but very true.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761722That quote you just listed of yours has nothing to do with what he was saying.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his entire point of that post was that wizards run out of spells while fighters don't run out of attacks, and that's a very relevant factor.

Who is 'he' in this context?  

Wizards run out of spells.  Fighters run out of hit points.  

Wizards may or may not run out of hit points, but it doesn't matter if they run out of spells and not hit points - they're not doing anything.  

There are lots of situations where the wizard will cease to be useful but any claim that the fighter will 'continue to be effective all day long' are absolutely without merit.  

Applying hit point loss to a wizard (or not applying it) isn't indicative of a double-standard - it indicates a recognition of what each class is 'contributing'.  Any old-schooler (you included) will tell me that a Fighter is 'supposed' to stand toe-to-toe and keep the Wizard free to 'blast' or otherwise cast spells.  Once the wizard gets into melee, he's 'useless'.  

So, if we assume that the Fighter does his job, he runs out of hit points (and the wizard doesn't).
If we assume that the Wizard does HIS job, he runs out of spells.  

Neither one of them 'keeps going all day'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761727Who is 'he' in this context?  

Wizards run out of spells.  Fighters run out of hit points.  

Wizards may or may not run out of hit points, but it doesn't matter if they run out of spells and not hit points - they're not doing anything.  

There are lots of situations where the wizard will cease to be useful but any claim that the fighter will 'continue to be effective all day long' are absolutely without merit.  

Applying hit point loss to a wizard (or not applying it) isn't indicative of a double-standard - it indicates a recognition of what each class is 'contributing'.  Any old-schooler (you included) will tell me that a Fighter is 'supposed' to stand toe-to-toe and keep the Wizard free to 'blast' or otherwise cast spells.  Once the wizard gets into melee, he's 'useless'.  

So, if we assume that the Fighter does his job, he runs out of hit points (and the wizard doesn't).
If we assume that the Wizard does HIS job, he runs out of spells.  

Neither one of them 'keeps going all day'.

"He" is robiswrong.  This is what he said:

QuoteThe Fighter's real strength is that they can continue operating at a constant level of effectiveness all day. Wizards and Clerics can operate at a heightened level of effectiveness, but not constantly.

And yes, it very much is a double standard to say fighters run out of hit points and not apply the same rule to wizards.  Everyone has hit points.  Those aren't automatically expended during actions.  Spells are.  If you can't see the fundamental flaw in your analogy, that's very disingenuous.  The only way your analogy would even be remotely true is if fighters were the only class that can lose hit points in battle.  Or if they lost hit points for every attack they made.  Neither is remotely true, so your analogy is very, very wrong.

robiswrong is ironically right.  A fighter can fight 1 battle or 100 battles all at the same level of effectiveness.  Casters cannot.  For some of those battles they may be better than a fighter, but it's not consistent, and has a lot of battles where they are much less effective than a fighter.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761678I'm away from my books, but some encounters are supposed to be 'totally easy', some are 'minor challenges', some are 'standard challenges', some are 'moderately difficult' and some are 'overwhelming'.  Overall, the percentage adds up to 100%, so, no, 95% of them are not 'balanced'.  If you care for the exact breakdown, I'll try to pull it tonight.

Totally easy compared to... your level?  Because what I described was:

 "I deserve a series of encounters tailored to my level"

And you may be right that modules were often built this way.  But even B2 had areas you could stumble into and die for lack of balance.  Of course only a small fraction of games use modules exclusively so we might include home games and the wandering monster charts and the like.

Outside of 3e, I don't think you'll see level as a consideration.  At least not in any codified way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761728robiswrong is ironically right.  A fighter can fight 1 battle or 100 battles all at the same level of effectiveness.  Casters cannot.  For some of those battles they may be better than a fighter, but it's not consistent, and has a lot of battles where they are much less effective than a fighter.

This is most true when there's no such thing as 'tanking'.  But if there IS a tank role, then you have to expect them to take more damage than the glass canons in the back.

D&D doesn't typically have such a role, though,  unless the DM wants it to.