Quote from: mcbobbo;761730Outside of 3e, I don't think you'll see level as a consideration.  At least not in any codified way.

You're mistaken. Go look at TSR-era modules. See the note about what level the adventure was for? Look at the wandering monster tables for different levels of the dungeon. Notice how creatures scale with each level you go deeper? People have been avoiding dropping a Balrog in an area that 1st level characters were likely to encounter for a long time. And both published products and random generation tools followed this. The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

Quote from: Bobloblah;761735You're mistaken. Go look at TSR-era modules. See the note about what level the adventure was for? Look at the wandering monster tables for different levels of the dungeon. Notice how creatures scale with each level you go deeper? People have been avoiding dropping a Balrog in an area that 1st level characters were likely to encounter for a long time. And both published products and random generation tools followed this. The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

Mistaken by not using bold font, I guess.  But I already touched that base on the way around.  Observe...

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.

Tell me, are the charts in the DMG broken by level?  I don't recall them that way.  I recall some really nasty shit on the high ends of the ranges, too.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761733This 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.

Well of course the "plan" is to have the fighter take damage, but that doesn't mean that "only" the fighter takes damage.  Wizards so so squishy, and high targets, that even if only one in four attacks targets him instead of the fighter, it's a big deal.

So you can't say the fighter will lose hp in battle while assuming that the wizard does not.  You have to apply the rules to both evenly.  And since fighters don't lose hp for attacking, they can, theoretically, attack forever whereas wizards run out of spells pretty quickly.  And I believe that was rob's point.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761735The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

I'd also lay at least some of the blame on DragonLance and its spiritual descendants.

When you take the choice of what you encounter *out* of the hands of the players and put it *firmly* in the hands of the GM, "encounter balance" becomes much more important - you can't hold people accountable for decisions they didn't make.

In old-school D&D, if I wander into an Ogre cave and am not smart enough to run as soon as I realize where I am, it's my own damn fault.

But if the GM has decided that I should encounter a bunch of Ogres and they slaughter the party?  Totally different situation.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761722He 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.

Spot on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761738Well of course the "plan" is to have the fighter take damage, but that doesn't mean that "only" the fighter takes damage.  Wizards so so squishy, and high targets, that even if only one in four attacks targets him instead of the fighter, it's a big deal.

So you can't say the fighter will lose hp in battle while assuming that the wizard does not.  You have to apply the rules to both evenly.  And since fighters don't lose hp for attacking, they can, theoretically, attack forever whereas wizards run out of spells pretty quickly.  And I believe that was rob's point.

Then that's a stupid point.  

Hit points are a resource that both Fighters and Wizards have.  And barring exceptional Constitution, we expect Fighters to have more of it than Wizards have.  It is possible that they will both expend that resource and be unable to fight.  That is exactly what happens in a TPK.  

But Spells are a resource that Wizards have and Fighters don't have.  A Wizard may stop fighting when he runs out of spells but still has plenty of hit points.  Theoretically he could continue to do things, but he usually doesn't.  Attacking with a crossbow every other round isn't very effective.  

So, as far as a Wizard is concerned, hit points aren't as important a resource as spells.  I mean, you absolutely NEED them, but spells allow you to contribute to a fight.  

For a Fighter, we expect them to expend their resource in combat.  Absolutely expect that they will be hit.  With a Wizard, it is possible (even probable) that they avoid any attacks, let alone hits for multiple encounters.  But we can't make that same supposition for the Fighter.  

For 'a fighter can keep fighting all day' to be true, he would have to have a way to renew his resources.  He can't.  

A wizard also can't keep fighting all day.  In order to do so, he'd need to renew his resources.  He can't.  

But if the wizard can outperform the fighter regularly, the fact that the Fighter could theoretically, assuming he hadn't taken any hit point damage (which we expect to happen) STILL wouldn't mean much because of issues of 'splitting the party'.  

Wizards outperforming Fighters is a potential problem, because Fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting things.  If wizards are better than Fighters at the thing that Fighters are 'best' at, and wizards get to do awesome things that Fighters never get to do, there's a fundamental imbalance in the class system.


Edit -
Found this catching up on another thread:

Quote from: robiswrong;760576I always liked to think about "gross balance" and "fine balance".

"Gross balance" is stuff like "can the fighter take more of a punishment than the wizard?"  It's relatively important.  If the wizard is actually better than the fighter at what the fighter's supposed to be good at, then what's the point of playing a fighter? (note: presumption of what a fighter's supposed to be good at.  It's an example for discussion purposes.)

"Fine balance" is stuff like "oh, the fighter can take eight rounds of hits from a CL level 3 critter, when he should actually take seven."  Not super important.

I really, really, hope they don't overly focus on the "fine balance" points.

It looks like he and I are in agreement.  I want to make sure that the Wizard isn't 'actually better than the fighter at what the fighter is supposed to be good at'.  The only caveat is that he may only mean in terms of standing toe-to-toe with an opponent and wielding a sword...  I include abilities that a Wizard might reasonably be expected to gain access to that bring a 'Fighter Replacement' into play under the control of the Wizard.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761737Mistaken by not using bold font, I guess.  But I already touched that base on the way around.  Observe...

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.

Tell me, are the charts in the DMG broken by level?  I don't recall them that way.  I recall some really nasty shit on the high ends of the ranges, too.

No, I read your post. Your contention that balancing encounters to level was only codified in 3.x didn't actually specify "outside of modules."  And, yes, the dungeon charts are, although the wilderness charts are not (which was the point). That's dungeon level, but it's made pretty clear that that corresponds to PC level. Above and beyond that there were explicit guidelines for encounters based on level in BECMI and RC. Again, the idea that there was nothing before 3.x is false. 3.x just took it up a notch (or 3).

Quote from: robiswrong;761744I'd also lay at least some of the blame on DragonLance and its spiritual descendants.

When you take the choice of what you encounter *out* of the hands of the players and put it *firmly* in the hands of the GM, "encounter balance" becomes much more important - you can't hold people accountable for decisions they didn't make.

Very, very true.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761747It looks like he and I are in agreement.  I want to make sure that the Wizard isn't 'actually better than the fighter at what the fighter is supposed to be good at'.  The only caveat is that he may only mean in terms of standing toe-to-toe with an opponent and wielding a sword...  I include abilities that a Wizard might reasonably be expected to gain access to that bring a 'Fighter Replacement' into play under the control of the Wizard.

Nope, I'd consider those abilities, too. (Though the exact definition of "what is the fighter good at" is still up for grabs).  But, something like the 3.x druid that can have a companion that's a better fighter than the fighter, and transform into something better at fighting than the fighter for much of hte day, while still being able to cast for the cost of a single feat?  Yeah, that's kinda screwed up.

Where we differ is in the ability of the Wizard to continually do it - you seem to presume that the 5 minute day is a "thing", and so the fact that Wizards can peak over a Fighter completely negates Fighters, while I do not.

A lot of that depends on many things - how the GM is playing, the style of the game overall, how many spells the Wizard gets, which ruleset is in play (which impacts how safe/risky spell use is), etc.

If you look at it, I've *primarily* defended the balance in terms of dungeon crawling, where the five minute day is less reasonable if you have a GM more than ten years old.  In a more "Big Epic Heroes" style of play where we have only the "significant" encounters to the story, there's no random monsters, and (perhaps worst) a totally inert world where nothing happens until the PCs trip over the next "start encounter" button, I'd totally agree that the disparities become much, much more pronounced.

I've also suggested (at least in the past) that in the old-school, open table and multiple character style of play, character imbalance is less of an issue because you're *not playing the same dude every week*, as well as the fact that the fragility of wizards becomes a *real* issue rather than a theoretical one.  I mean, Ars Magica is kind of built on an even greater power disparity, right?  And yet it works because different people play the Wizard every session.

But in a DragonLance or Adventure Path style game?  Yeah, I'm pretty much on board with you.  If the assumption is that your characters *won't* die and that you *will* be playing the same dudes every week, then not only do the negatives of being a wizard become less pronounced, but the disparity in capabilities becomes more noticeable (and potentially aggravating).

Fair enough, three notches suits my position just fine.  It became something the players came to expect, which used to be folly.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761747But Spells are a resource that Wizards have and Fighters don't have.  A Wizard may stop fighting when he runs out of spells but still has plenty of hit points.  Theoretically he could continue to do things, but he usually doesn't.  Attacking with a crossbow every other round isn't very effective.  

So, as far as a Wizard is concerned, hit points aren't as important a resource as spells.  I mean, you absolutely NEED them, but spells allow you to contribute to a fight.  

It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Quote from: mcbobbo;761754It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Nope, you are correct, there are infinite-casting damage cantrips. They require a to-hit roll.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761755Nope, you are correct, there are infinite-casting damage cantrips. They require a to-hit roll.

How much damage do they do in comparison to a "typical" fighter?

I mean, MUs in 1e could shoot their crossbow or bop stuff with a staff all day long, too.  It just wasn't super effective.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761754It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Quote from: robiswrong;761756How much damage do they do in comparison to a "typical" fighter?

I mean, MUs in 1e could shoot their crossbow or bop stuff with a staff all day long, too.  It just wasn't super effective.

Have you two actually read this thread? That's what this thread (look at the subject) is about...

Quote from: Bobloblah;761758
Have you two actually read this thread? That's what this thread (look at the subject) is about...

Is the cantrip actually 1d8 per attack the fighter would get at a similar level?

That seems off.  Giving the wizard a blasty power that does as much as the fighter's attack, but is ranged, at-will?

I'd have to see 5e's rules on things like spell interruption, but... yeah.  That seems a bit much.  If fighters got significant static damage on top of that (1d8+5), while the wizzies got a plan nd8, then sure (as +2 basically doubles output).

Quote from: robiswrong;761770Is the cantrip actually 1d8 per attack the fighter would get at a similar level?

That seems off.  Giving the wizard a blasty power that does as much as the fighter's attack, but is ranged, at-will?

I'd have to see 5e's rules on things like spell interruption, but... yeah.  That seems a bit much.  If fighters got significant static damage on top of that (1d8+5), while the wizzies got a plan nd8, then sure (as +2 basically doubles output).

Also, to be fair, the original comparison does not factor in damage from ability modifiers or magic items.  So while a mage might do 1d8 damage with his at will spell, the 1st level fighter is probably doing 1d8+3.  At higher levels, when the mage is doing 3d8 damage, the fighter is doing (1d8+5)*3 or thereabouts