Rather than derail J Arcane's thread about "broken" mechanics, I'll say it here.
The Linear Fighters vs. Quadratic Mages paradigm is crap. Here are two arguments that are both hot air.
Quote from: DoomBut being a 'crappy' fighter meant that, hey, when it came time for combat, you didn't have to think too much about what to do, didn't ever catch crap for casting the 'wrong' spell, and if you didn't want spend money on books and time on reading them, you could quickly learn all you needed to know. It also meant that players that wanted to be a more 'realistic' hero had an option, a class that didn't necessarily do ridiculous things at some point.
Yes. It's okay to have a simple class. It's also okay to have a class that adheres to reality. That class doesn't excuse a class to be crappy however. Why can't you have an effective but simple and/or realistic class?
Quote from: CranewingsFighters are balanced in old D&D because they were necessary for adventuring. If the party encountered to many fights for the wizard to keep up with, only the fighter still could fight. A fighter buffed by a wizard is more powerful than a wizard and a fighter fighting on their own in a lot of cases (magiced weapons, haste). In the context of the dungeon, enemies can't get to the wizard because the fighter can block the hall.
Fighters are not necessary for adventuring in O/AD&D. Numbers are necessary though. The more people you have in a party, the more resources you have and the less attrition each given party member suffers when overcoming an obstacle. Only significant statistical superiority can negate the advantage of a large party size. Sure, fighters can fight after a wizard has depleted most or all of thier spells BUT they're still limited by their own resources (thier current HP, the state of their equipment, etc).
Also, buffing and tanking are only useful in very specific and rare situations (buffing works for ambushes and other schemes, tanking works if the DM is being an idiot with narrow corridors).
QuoteD&D isn't suppose to be a crappy pvp game, even though people want to play it that way. It is suppose to be team vs. environment.
Except most people notice this disparity not because of PVP analysis but as the result of actual gameplay where the fighter doesn't carry his weight in a given COMBAT situation let alone an out of combat situation.
The whole concept of "game balance" as understood today is complete, utter crap.
The balance of the rules do not reflect the balance of the game. The game is more than the sum of its rules. The rules are NOT the game, the game is NOT the rules.
Game balance happens because of interactions between the characters and their environment, the players with the GM, the GM with the players, the players with each other, the players with the rules and the GM with the rules. Rules are only one of the components here.
Ergo, one just needs to realize that fighters and magic users play differently, and will be useful in a variety of different situations run by different GMs while played by different players. The understanding of situations, GM, players and rules, and a communication between all these elements dedicated towards an equally fulfilling experience for each of its flesh and blood participants, helps create a feeling of game balance in the actual session as it is played.
Just like the argument that any mechanic might be inherently "broken" is bogus, the notion that "game balance" relies on the rules solely is an illusion, smoke and mirrors. Bullshit, in not so many words.
The title of this thread is a little screwed up.
In a good average adventuring group its not "Fighter vs. Wizard" - they're supposed to be part of the same team and back each other up in fights witheir respective skills and specialties.
If its a GOOD adventuring group - those two characters are drinking buddies not adversaries or even adversarial.
- Ed C.
Mages got quite a boost in overall power throughout the campaign in 3.x, or at least feats let them do crazier things earlier.
But from what I've observed in older rulesets, that doesn't really happen. There are just too many restrictions on a caster and not enough ways around the really tough shit (no feats, no wide-open multiclassing) to make up for the shortcomings you have to deal with. Couple that with the fact that most AD&D characters retire or more onto stronghold building around 10-14th level and it doesn't ever really become much of a factor. The fighter is busy leading his armies.
So in terms of an encounter mages might be able to wipe things out easily at really high levels, but even when you zoom out to the campaign level, I still feel that the assumptions in O/AD&D work better for how mage power-levels play out in the long term.
Quote from: Benoist;393175The whole concept of "game balance" as understood today is complete, utter crap.
The balance of the rules do not reflect the balance of the game. The game is more than the sum of its rules. The rules are NOT the game, the game is NOT the rules.
Game balance happens because of interactions between the characters and their environment, the players with the GM, the GM with the players, the players with each other, the players with the rules and the GM with the rules. Rules are only one of the components here.
Ergo, one just needs to realize that fighters and magic users play differently, and will be useful in a variety of different situations run by different GMs while played by different players. The understanding of situations, GM, players and rules, and a communication between all these elements dedicated towards an equally fulfilling experience for each of its flesh and blood participants, helps create a feeling of game balance in the actual session as it is played.
Just like the argument that any mechanic might be inherently "broken" is bogus, the notion that "game balance" relies on the rules solely is an illusion, smoke and mirrors. Bullshit, in not so many words.
I used to lurk around the WOTC boards (mostly the Epic boards, actually) and you'd see endless threads about which classes suck the most. A thread on how fighters suck, then a thread on how rangers suck, then a thread on how monks suck, then a thread on how monks were overpowered and destroyed the game, and so on. After awhile you'd see that campaign conditions, sourcebooks used, player skill and whatnot would impact substantially on the campaign.
However, I do think the way the system is put together can have an impact on how
easy it is to balance something in-game, for the GM. The 3.5 rogue is either most powerful class or can be made accidentally useless, depending on what monsters you tend to use.
Back to the main topic, in my home campaigns the warrior types usually tend to be stronger than the wizards, which I gather is unusual. Weird combination of player min/maxing, ridiculously high stats and excessive gold, I guess.
In my OD&D / S&W:WB games, Fighting Men gain a damage bonus equal to their BAB. They do lots and lots of chop-chop. A 10th level lord is dropping D6+8 damage versus the cleric who is still doing 1D6.
That's my thought on how to "balance" them.
I gave a damage bonus instead of multi-attacks simply because I rather less dice rolls. It also has the effect of making their blows very stunning in their damage. Keep in mind that S&W uses D6 for Monster HD so a 5HD monster has 18 HP and a 8th level Fighting Man can cut one down in 2 blows with my house rule.
The ambush is the regular situation in most of the games I've played. The sneaky character finds the enemy. The caster prepares the group. Then the fighter charges in and draws all the fire. Then whoever deals the most burst damage jumps in. I'd say WELL over half of all the combat encounters I've ever had as a player, I was ambushing someone. Less in fantasy than in modern or science fiction, but still more than half.
In the group I play in, someone usually jacks their perception skill up over +12 at first level.
Secondly, I don't think have more players is that helpful depending on their makeup. If they just take damage and waste healing spells, more people on the trip can hurt a party.
Another problem with the fighter vs. wizard is in how people write up their fighter. You can put your second highest stat in wisdom and use some of those extra feats you get for Iron Will and Improved Iron Will to start. Their are other ways to boost your magic save. Race and splat book powers can boost it up as well. It is easy to make a fighter that can shrug off spells. People choose not to do that because they are looking for that 10+ damage per hit at first level, which isn't the fighter's job.
The main problem in the fighter vs. wizard deal is that even if a fighter is immune to mind affecting spells and has enough hit points to shrug off all the direct damage, he still can't deal with a mage using invisibility, blink, mirror image, who is flying, or doing whatever else.
But a wizard won't have all those spells cast if he is being ambushed by the fighter, or they are starting on a level field. One round of ranged weapon fire can wipe out most wizards. Wizards also have horrible perception checks which can be taken advantage of by sneaky fighters (who get Stealth as a class skill by using one of their excessive feats).
If you play in a game where people can spend gold on magic items, fighters can buy the same odd crap wizards can (glasses of true seeing, capes of teleportation, boots of flying) so at higher levels, they can rely on equipment to protect them. If the fight starts going bad and they can get away, all they have to do is find the wizard later that day before his spells come back.
All that aside, the wizard is more useful in a normal game if there are less than four or so encounters per day, because they can blow all of their spells at once. They are less useful if their are 4 or so or more because they have to conserve them, because the fighter can just keep chopping.
Players of fighters that fail to acquire magic items that give them wizard-like powers and don't take the proper protective feats that they are suppose to take with all of their excessive feats because all they care about is getting rogue like burst damage are digging their own grave.
That said... in my own Pathfinder game, I wrote a bunch of rogue class style special abilities for fighters and gave them more skills.
For wizards and sorcerers, during the four segments before their turn their spells can be potentially disrupted if they suffer any damage.
I also tend to give better magic items to fighters.
I feel like I have to do all that because I usually have less than 4 encounters per day and wizards see fairly little attrition in my games.
Quote from: Cranewings;393200Another problem with the fighter vs. wizard is in how people write up their fighter. You can put your second highest stat in wisdom and use some of those extra feats you get for Iron Will and Improved Iron Will to start. Their are other ways to boost your magic save. Race and splat book powers can boost it up as well. It is easy to make a fighter that can shrug off spells. People choose not to do that because they are looking for that 10+ damage per hit at first level, which isn't the fighter's job.
I agree with the sentiment here. Just to nitpick Iron Will isn't the greatest feat for fighters, if you're paranoid about Will saves. At +1 feat/2 levels and no other class features a fighter is probably better off multiclassing to boost their Will save- one of the warrior's strengths being that they multiclass well - to pick up a level or two of hexblade, paladin or dwarf paragon, say, unless they want Iron Will to qualify for something else (e.g. Savage Species' Cumbrous Will for +6 to Will saves, if its allowed, or a PrC like Warrior of Darkness), want feats that need fighter levels to qualify (Weapon Specialization, Daring Warrior, or the PHB II feats with a fighter level requirement), or would suffer a favoured class penalty for doing so.
Also worth noting that there are lots of races that pick up Will save bonuses (dwarf, elf) so Iron Will isn't a great choice for humans -you're trading your main ability (an extra feat) for something an elf or dwarf gets as a freebie. There are lots of "nonpeople races" that are simply immune to stuff like Charm Person and Hold Person too - half-giants, planetouched, elans, etc.
Steadfast Determination (requires Endurance, add Con bonus to Will saves instead of Wis - good for dwarf rangers and especially deepwardens), or Mage Slayer (+1 to Will saves, threatened casters can't cast defensively) are pretty good other alternative feats for boosting Will saves.
Quote from: Koltar;393176The title of this thread is a little screwed up.
In a good average adventuring group its not "Fighter vs. Wizard" - they're supposed to be part of the same team and back each other up in fights witheir respective skills and specialties.
If its a GOOD adventuring group - those two characters are drinking buddies not adversaries or even adversarial.
- Ed C.
Yes! And moreover, the two
players are drinking buddies, not adversaries or even adversarial.
If you play a wizard character and you are stealing the limelight from the player with the fighter character by hogging combat, you are acting like a complete cock-end, plain and simple. It's nothing to do with the rules, it's to do with basic human social skills. Let your mate do his fight-y thing if he's the fighter and he'll let you do your mage-y thing because you're the mage. Everyone's a winner.
Quote from: Peregrin;393178But from what I've observed in older rulesets, that doesn't really happen. There are just too many restrictions on a caster and not enough ways around the really tough shit (no feats, no wide-open multiclassing) to make up for the shortcomings you have to deal with. Couple that with the fact that most AD&D characters retire or more onto stronghold building around 10-14th level and it doesn't ever really become much of a factor. The fighter is busy leading his armies.
QFT.
I've never had a problem with magic-users making everyone else usually in OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e (core books), B/X or BECMI/RC D&D.
As you point out, 3.x did a lot of things that make mages far more powerful than they had been in previous editions. Chief among these were options that allowed mages to cast spells even if the casting was interrupted by damage or other distracting actions of opponents. In previous versions, the spell not only did not go off in such situations, but it disappeared from memory just as if it had been cast. Just removing "concentration feat" like abilities from mages in 3.x will noticeable reduce their over-effectiveness.
Another problem was "buff spells." There were a lot of them and the encounter design system seemed to assume that they would be used at all times. This made everyone dependent on mages (and these spells) and was a contributor to the "15 minute adventuring day" problem.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;393188I used to lurk around the WOTC boards (mostly the Epic boards, actually) and you'd see endless threads about which classes suck the most. A thread on how fighters suck, then a thread on how rangers suck, then a thread on how monks suck, then a thread on how monks were overpowered and destroyed the game, and so on. After awhile you'd see that campaign conditions, sourcebooks used, player skill and whatnot would impact substantially on the campaign.
Absolutely, which I'll have more to say about in a second...
QuoteBack to the main topic, in my home campaigns the warrior types usually tend to be stronger than the wizards, which I gather is unusual. Weird combination of player min/maxing, ridiculously high stats and excessive gold, I guess.
In my last major 3.5 campaign, the fighter ruled the roost as well. I don't find that surprising, but nor do I find people having a different experience surprising either. In the core 3.x system, there are lots of built in spoilers for the wizard (mainly SR cratures). But in later supplements, designers started throwing spells and feats out the letting pcs break inherent limits. That campaigns fell apart using this poorly thought out stuff does not surprise me.
DEDU's OP seems to indicate early games, and so I won't derail into what I did with my systems, except to say that I made Buff spells a lot more enticing, so that the fighter/mage mix-collaboration is more enticing. And I have a lot of types of magic.
But back in the day, first off, as Peregrin mentions, it was about the lifespan of the character. And for the early levels, the Fighter was often the more active in the combat world, especially if the campaign used a lot of puzzles and historical notes. My MUs had to have 'comp lang' and 'detect magic' hanging at al times, or risk a major slowdown. (this is because I believe the early game was foccused/balanced on exploring as much as fighting...perosnal opinion)
This continues later on, so the MU was not just artillery as a swiss army knife for the asventuring group.
Add this to the rules for spell casting times and components, and the balance issue never seemed to come up in our 0/AD&D games.
I think there is one legitimate problem you are ignoring: With the right combination of spells, the 3E Wizard can do any other classes' job - At least as well and sometimes better - And generally for long enough.
Knock, for example. Whoops - Guess the Rogue didn't need those lockpicks after all.
And yeah, that's a player thing as well. A Wizard who gets Knock in a party with a Rogue is generally being a jerk, even if unintentional.
But! And I think this is one place legitimate complaints come from - The rules allow it. The spell lists encourage it.
And that - Is broken.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393270I think there is one legitimate problem you are ignoring: With the right combination of spells, the 3E Wizard can do any other classes' job - At least as well and sometimes better - And generally for long enough.
Knock, for example. Whoops - Guess the Rogue didn't need those lockpicks after all.
And yeah, that's a player thing as well. A Wizard who gets Knock in a party with a Rogue is generally being a jerk, even if unintentional.
But! And I think this is one place legitimate complaints come from - The rules allow it. The spell lists encourage it.
And that - Is broken.
This was never a problem for us, though it IS a good point.
KNock, for example, was more for doors that the theif failed picking (or when the rogue did). As I said, the wizard was the swiss army knife...but had daily limits on availability.
But as for 3e...you may be more right.
sometimes you need to stab a bitch, and sometimes you need to blow his ass up from a great distance. Often the solutions are in two different boxes. This was never a problem before.
Quote from: LordVreeg;393269DEDU's OP seems to indicate early games, and so I won't derail into what I did with my systems, except to say that I made Buff spells a lot more enticing, so that the fighter/mage mix-collaboration is more enticing. And I have a lot of types of magic.
But back in the day, first off, as Peregrin mentions, it was about the lifespan of the character. And for the early levels, the Fighter was often the more active in the combat world, especially if the campaign used a lot of puzzles and historical notes. My MUs had to have 'comp lang' and 'detect magic' hanging at al times, or risk a major slowdown. (this is because I believe the early game was foccused/balanced on exploring as much as fighting...perosnal opinion)
This continues later on, so the MU was not just artillery as a swiss army knife for the asventuring group.
Add this to the rules for spell casting times and components, and the balance issue never seemed to come up in our 0/AD&D games.
I would go a step further.
If you use spell acquisition RAW then there is no guarentee tha the MU gets fireball or lightning bolt at 5th and there is a reasonable chance that if they do find a copy of it somewhere they will fail their % chance to learn listed spell.
On the basis that D&D is lethal and PCs die, getting to 5th is an achievement. A 5th level Wizard with on average 13 hp AC 7 or 8 with no artilary spell gets owned by a fighter with a bow, AC2, 30hp and a +2 sword every time.
I actually think that wizards are weaker in versions 2e and down until about 10th level unless you let them choose whatever spells they want and not check for % to learn each spell (or allow them to fudge their stats).
I even have a great example. We had a party 8th and 9th. The MU had acquired a portable hole and a Sphere of anhililation, a lethal combo. We were walking down a tunnel, were suprised by a bunch of drow their first attack hit the wizard with a Flame strike. He had shit HP, low 20s, Dead... all done. Personally I would say a DM fuck up but it exposed a huge hole for the MU he had bugger all protection from any sort of firey blast.
Now in our D&D no magic shops, no selecting your own magic items from a horde (you know the way most people played it) the MU as a class has one huge disadvantage even at 8th or 9th level. They only have 8 or 9 d4 hps so they die really easily.
Quote from: jibbajibba;393282I would go a step further.
If you use spell acquisition RAW then there is no guarentee tha the MU gets fireball or lightning bolt at 5th and there is a reasonable chance that if they do find a copy of it somewhere they will fail their % chance to learn listed spell.
On the basis that D&D is lethal and PCs die, getting to 5th is an achievement. A 5th level Wizard with on average 13 hp AC 7 or 8 with no artilary spell gets owned by a fighter with a bow, AC2, 30hp and a +2 sword every time.
I actually think that wizards are weaker in versions 2e and down until about 10th level unless you let them choose whatever spells they want and not check for % to learn each spell (or allow them to fudge their stats).
I don't always agree with you, but here, I am in complete solidarity. Many of the 'fiddly bits' that GMs ignored were actually great for balancing the game.
Not that it always needs balancing. A good GM can make up for anything. But a lot of people who design games have a good head on their shoulders.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393270I think there is one legitimate problem you are ignoring: With the right combination of spells, the 3E Wizard can do any other classes' job - At least as well and sometimes better - And generally for long enough.
...
And that - Is broken.
Well mainly the 3e wizard gets to write basically free scrolls, so suddenly there's no tradeoff to be made between "do I want to pop a lock" and "do I want to web my enemies" – and in 1e/2e, by the time the magic-user does have enough spell slots floating around to be pretty flexible, everybody's got a few utility-type magic items (which they keep, b/c selling them doesn't get them an extra plus on their sword) so everyone can do a few magical things.
Quote from: LordVreeg;393271This was never a problem for us, though it IS a good point.
KNock, for example, was more for doors that the theif failed picking (or when the rogue did). As I said, the wizard was the swiss army knife...but had daily limits on availability.
But as for 3e...you may be more right.
It's true. Sometimes I forget how heavily I nerfed wizards in my Pathfinder and 3e games. I don't allow scroll writing or magic item creation without questing for special components.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393270I think there is one legitimate problem you are ignoring: With the right combination of spells, the 3E Wizard can do any other classes' job - At least as well and sometimes better - And generally for long enough.
Knock, for example. Whoops - Guess the Rogue didn't need those lockpicks after all.
And yeah, that's a player thing as well. A Wizard who gets Knock in a party with a Rogue is generally being a jerk, even if unintentional.
But! And I think this is one place legitimate complaints come from - The rules allow it. The spell lists encourage it.
And that - Is broken.
And what is that 'right combination of spells'? Do you know players that would load up half their daily allotment of spells with
knock just to make the Rogue redundant?
Knock exists more or less specifically as a backup to the Thief for when the roll is missed, and the noise of the Fighter kicking the door in can't be risked.
I know there is a
potential spell selection where many of the functions of other classes can be mostly duplicated, but does anyone have that list available?
Quote from: StormBringer;393300And what is that 'right combination of spells'? Do you know players that would load up half their daily allotment of spells with knock just to make the Rogue redundant? Knock exists more or less specifically as a backup to the Thief for when the roll is missed, and the noise of the Fighter kicking the door in can't be risked.
I know there is a potential spell selection where many of the functions of other classes can be mostly duplicated, but does anyone have that list available?
There was a section of one of the books (One of the complete books, I think), devoted to exactly that - Replicating other classes' capabilities using a Wizard.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393313There was a section of one of the books (One of the complete books, I think), devoted to exactly that - Replicating other classes' capabilities using a Wizard.
For the entire day? I mean, I already said I know there is a potential selection of spells that can replicate certain class features, but all of them, every day, all day?
I have heard the argument that a Magic-User/Mage/Wizard (depending on version) can obviate the other classes, but can it be done consistently to where no other class is actually needed? That is what I am asking. Can any one spell caster completely obviate the need for other party members? Or any two or three? A Fighter can do their swording all day, a Thief can do their roguing all day, and so on.
Quote from: StormBringer;393316I have heard the argument that a Magic-User/Mage/Wizard (depending on version) can obviate the other classes, but can it be done consistently to where no other class is actually needed? That is what I am asking. Can any one spell caster completely obviate the need for other party members? Or any two or three? A Fighter can do their swording all day, a Thief can do their roguing all day, and so on.
Sure if a crappy pansy ass GM lets them.
Yeah, I can't say I've ever witnessed that in any earlier iteration of the game. Might work for a few obstacles, but the only way they actually replace another class is the 15 minute adventuring day, which is a problem unto itself.
EDIT: To be clear, the 15 minute day is a GM problem, not a system problem.
QuoteI've never had a problem with magic-users making everyone else usually in OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e (core books), B/X or BECMI/RC D&D.
Even from just reading the games, I don't see any problems.
I think the reason the disparity became such of a problem is the change in assumptions about how the GM runs the campaign. In O/AD&D, you're expected to go on and eventually get a stronghold, become a ruler, etc., so it makes sense that a wizard would be super powerful if he manages to reach high levels because he has nothing else going for him. But for some reason the modern D&D party, comprised of forever wandering vagabonds who never settle down to rule, it does become more of an issue because the game now assumes you're going to be playing the same way straight through level 20.
So I don't think the way wizards and fighters are balanced in older editions is broken, but I think that the system becomes strained when you try to shoehorn that balance around new game-play assumptions.
Quote from: Peregrin;393328Even from just reading the games, I don't see any problems.
I think the reason the disparity became such of a problem is the change in assumptions about how the GM runs the campaign. In O/AD&D, you're expected to go on and eventually get a stronghold, become a ruler, etc., so it makes sense that a wizard would be super powerful if he manages to reach high levels because he has nothing else going for him. But for some reason the modern D&D party, comprised of forever wandering vagabonds who never settle down to rule, it does become more of an issue because the game now assumes you're going to be playing the same way straight through level 20.
So I don't think the way wizards and fighters are balanced in older editions is broken, but I think that the system becomes strained when you try to shoehorn that balance around new game-play assumptions.
This is very interesting. I will need to think for a bit.
Quote from: StormBringer;393316For the entire day? I mean, I already said I know there is a potential selection of spells that can replicate certain class features, but all of them, every day, all day?
I have heard the argument that a Magic-User/Mage/Wizard (depending on version) can obviate the other classes, but can it be done consistently to where no other class is actually needed? That is what I am asking. Can any one spell caster completely obviate the need for other party members? Or any two or three? A Fighter can do their swording all day, a Thief can do their roguing all day, and so on.
No, but most of the time, they don't need to.
Also, take a look at what you wrote. Why should the Wizard need to be able to, say, *totally* remove the need for any other class, for it to be broken? Significantly is enough - And the Wizard is at that point with the PHB.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393349No, but most of the time, they don't need to.
Also, take a look at what you wrote. Why should the Wizard need to be able to, say, *totally* remove the need for any other class, for it to be broken? Significantly is enough - And the Wizard is at that point with the PHB.
Ok, then what is this spell list? I don't deny you can set up a Nova Wizard that can blast all manner of destructive magic in successive rounds, or one that might be able to sub for one, two, or all other members of the party occasionally. If the Magic User is absolutely forbidden from ever doing anything that duplicates another class in even the most abstract way, you are then playing a sage. Most invocation spells do more damage over the short term than a Fighter. Certain utility spells can duplicate Thief abilities. Where is the healing, though? Can't really replace that aspect of the Cleric, so there is one class feature that isn't in their repertoire. What happens after the
fireballs run out? No significant weapon skills to fall back on.
Silence, 15' radius is a nice alternative to Move Silently, until the guards notice they just went deaf momentarily (any DM that doesn't enforce that is just a bad DM) and figure something is up.
No, in fact, the mere existance of
knock does not forever render the Thief illegitimate, nor make the Magic User all powerful. It is only in the context of repeated and frequent overshadowing that this could be considered 'broken'. Simply pointing out the existence of certain magical means to accomplish something along the lines of another class' niche abilities is not enough to declare a problem. The problem would be in the continual use of such spells precisely to thwart other players from contributing.
So, one last time, does anyone have a spell list that would make the other classes in a party redundant? A list that can do such a thing even once a day is a good start. A list that will replicate Thief abilities, Fighter combat abilities, and Clerical spell casting and combat abilities.
Quote from: Peregrin;393328Even from just reading the games, I don't see any problems.
I think the reason the disparity became such of a problem is the change in assumptions about how the GM runs the campaign. In O/AD&D, you're expected to go on and eventually get a stronghold, become a ruler, etc., so it makes sense that a wizard would be super powerful if he manages to reach high levels because he has nothing else going for him. But for some reason the modern D&D party, comprised of forever wandering vagabonds who never settle down to rule, it does become more of an issue because the game now assumes you're going to be playing the same way straight through level 20.
So I don't think the way wizards and fighters are balanced in older editions is broken, but I think that the system becomes strained when you try to shoehorn that balance around new game-play assumptions.
Yup, I noticed this since 3e came out. HP scaling above 10th+ levels for monsters didn't do justice for the fighter as well since his damage doesn't scale but the wizard's does.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393349No, but most of the time, they don't need to.
Also, take a look at what you wrote. Why should the Wizard need to be able to, say, *totally* remove the need for any other class, for it to be broken? Significantly is enough - And the Wizard is at that point with the PHB.
From a gameplay perspective, its quite desirable that the party wizard can do away with a rogue - you may not have a rogue in the party.
If the NPCs are expecting wizards to be annoying, having 3 padlocks on your door will keep them out ("each spell will negate 2 means of preventing egress"), something that a high level rogue will probably cut through like butter by taking-10. The wizard also can't disable any alarms or traps on the door either which may be a major problem (though the spell does have Medium range). The cleric *can* detect traps (with their own second level spell), which is kind of cool (the rest of the party joining forces can almost replace the rogue).
Of course, the best way through doors in 3.5 is still using Adamantine weapons, at least if you're not trying to sneak.
Likewise, Invisibility is usually thought of as a replacement for Hide, but again its limited use, wizards aren't usually terribly quiet, and commoners can negate it by throwing bags of flour at you.
D&D 3.0 was created in the post-mmog world, that's where the problem lies. Ultima Online and Everquest couldn't implement, to the extent needed, thieving abilities, so they made them ninja assassins instead of thieves. Now that they could put out lots of damage, the fighter had to do less damage or else why have a thief, thus the tank was born etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
All this "niche protection" crap aka "special snowflakism" came about as the result of the sole balancing axis being combat, combat, combat, and only combat.
"Utility spells? WTF is that? Thieving abilities? Yeah I can open a door, who cares, I can BBQPWNSTABBITY!!1!!!! Downtime? Fuck that, we just go rest then roll in blazin'.
Roleplaying a character? What the hell is that, I'm just trying to get the best killer build for my toon."
"Conversation" like that you didn't hear in D&D pre-mmog.
Quote from: BenoistGame balance happens because of interactions between the characters and their environment, the players with the GM, the GM with the players, the players with each other, the players with the rules and the GM with the rules. Rules are only one of the components here.
No. The foundation of a game's balance is in it's rules. Saying that it's up to the group's application (or lack thereof) of said rules is a cop-out.
Quote from: Koltar;393176If its a GOOD adventuring group - those two characters are drinking buddies not adversaries or even adversarial.
- Ed C.
You're totally missing the point. Yes, the fighter and the wizard are partners. However, they ought to be be equal contributors to the overall effectiveness of the party. Otherwise, the wizard should dump the fighter for cheaper (and easily replaced) muscle.
Quote from: Peregrin;393178But from what I've observed in older rulesets, that doesn't really happen. There are just too many restrictions on a caster and not enough ways around the really tough shit (no feats, no wide-open multiclassing) to make up for the shortcomings you have to deal with. Couple that with the fact that most AD&D characters retire or more onto stronghold building around 10-14th level and it doesn't ever really become much of a factor. The fighter is busy leading his armies.
Except there are ways around the restrictions. Also stating that the game wraps up at 10th to 14th level does nothing to help people who play beyond that range. Nor does the fact that a fighter PC has to PAY his men-at-arms and PAY to maintain his stronghold to hold his army help to correct the disparity when a cleric doesn't have to and a magic-user can just buy himself an army when he needs it.
Quote from: SpinachatIn my OD&D / S&W:WB games, Fighting Men gain a damage bonus equal to their BAB. They do lots and lots of chop-chop. A 10th level lord is dropping D6+8 damage versus the cleric who is still doing 1D6.
That's my thought on how to "balance" them.
I gave a damage bonus instead of multi-attacks simply because I rather less dice rolls. It also has the effect of making their blows very stunning in their damage. Keep in mind that S&W uses D6 for Monster HD so a 5HD monster has 18 HP and a 8th level Fighting Man can cut one down in 2 blows with my house rule.
A damage bonus won't correct the disparity. The fighter's weaknesses are lack of mobility, lack of appropriate defenses, and lack of perceptive abilities.
@CRKrueger: Really? The problem with 3E spellcasters isn't their combat prowess but that they are too effective in every sphere and the origin of that broad level of competence lies in the proliferation of spells in prior editions.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414No. The foundation of a game's balance is in it's rules. Saying that it's up to the group's application (or lack thereof) of said rules is a cop-out.
Nope. Pretending that the rules are the game, the game is the rules IS the cop-out.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414Except there are ways around the restrictions. Also stating that the game wraps up at 10th to 14th level does nothing to help people who play beyond that range. Nor does the fact that a fighter PC has to PAY his men-at-arms and PAY to maintain his stronghold to hold his army help to correct the disparity when a cleric doesn't have to and a magic-user can just buy himself an army when he needs it.
That's not what I meant. The type of adventuring done at higher levels involves different types of adventuring and exploits that don't necessarily involve pitting the fighter and the wizard at eachother's backs and putting them in situations where one will be outshining the other in a small group affair like dungeon-crawling.
As for higher than 10-14th level, that's an exception to the norm. It's sort of like overclocking your processor -- you can do it, but there are plenty of warnings about the weird shit that could happen if you're not careful. It's there for the sake of flexibility.
Also, if you could demonstrate these amazing ways at getting around being ridiculously weak for quite a few levels, I'd be more than glad to hear them. I'm sure with older editions being
so front-loaded, there are plenty of ways for someone to consistently take a MU to 10th level without ever rolling another character. :rolleyes:
@Cranewings: Are we discussing older editions or 3E here? I'm going to assume 3E for the most part.
Ambushes work. I am not arguing against that. They worked in 1E, they are insanely good in 3E given how easily the appropriate resources can be obtained and accumulated. I am arguing that they are a waste in 1E because you're preparing spells that MIGHT be useful ONCE as opposed to spells that are always useful. Numbers work better in both editions barring player stupidity.
Now, in prior editions, you could get away with dump stats. In 3E, you can't. A fighter in that edition is dependent on having multiple high scores. A wizard can get by with a high CON and a high INT. Saying that a fighter should remedy it by spending feats when a wizard gets new spells every level and can buy more with money is insulting. Also, 10+ damage on average at first level is retardedly easy for a fighter to achieve (it's as easy as having a 16 str and a greatsword). Saying that a fighter shouldn't do when he isn't sacrificing any much is annoying. Advising that fighters should play the stealth game when that's an actual waste of precious resources (2 skill points, they're cross-class skills by default, etc.) and an average rogue can do it better is also annoying.
Having addressed that, the problem isn't mind-affecting spells, direct damage, or any single contigency spell that a spellcaster might have. The problem is a wizard has a lot of contigencies to choose from and god help the fighter who is not prepared against any one of them. Ambushes can work if the wizard hasn't prepared a contingency for said ambush but he really doesn't need to. The fact is that a wizard has a high Int by default and therefore more than enough skill points to spend on both Listen or Spot (while a fighter typically doesn't have enough skill points to spend on both Hide and Move Silently). Ranged weapons can work if the wizard hasn't already cast protection from arrows or a higher level equivalent. Etc. Etc. Yes, a fighter can spend money to get the same odd crap a wizard can but a wizard doesn't need to spend out of the same pool to get both level-appropriate capabilities and level appropriate bonuses. It is also annoying that a fighter needs to rely on his equipment when a wizard doesn't.
Also, yes, nova-ing is super effective when the opportunity arises. However, a wizard can simply overcome obstacles by either casting the right spell he either prepared or he made the right item for. At this point, you pretty much admitted that the fighter needs wizard-like powers. Still insisting that he waste his much more limited resources when the wizard doesn't should be inexcusable at this point.
Quote from: Benoist;393418Nope. Pretending that the rules are the game, the game is the rules IS the cop-out.
Ah, no. The game's basis is in its rules. They form the basis of the consensus amongst the participants. If you don't believe this then there's no point in discussing anything with you since you're pretty much admitting that the game is whatever you want it to be at any given time and it would be insane to discuss anything with you.
Quote from: Peregrin;393429That's not what I meant. The type of adventuring done at higher levels involves different types of adventuring and exploits that don't necessarily involve pitting the fighter and the wizard at eachother's backs and putting them in situations where one will be outshining the other in a small group affair like dungeon-crawling.
Name one kind of high-level adventure that doesn't involve purposely gimping the magic-user that a fighter can do that better.
QuoteAs for higher than 10-14th level, that's an exception to the norm. It's sort of like overclocking your processor -- you can do it, but there are plenty of warnings about the weird shit that could happen if you're not careful. It's there for the sake of flexibility.
That still doesn't excuse the disparity at all. If anything, it tells non-spellcasters to dual class into wizard or cleric past Xth level.
QuoteAlso, if you could demonstrate these amazing ways at getting around being ridiculously weak for quite a few levels, I'd be more than glad to hear them. I'm sure with older editions being so front-loaded, there are plenty of ways for someone to consistently take a MU to 10th level without ever rolling another character. :rolleyes:
Ah, given your attitude towards anything I say, no. Enjoy your Final Fantasy-like fights.
How familiar are you with older rulesets? Even Mike Mearls admitted that power disparity between MUs and martial classes in pre-3e editions was much less of an issue, at least the last time they had this same discussion on RPGnet (hint: it wasn't that long ago).
As for the FF fights -- I actively play 4e and started with 3e. But just because you don't "get" older editions doesn't mean I can't enjoy a little variety. Your obsessive focus on a completely gamist-style system as "God" completely undermines other goals of play. Not every social contract at the table necessarily has to involve balancing classes against each other 1:1.
And your attitude is the problem, dipshit. You started slinging the jabs and insults long before I did in other discussions I've had with you. Your holier-than-thou bullshit doesn't really make for good discussions, so why the fuck do you start threads anyway? Are you just here to troll the fucking place?
You started the thread. The burden of proof lies with you. If you aren't willing to defend your whole reason for starting this, why the hell even bother posting? Show me just how magic-users are just as bad in AD&D as 3rd and how a player can get around those problems.
In OD&D if you use the Smash, Multiple Attacks, and Weapon Mastery rules, the fighter is pretty freaking incredible. Even if you just use the first two, a fighter certainly would keep up his usefulness compared to the mage, both being spectacular in their own ways.
RPGpundit
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393434Ah, no. The game's basis is in its rules. They form the basis of the consensus amongst the participants. If you don't believe this then there's no point in discussing anything with you since you're pretty much admitting that the game is whatever you want it to be at any given time and it would be insane to discuss anything with you.
The problem with you is that you just like acting like an idiot, and you feel forced to be an asshole about it.
Yes, the rules provide a basis for a consensus amongst the participants. But that's ALL it is. A basis. It isn't a consensus itself, and it certainly is not the only component of game balance itself, which doesn't happen in theoretical la-la-land on the rulebook's page, but during the game itself, while it is being played, with a game world, a flesh and blood GM, flesh and blood players, and all that supposes of compromises, imagination, and social interactions.
Get your head out of your ass, try to *think* for a moment, and then maybe you'll have an epiphany. Otherwise well... have fun with yourself.
Quote from: RPGPundit;393443In OD&D if you use the Smash, Multiple Attacks, and Weapon Mastery rules, the fighter is pretty freaking incredible. Even if you just use the first two, a fighter certainly would keep up his usefulness compared to the mage, both being spectacular in their own ways.
RPGpundit
OD&D? You mean Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia, right?
Quote from: Benoist;393446OD&D? You mean Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia, right?
Yes, that's what I meant.
RPGPundit
Dead, fair enough. Personally, I never run games past 7-8 levels because the basic structure of the game falls apart then, so you could be right and I wouldn't see it. I'd strongly stick to my point at low and mid levels < 9.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414You're totally missing the point. Yes, the fighter and the wizard are partners. However, they ought to be be equal contributors to the overall effectiveness of the party. Otherwise, the wizard should dump the fighter for cheaper (and easily replaced) muscle.
I guess in some strict "gamist" or "wargaming" views, that might be so. However, there are other styles of play where things like the friendship of the characters might make them want to adventure together even if they don't equally contribute to the party. Just like in real life my friends don't all contribute equally to everything we do as a group.
BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?
Some players LIKE playing characters that are less effective than others at some things. For example, I find combat boring, so I tend to play characters where combat skills are secondary. This means they are less effective in combat than some other characters. This does not bother me as it means that I don't have to concentrate heavily on a part of the game I find less interesting. I can just roll to hit and be done with it.
In my current Microlite75 campaign one of the players finds social situations boring to play out, so he had a character who is socially dull and inept -- thus given him an excuse to take a backseat role when the game becomes more about social interaction.
Quote from: RandallS;393512I guess in some strict "gamist" or "wargaming" views, that might be so. However, there are other styles of play where things like the friendship of the characters might make them want to adventure together even if they don't equally contribute to the party. Just like in real life my friends don't all contribute equally to everything we do as a group.
BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?
Some players LIKE playing characters that are less effective than others at some things. For example, I find combat boring, so I tend to play characters where combat skills are secondary. This means they are less effective in combat than some other characters. This does not bother me as it means that I don't have to concentrate heavily on a part of the game I find less interesting. I can just roll to hit and be done with it.
More to this...equal contributors when? At different times in their career, yes. Even at different times in an adventure, also. Does the fighter allow the mage to conserve magic at any level? yes. Does the fighter allow the mage to stay alive after the mage has blown all his offensive spells? yes.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393416@CRKrueger: Really? The problem with 3E spellcasters isn't their combat prowess but that they are too effective in every sphere and the origin of that broad level of competence lies in the proliferation of spells in prior editions.
To tell you the truth, most of the 3e bitching I saw was due to combat effectiveness, not utility. However, I tuned out of d20 a few years in, only coming back because of Conan. I'll grant that in that time, the proliferation of spells from 3e sourcebooks could have turned a swiss army knife utility mage into Deus Ex Machina.
However, even that problem I think has its roots in the post-mmog era. In earlier versions of D&D yeah there were tons of spells, from Greyhawk, Krynn, Forgotten Realms books, Dungeon and Dragon magazines, modules etc... The big difference was, it wasn't assumed that everyone had 100% access to them. The "if the item exists in a book, it is therefore available in my GM's campaign" is something relatively new to D&D. A mage could theoretically have access to spells that could make him always the go-to guy, but how many spells can he cast in a day? Does he have all those various components with him? Is the party going to take a day out, having already alerted the enemy, so the mage can memorize his utility spells?
All these things in prior editions were balanced not by the rules, but by the GM. Any D&D game in any edition can become Monty Haul or otherwise unbalanced if the GM doesn't discriminate as to what options and rules he wants in his campaign. That was ok though, because that was how you learned. You saw one campaign go right down the shitter and then you didn't do that a second time. 3e and 4e followed a different design philosophy - let the rules dictate what players have access to. The 3e and 4e rules are woefully generic, it takes a good GM to really dig in there, rewrite some of those crazyass classes and have the whole thing make sense for his campaign. If you don't do that, well yeah, of course it's gonna get totally fucked up, that goes for any RPG.
You make it sound like a GM who does not care for the characters is in some how bad. That might be for some reasons, but there are some good things, as well.
It's surely less work for the GM. He does not need to know the rules the players use. He doesn't have to evaluate the rules. He can enjoy being surprised by the rules the players invoke.
Quote from: Benoist;393444Yes, the rules provide a basis for a consensus amongst the participants. But that's ALL it is. A basis. It isn't a consensus itself, and it certainly is not the only component of game balance itself, which doesn't happen in theoretical la-la-land on the rulebook's page, but during the game itself, while it is being played, with a game world, a flesh and blood GM, flesh and blood players, and all that supposes of compromises, imagination, and social interactions.
Get your head out of your ass, try to *think* for a moment, and then maybe you'll have an epiphany. Otherwise well... have fun with yourself.
Actually, I think he's right in this regard.
If I'm flipping through games at the friendly local game store, I'm not looking at group A's playstyle, or group B's houserules. All that I have to go on when I'm deciding to buy it or not is the rules. If I decide not to buy it, then I'm probably going to decide not to play it in another group unless a good friend is extending the invitation.
Like it or not, rules count. It's why you enjoy some games and not others. Bad rules are bad rules...social contract or DM hand waving might mitigate them, but that doesn't negate the fact that for many people who come across a game, these things are bad rules.
For the record though, I think that the disparity between Fighters and Wizards wasn't nearly as bad in TSR-era D&D as in 3rd Edition.
Quote from: CRKrueger;393539A mage could theoretically have access to spells that could make him always the go-to guy, but how many spells can he cast in a day? Does he have all those various components with him? Is the party going to take a day out, having already alerted the enemy, so the mage can memorize his utility spells?
All these things in prior editions were balanced not by the rules, but by the GM.
This is exactly correct. There are a million and one ways to keep this alleged 'disparity' from rearing up, and pretty much any one of them will do the trick. This kind of problem only crops up with exceptionally bad DMing.
Well for components...in a game where it explicitly states in the rulebooks that a material components bag always has the required material components the wizard needs for any spell. ;)
Quote from: Peregrin;393650Well for components...in a game where it explicitly states in the rulebooks that a material components bag always has the required material components the wizard needs for any spell. ;)
Which rulebook states that?
Quote from: StormBringer;393651Which rulebook states that?
3e D&D PHB. A component pouch is a one-time purchase which guarantees a spellcaster has all necessary components for their spells. You can steal the pouch (pretty obvious DM fiat move), but as long as they have it on them, a player will never find themselves wanting for any components unless they're casting some really weird ritual (which they couldn't be doing in combat, anyway).
Quote from: Peregrin;3936573e D&D PHB. A component pouch is a one-time purchase which guarantees a spellcaster has all necessary components for their spells. You can steal the pouch (pretty obvious DM fiat move), but as long as they have it on them, a player will never find themselves wanting for any components unless they're casting some really weird ritual (which they couldn't be doing in combat, anyway).
I think that only refers to components that have a value of up to 1gp if I'm remembering correctly.
I don't believe this refers to 1000gp diamond dust for Stoneskin, or anything similar.
Quote from: Shazbot79;393577For the record though, I think that the disparity between Fighters and Wizards wasn't nearly as bad in TSR-era D&D as in 3rd Edition.
The two main factors I blame it on are:
1) Magic item creation and scroll writing is out of hand in Third Edition.
2) In the old days, you could disrupt a spell caster by hitting them at any point during a round. In 3e, you can only (possibly) do so by hitting them the instant they are casting their spell.
Quote from: Shazbot79;393660I think that only refers to components that have a value of up to 1gp if I'm remembering correctly.
I don't believe this refers to 1000gp diamond dust for Stoneskin, or anything similar.
Ah, right. I forgot about that.
Does that ever really factor into balancing spellcasters over the long-term, or is money plentiful enough by that point (I think Stoneskins is 4th level or around thereabouts)?
Quote from: Peregrin;393441How familiar are you with older rulesets?
Pretty damn familiar.
I've played and have ran OD&D, B/X, BECMI/RC, 1E, and 2E campaigns both with and without houserules. I've played with gamers, roleplayers, simulationists, and screwballs. In my experience, the only ones who ever recognized the disparity were actually the gamers and simulationists who recognized that most campaigns were either dominated by spellcasters, were engineered into thier current status quo by conspiracies of spellcasters, or you had to assume a vast (as in universe-scale vast) playing ground where the right combination of factors that you wanted to explore could exist despite the game's natural inclinations.
Everyone else pretty much handwaved it away with various bullshit (dead magic zones, cultural restrictions, the PCs are the only magic-users, etc.). Most of which was dissatisfying (since most of the time it could be summed up as "Thank you for choosing ultimate power, here's your congralutory crotch kick").
Having said that, you're looking to berate me and waste my time. Not going to bother continuing this conversation.
Quote from: RPGPundit;393443In OD&D if you use the Smash, Multiple Attacks, and Weapon Mastery rules, the fighter is pretty freaking incredible. Even if you just use the first two, a fighter certainly would keep up his usefulness compared to the mage, both being spectacular in their own ways.
In Rules Cyclopedia D&D, those rules did make a fighter more offensively (and in some aspects, defensively) capable in combat. However, by those options became available or appreciable, a lot of a fighter's utility out of combat came from him being a partial spellcaster or having a spellcaster as a retainer.
Quote from: Benoist;393444The problem with you is that you just like acting like an idiot, and you feel forced to be an asshole about it.
Ah no. The problem is you essentially want me to accept "Yes, but in my game or in my experience..." or any variation of the sort as a valid and equal rebuttal and that's not going to happen.
Quote from: RandallS;393512BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?
You know, this doesn't rebuff anything I just said. Yes, you care less but this doesn't resolve anything for someone whose fun comes from being an equal participant in all aspects of the game.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;393683Having said that, you're looking to berate me and waste my time. Not going to bother continuing this conversation.
I'm not looking to berate you -- as I said, your previous responses to me elsewhere and the attitude you displayed didn't really put you in a great light.
Starting a thread with "It's crap, Deal with it" also says that you're not looking for a conversation, you're making a declaration that you have no intention of changing, and only seek to use the thread as some sort of soapbox for your own views.
I give people the benefit of the doubt, but it entirely depends on how they present themselves.
Telling someone "Hurr durr, you're a retard, and the thing you like is bad" is going to evoke a totally different response than "Hey, I think you're wrong there, this is why:"
Quote from: Peregrin;393670Ah, right. I forgot about that.
Does that ever really factor into balancing spellcasters over the long-term, or is money plentiful enough by that point (I think Stoneskins is 4th level or around thereabouts)?
Wealth was not hard for a 7th level magic user to create.
This is one of the reasons that AD&D was a lot more balanced, because spellcasters didn't have easy access to game economy breaking things like scribe scroll and create wand....so material components were a much bigger deal back in those days.
Quote from: Peregrin;3936573e D&D PHB.
I rest my case. As per usual, DeadUematsu is as vague as possible regarding his premises, so as not to have to support them in any meaningful way. (EDIT: I don't think Peregrin is or ever has been guilty of this) However, I believe several posters have already mentioned that the issue was really not evident until 3.x; prior to that, it was virtually guaranteed that Magic Users can't outshine Fighters (or anyone else) consistently. I mean, if you stretch it just a bit, Fighters generally have decent odds of kicking in a door, so you don't really need the Thief to pick the lock, right?
I won't deny that there may be a noticeable problem with this in 3.0 and later; perhaps even a regular problem. I won't address the problem in 3.x or later. I gave up on those editions a number of years ago. I will clarify, however, for those who want to discuss this in good faith - as I am sure Peregrin does - that the solutions I propose are applicable to the earlier editions.
Quote from: Shazbot79;393718Wealth was not hard for a 7th level magic user to create.
This is one of the reasons that AD&D was a lot more balanced, because spellcasters didn't have easy access to game economy breaking things like scribe scroll and create wand....so material components were a much bigger deal back in those days.
Ostensibly XP costs should have discouraged this kind of thing. Played straight, I think casters might have leveled more slowly than non-casters if they took advantage.
I don't know how significant an impact it had or how often xp costs were enforced, unfortunately. And for what they did I think just buying them was pretty cheap too. I don't think I ever played in a group where the cleric didn't have a wand of healing (pricing guidelines for custom magic items let you make an unlimited healing wand... it may as well have been on the standard equipment list... it was more expensive, but even with a very low level spell it did what it needed to).
It is amazing to me how people who want so desperately to make D&D an MMO fail completely to understand stand the difference between burst and sustained DPS. This is the most basic of design concepts, people.
Also, D&D is not a PvP game, and monsters shouldn't have the same stats as players. They don't in WoW even.