Quote from: Sacrosanct;577599Try to keep up.  My whole context was around the wizard vs fighter in a thunderdome, and how it was flawed because the game was designed around several encounters per day, which the tunderdome doesn't emulate because it allows the wizard to re-mem every spell again after each round.

You are right the thunder dome assumes that all combatants are rested but that is not the real reason its not fair.
Its not fair because the wizard can do many more things in many more situations than the fighter.
That is just how the game is designed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;577611You are right the thunder dome assumes that all combatants are rested but that is not the real reason its not fair.
Its not fair because the wizard can do many more things in many more situations than the fighter.
That is just how the game is designed.

We're just going to have to disagree then, because the above is only true under the assumption that the wizard has access to all of his spells for each encounter and doesn't have to worry about things like spell interruptions and components.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577597Not really.  With rules like wandering monsters, and the way most dungeons were laid out, it was really impossible for a party to rest fully in between each encounter unless the DM was doing the players a favor.

I also find it pretty funny that Lord Moron makes a comment that fighters must be entitled, and in the very same post makes a comment that the party is expected to cater to the wizards every whim and rest whenever the wizard needs to recharge spells.

Again not true. The layout of dungeons is not in the rules. Its a play style.

You can find a room use iron spikes to jamb the door, or a spell if you like, and rest up.
People don't do it because its boring and dull and tedious.
The same reason a group of PCs trying to take down a garison in a modern war RPG wouldn't just sit in their base 50 miles away and pound the shit out of the place for 2 weeks with air assaults and cruise missiles.

You are forgetting as well that the fighter needs his HP to be fully operational and he can only get them if the cleric can heal him.
In my experience the party stopping to allow the cleric to relearn Cures because the Fighter is at 10hp from 50 is a more common occurance than stopping because the wizard runs out of spells at that sort of level (c 7ish ) the wizard has a ring and a wand that they use most of the time and they drip feed the spells as needed.

There are a few spells in particular that have a big bang for the buck.

Heal, Haste, Teleport, Charm Monster, etc...

Casters that are heavy with the best spells are many times more effective than a caster without those particular spells.

Its difficult to pin down the overall power of a caster. Some are 'feeble' and others are 'gods'

Fighters have the same issue but it is usually less severe. Strength score, Magic weapon, etc...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577615We're just going to have to disagree then, because the above is only true under the assumption that the wizard has access to all of his spells for each encounter and doesn't have to worry about things like spell interruptions and components.

Again no I just said the wizard can do more things in more situations. I didn't say if they have their full complement of spells etc ...
If a 10th level wizard has 13 spells that means they can so 13 things a day that the fighter can't do, if they only have 5 left they can only do 5 things the fighter can't do.
The fighter is better at hitting stuff and taking damage. Sure he's always better at the first and usually better at the second if someone can keep on pumping him full of magic asprin.

I don't mind this its how the game is built. It's like saying How come I get to play Captain America but your Iron man character  can do loads of extra stuff. Its just the way it works.
Wizards have flexibility and options. Fighters are good at hitting stuff.
If you don't like it play Rune Quest

And my point is that it's not always true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577567This is a bad way to balance a game and you should feel bad for suggesting it.

I don't feel bad at all as this method has worked well for years in my campaigns and in those of other people. It does not provide the balanced at all times/all levels design you want, but all games are not required to satisfy you and not me (or vice-versa).

Quote from: Bill;577619There are a few spells in particular that have a big bang for the buck.

Heal, Haste, Teleport, Charm Monster, etc...

Casters that are heavy with the best spells are many times more effective than a caster without those particular spells.

Its difficult to pin down the overall power of a caster. Some are 'feeble' and others are 'gods'

Fighters have the same issue but it is usually less severe. Strength score, Magic weapon, etc...

You are correct.
However, I can take a seemingly feeble spell like randomly opens book - "there not there" from the Tome of Magic 2e to bypass a trap , free a prisoner, make a fortune in a circus, trick a sultan into giving me the magic code that secures his magic unicorn, stealing a grimoire, etc etc etc ....

if you are smart and have a good imagination even a seemingly trivial magical spell can acomplish miracles, shit I mean it is a miracle so what would you expect.

if you pack the common stuff you merely exceed in those common situations.

Give me a spell and I'll test the hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possibly ... but I am confused. At 5th level the fighter has on average 27HP. if he takes a single hit in each combat from a longsword by the 6th fight he is dead..... so .... not so effective.

In reality the fighter will be pushing to rest after fight 3 or 4 when the cleric has used all his cures and the fighter is on 15 Hp and sees him self dropping to a lucky crit.

I think a party that pushed through 10 consecutive fights at 5th level and when the first two of those fights caused the MU to blow his best spells is unlikey to ever reach 6th level....in fact how did they get to 4th?

Quote from: jibbajibba;577631possibly ... but I am confused. At 5th level the fighter has on average 27HP. if he takes a single hit in each combat from a longsword by the 6th fight he is dead..... so .... not so effective.

You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first.  Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?

Again, this is a disingenuous argument to count hp against the fighter but not the MU.  We're talking about resources here unique to each class.  I.e., a MUs spells vs a fighters fighting ability.

QuoteIn reality the fighter will be pushing to rest after fight 3 or 4 when the cleric has used all his cures and the fighter is on 15 Hp and sees him self dropping to a lucky crit.

Not really.  Up to 6-10 combats before finding a place where you could rest isn't that uncommon in AD&D.  Ever hear of wandering monsters or healing potions?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577587I don't see how the 2e fighter is that much more duable than the 2e cleric they use the same armor and on adverage the fighter get on 1 more hp/level
the fighter may have 1/2-1 more attacks but the cleric has spells.

I find it hard to find anything worth keeping about a class that never brings anything but bigger numbers to the table.

I had typed up a whole response to this, but it occured to me it has already been discussed at length (particularly between me and Jibba earlier in the thread). I suggest you review the specialization chart that gives the attacks per round for different weapons (keeping in mind clerics are only getting one attack each round). Look at the 2E cleric spell list. Take a look at how stats work in 2E (particularly CON and STR). Then examine the THAC0 chart. Fighters in 2E hold their own pretty well. There are plenty of reasons to pick a fighter over a cleric in that edition of the game.

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

Oh no, it is true, it's mathematically provable (although you'll never see the proof) and applicable in 100% of cases.  Without exception. PERIOD.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577632You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first.  Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?

Wait... you mean not isolate every single character unto itself so it can be picked apart completely divorced from what is actually occurring in the setting and highly conditional? :eek:

The saddest thing here is seeing Mr. Improv Murder Mystery shed all intellectual integrity backing the pointwhores because Benoist and Vulmea made him ragequit once for a few weeks.  

Sorry, did I say sad, I meant hilarious.  :rotfl:

Maybe it's time to break out my Core Rules CD ROM again and whip up a couple level 7 fighter and cleric NPCs.  Have to wait until I get home first though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577632You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first.  Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?

Again, this is a disingenuous argument to count hp against the fighter but not the MU.  We're talking about resources here unique to each class.  I.e., a MUs spells vs a fighters fighting ability.


Not really.  Up to 6-10 combats before finding a place where you could rest isn't that uncommon in AD&D.  Ever hear of wandering monsters or healing potions?

Okay for me 10 consecutive combats with no rest is a shit load. Typically as a party we just never fought that much. A fight avoided means resources spared until you can't avoid it any more.

You keep using wandering monsters as some great panacea of balance. In 1e if I recall you made a check once every 3 to 6 turns for an encounter with an encounter occuring 1 in 6 times so lets say you went for 1 every 3 turns that means typically you will have a single wandering monster encounter every 3 hours of play or 3 in a 9 hour adventuring day. Of those 3 encounters some will need to be avoided becuase they will be a great threat and some will be a minor annoyance others will be oportunities to trade or learn information. I would postuate that only 1 in 3 encounters results in combat. Thus we have on average 1 random encounter per day..... which acts as the ultimate balancer on those pesky wizards.....

Magic potions are like I said the magic asprin that keeps the fighter going. If you can find them great but in my games there are no magic poitions in  Ye old adventurer stores or any of that palava.
Of course the MU can take damage obviously but he isn't taking the same level of damage as the fighter because that is the fighter's job, at 5th level at least. The wizard is artillery.

I know this has been said several times before, but what the hell.

In AD&D, casters could overpower fighters, but not until well after name level.  A period where only a small % of gameplay was actually done, so it's hardly a gamebreaker of imbalance.

If the balance was as bad as some people claim, don't you think it would have been addressed at some point in the 25 years of D&D being played?  And if caster superiority was such a problem in TSR D&D, why would WotC put out an edition that made it worse?


Or maybe, just maybe, it wasn't a big problem.  Maybe, just maybe, people had fun playing D&D for 25 years with rules that weren't in fact, horribly broken.

I know, I know...it might be hard for some people to understand that other people had fun playing D&D before they were potty trained.  But it did happen.  It wasn't a myth.