Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)

Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)

Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)

I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter.  If you want the math:

Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks.  Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit.  105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks.  8.5 points dealt.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577871This^  This is what we call irony folks.  As always, MGuy never fails to do the exact thing he just got done accusing others of.  For example, this:



Shows that he hasn't been reading the posts because I'm pretty sure I've said more than once that who cares about end game levels because 90% of game play never occurs there.  Most game play, especially in AD&D was at level 10 and below.

To recap: MGuy just accuses me of not following the same conversation as everyone else and immediately says something that shows he's not following the same conversation as everyone else.

I have to wonder if you do this on purpose for the lulz.

I have read that YOU refuse to talk about the time where the fighter's uselessness actually occurs despite people like me remarking about higher levels being the place where the problems exist in abundance. I pointed out pages ago that you were doing that and how stupid it was.

Second yes, your summary is a completely false portrayal of the last few pages.

Quote from: sovietNo, but I'm assuming fighters get attacked more.

Unless he's just plinking away with a longbow, the fighter needs to get into melee before he can really do his thing. That means potentially crossing the battlefield in the face of missile fire. It means negotiating potential reach attacks, auras, and attacks of opportunity. And above all else it probably means that the other monsters can now get to him and smack him around at the same time. Further, 'run in and one-shot the monster' is rarely a viable strategy due to HP totals. So even if the fighter carefully positions himself against a single target, he's still got a few more rounds of toe-to-toe exchanges before he wins. Each exchange, there's a good chance he loses some more hit points. This is much worse in 3e and 4e due to HP inflation, but it's still there in 2e and earlier.

The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.

Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.

Quote from: SacroUh..yeah you did. Bolded by me. Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.

Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples. In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing? The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')? You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right? This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work

Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake. How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target? Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?

A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp. An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter. If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.

If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.

Quote from: DeadDMNo, neither of those assumptions are unfair.

Neither is it unfair to assume that Fighters lose more hit points on average than wizards do. Everyone in this thread, if posting in good faith, would remark that it is a feature of their game that Fighters take more hit point damage than Wizards do. They'll also admit that Fighters take hit point damage more often than Wizards do.

But there is a fear that admitting something that is true, even in their own game, will provide you some kind of advantage that you're going to use to change the way they play.

If they were being honest, they'd admit that Fighters take more damage, and the system is DESIGNED for that, which is one reason that Fighters get more hit points than Wizards.

If they really wanted to make their point, they could say 'in my games, fighters have 2.5x as many hit points as wizards, on average, but they take only twice the damage, on average, so Fighters actually take a lower percentage of their total hit points in damage each fight than wizards. But they won't say that because it's not true, and if it was, it would involve tracking numbers that they don't care to track (because it's D&D not OCD).

Or something to that effect.

But I think it's fun to continue pointing out that their points range from stupid to pointless. It makes me feel smart to post on the right side of an obvious argument.

Quote from: jibbaAfter looking at dungeon design and how light works in the game, I thought I'd spend some time looking at how Wandering Monsters actually work in the Moldvay edition of Basic D&D (which isn't completely how I *thought* they did).

First we see how often Wandering Monsters appear:

At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters. To do so, roll 1d6: a result of 1 indicates that the party will encounter a Wandering Monster on the next turn."

So rather than once a turn (which is what I thought the rule is) it's actually once every THREE turns, since I wouldn't check during the turn the Wandering Monster is appearing. This is less often than I thought.


However in some areas you would check more often:

The dungeon may have certain areas where Wandering Monsters are encountered more often (such as on a roll of 1 or 2).
The dungeon may have areas where the DM checks for Wandering Monsters every turn, or where a monster will appear when a corridor is entered.

I think it's important that players somehow be able to make choices about whether to remain in a high-traffic area or not, and for that they need to be able to predict which areas will have more wandering monsters than others.

In addition to this Wandering Monster frequency will be affected by the choices the behaviour of the adventuring party:

Wandering Monsters should appear more often if the party is making a lot of noise or light, but should not be frequent if the party spends a long time in one out-of-the-way place (if they stop in a room for the nigh, for example).

The rules don't say how infrequently to check for Wandering Monsters if the party is quietly waiting in an out-of-the-way place but it would need to be less than once every 30 minutes. Perhaps a check once an hour? Maybe once every 1-3 hours?


So Roughly ballpark with the 1 in 6 chance every 3 turns I recalled...

That is Moldvay though and I moved to 1e after Blue Book so I wouldn't have gotten it from there.

Your response:

Quote from: SacIn your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter? Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face. If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.

Quote from: MistbornGiven how tight 2e is with spells (and thus with healing) I don't think that a 2e party can face 4 common encounters much less the 10 you implied earlier.

Your reply:

Quote from: SacThat's what you get for thinking.

I'm not talking about just 2e, but AD&D as well.

Secondly, I've been playing AD&D continuous for over 30 years, and going through 6-10 encounters before being able to find a suitable place for 8 hours of rest is not uncommon. Seriously, this world would be a much better place if people who never played TSR D&D would stop assuming what was or wasn't possible.

So yea, you're still an asshole. Not only is your conversation analysis far from what actually happened but the people you're arguing against aren't from the place you said they were.

Also still ignoring the fact that because the fighter takes damage and accrues status conditions that he can't get rid of on his own makes the fighter have to rest as well.

Quote from: Rum Cove;577875:teehee:

Who's your team Rum Cove?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)

Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)

I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter.  If you want the math:

Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks.  Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit.  105 total points inflicted

Please add Fighter's Bow and dual wield Dagger as well here, please! Even w/o WP/NWP it's pretty hoss, and range is niiice. Throw in weapon specialization -- also core -- and there's not much to compare.

Quote from: Marleycat;577891Who's your team Rum Cove?

:cheerleader: Baltimore Ravens! :cheerleader:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)

Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)

Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)

I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter.  If you want the math:

Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks.  Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit.  105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks.  8.5 points dealt.

When people where talking about clerics we were talking about 3e clerics. So congrats you've proven that 2e fighters have better numbers to decrease the monsters numbers and all the other class groups bow before your greatest numbers in the land. What surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile. That's a really sad thing that never happens in 3rd.
But that doesn’t matter apparently because you grind on mobs 10 encounters per day. Have fun with that.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577923When people where talking about clerics we were talking about 3e clerics. So congrats you've proven that 2e fighters have better numbers to decrease the monsters numbers and all the other class groups bow before your greatest numbers in the land. What surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile. That's a really sad thing that never happens in 3rd.
But that doesn’t matter apparently because you grind on mobs 10 encounters per day. Have fun with that.

No, they weren't.  Maybe you thought you were, but no one else was.

Also, show me how a level 7 2e magic user would be able to deal damage with a magic missile for 10 rounds.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577736that is because the discussion moved to 2e when this came up. We have been talking about 2e for a while now I believe.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577645I 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.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)

Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)

Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)

I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter.  If you want the math:

Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks.  Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit.  105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks.  8.5 points dealt.

You are right
You can see my 1e compare up post.

Of course beyond 2e Core with 2e Complete Priest the numbers all switch but as a core yes you are correct.
Intrigues about the HP varaiance.
You have the Dwarf on 56 HP so I am assuming based on an average (which would be 38 HP) you gave him 16 CON.
But the Cleric you left with No CON bonus any reason for that ? Its a secondary stat for both so just curious.
I also notice that you gave the Dwarf + 6 damage so I assume he has a +2 axe and +4  from Strength and Spec. that confused me a bit as he either has 18 Strength and you didn't give him exceptional Strength roll or he is double specialised (+3/+3) and you haven't given him enough attacks. I can't recall if Double Spec is in the Compelte Fighter though or if its core.
Likewise the fighter's THACO of 10 which is +6 for level and +4, 2 from the axe and I guess, 1 Strength and 1 Spec  - this indicates single Specialation so I think you gave him 18 Strength but didn't give him the % roll.  
Also a footman's mace is 1d6+1 damage so a +2 is 1d6 +3

Generally I don't know any 2e players that didn't use Completes for the base classes but if you choose not to then this is a fair comparison apart from the Con Bonus which I think is a wee bit sly.

Up post you will also see how my example of how a Cleric in 2e and previous can easliy defeat a fighter in a "Thunderdome" using the Command spell for which a fighter under 5th level gets no save at all (assuming less than 13 Int which is reasonably safe bet).

Quote from: Panzerkraken;577926No, they weren't.  Maybe you thought you were, but no one else was.

Also, show me how a level 7 2e magic user would be able to deal damage with a magic missile for 10 rounds.

Depending on spell selection I thing MU 7 can bring the damage for 10 rounds
precombat Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer get 3 extra magic missiles
rounds 1-2 Fireball or Lighting Bolt
rounds 3-9Magic Missile

If you can prepare lower level spell in higher level slots or any good blasting spells exist at 2nd level then the Mu can keep going for even longer. Thats all your spells so you might want to save this for a major encounter.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577798In your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter?  Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face.  If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.

You are right about goblins make them gnolls sorry as I said I was watching the telly so wasn't very focused.

But again in my games the PCs encounter stuff that is there rather than stuff that is level appropriate, world in motion and all that. But you are right I should have siad so

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577933Depending on spell selection I thing MU 7 can bring the damage for 10 rounds
precombat Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer get 3 extra magic missiles
rounds 1-2 Fireball or Lighting Bolt
rounds 3-9Magic Missile

If you can prepare lower level spell in higher level slots or any good blasting spells exist at 2nd level then the Mu can keep going for even longer. Thats all your spells so you might want to save this for a major encounter.

So, by not following with what you said, you can out-damage the Fighter by blowing your entire load on one combat, provided you prepare beforehand for exactly and only that.

And your average damage across the entire 10 rounds is 106.25, so you've exceeded the fighter by 1.25 points.  Congratulations on your overpowering dps.

Spoiler

Average damage from fireball or lightning bolt at 7th level is 24.5.  I assumed one of the two spells was saved against for 12.25 average damage.

Average damage from a 7th level magic missile is 10 points.

24.5+12.25+10x7 = 106.25

Except that he can do it again the next 10 rounds.

And the 10 rounds after that.

Where's your sustained damage?  It sounds more like a half-assed glass cannon that can't keep up in the long haul.  In fact, the fighter could keep that rate of damage up (since we're whiteboxing) until the wizard has a chance to rest and prepare all his spells to be able to do it again.  In about 10 hours.

The magic user might be better off memorizing some utility spells and letting the professionals do the damage.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;577936So, by not following with what you said, you can out-damage the Fighter by blowing your entire load on one combat, provided you prepare beforehand for exactly and only that.

And your average damage across the entire 10 rounds is 106.25, so you've exceeded the fighter by 1.25 points.  Congratulations on your overpowering dps.

Spoiler

Average damage from fireball or lightning bolt at 7th level is 24.5.  I assumed one of the two spells was saved against for 12.25 average damage.

Average damage from a 7th level magic missile is 10 points.

24.5+12.25+10x7 = 106.25

Except that he can do it again the next 10 rounds.

And the 10 rounds after that.

Where's your sustained damage?  It sounds more like a half-assed glass cannon that can't keep up in the long haul.  In fact, the fighter could keep that rate of damage up (since we're whiteboxing) until the wizard has a chance to rest and prepare all his spells to be able to do it again.  In about 10 hours.

The magic user might be better off memorizing some utility spells and letting the professionals do the damage.

Wrong. Your math is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Magic Missile is 1 missile per odd level for 1d4+1 that's and average of 14 damage per casting at 7th. The fireballs do an averaged of 24.5 damage weighted for 50% save success rate that’s 18.375 damage per attack on the other hand saves vs spell that are that good I'm guessing are rare at that level. So lets sum that up. That's roughly 135 damage and that's assuming those fireballs are only hitting one thing. The wizard is doing his damage at range possibly protected by one of the 2nd level slots that good blasting spell don't seem to fit into.

Now if you're a smart wizard you save those big guns for encounters that matter. Now there is no way you are going to keep up with 3e level challenges with those spellslots. If Sac is telling the truth then you're facing 10 waves of orcs or kobald or some bullshit like that. that sample fighter has 56 hp. the sample cleric can heal 40.5 hp and you're facing 10 encounters. With those numbers I can tell for sure none them are 3e level challenges because a CR 7 monster can and will remove 50% or more of someones hp in one go.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577940Wrong. Your math is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Magic Missile is 1 missile per odd level for 1d4+1 that's and average of 14 damage per casting at 7th. The fireballs do an averaged of 24.5 damage weighted for 50% save success rate that’s 18.375 damage per attack on the other hand saves vs spell that are that good I'm guessing are rare at that level. So lets sum that up. That's roughly 135 damage and that's assuming those fireballs are only hitting one thing. The wizard is doing his damage at range possibly protected by one of the 2nd level slots that good blasting spell don't seem to fit into.

Now if you're a smart wizard you save those big guns for encounters that matter. Now there is no way you are going to keep up with 3e level challenges with those spellslots. If Sac is telling the truth then you're facing 10 waves of orcs or kobald or some bullshit like that. that sample fighter has 56 hp. the sample cleric can heal 40.5 hp and you're facing 10 encounters. With those numbers I can tell for sure none them are 3e level challenges because a CR 7 monster can and will remove 50% or more of someones hp in one go.

The discussion was totally centered on damage output to a single target, not a set of encounters.  Try to keep up.  

And you responded:

QuoteWhat surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile.

Again, you're missing the point that we're talking about 2e, so saves are completely dependent on the target, not the caster.  I assumed one save out of the two.  And you said you would out damage the fighter with Magic Missile, not with fireballs.  I did muss my math and forgot to add the extra 4 points per casting of MM though, so fair enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that in order to keep up with the fighter, you have to blow your entire spell selection in one sitting.  96 becomes the average damage for firing off magic missiles for 7 rounds.  We could add another 2.5 per round for a dagger for the other 3 rounds if you like?

Also, don't strawman us into the CR argument that got your precious thunderdome shut down.

Quote from: Doom;577842Indeed, been playing lots of AD&D/2e the last year or so. It's amazing how swingy combat is.

When hill giants have 35ish hp and level six fighters can hit them for over 30 a round, a fight can be a bloodbath or a slaughter.

I remember in 4e, the players met a green slime. Just one, way below the characters' level, but I was fiddling with wandering monster charts. Everyone freaked out because, hey, if there's an encounter budget, then every encounter is gonna cost something.

The effect is only slightly less in 3e, but encourage DMs for 3e to try it sometime, throw in an  obvious fight, with something way too low, and watch the metagamers try to figure out where the invisible dragon or whatever must be.

Encounter budget? Man I hate the concept. Playuers should never be distracted by metagame stuff like that, and the dm should never be constrained by a budget.

Ok, now that my biased rant is over, how does using encounter budgets work for you? I am curious, as I never have used that game element.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;577941Again, you're missing the point that we're talking about 2e, so saves are completely dependent on the target, not the caster.  I assumed one save out of the two.  And you said you would out damage the fighter with Magic Missile, not with fireballs.  I did muss my math and forgot to add the extra 4 points per casting of MM though, so fair enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that in order to keep up with the fighter, you have to blow your entire spell selection in one sitting.  96 becomes the average damage for firing off magic missiles for 7 rounds.  We could add another 2.5 per round for a dagger for the other 3 rounds if you like?

I was thinking on a more per turn basis with the magic missile comment. 14 magic missile>10.5 fighter damage weighted for AC. my hypothetical 2e blaster is casting damage spells for 9/rounds per day. Now I can't be 100% on what that means in 2e. Most 3e combats tend to be over in 3-4 rounds and you're supposed to face 4 encounters per day. So under 3e encounter paradigm he's contributing to 3 out of 4 encounters possibly contributing a lot more if their are groups of enemies to fireball. One more level and I think he gets another 4th slot and can cast magic missile 10/day which is enough to have stuff to cast about every encounter under the paradigm.

Sac has proposed an alternate paradigm of 10 encounters per day. I find it hard to believe that these are hard encounters given that the Cleric can as I have said only heal 40.5 If the fighter alone is taking any more than 10 damage each encounter he's going to be a corpse at the end of encounter 10even if he get's all of the cleric healing. Given those numbers I have to assume that these encounters are not mostly challenging, The wizard due to nova potential, is still contributing more to major encounters. Ya know the ones that the party care about beating.