Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StoneStokes 04-10-07, 03:01 PM	This is Part II of my ranting. Part I is The Intended Purpose of Point-Buy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=826269). I have often heard that spell-casters are more powerful than melee types, etc., etc. Usually this is said as a complaint, and often the "proof" involves some sort of duel between the two. My response: Who cares? More specifically, those of you who do care are missing the point of the game itself. The game is designed around the idea of cooperation. Each character is designed to fill a specific role within the party. I will look at the two classes, Fighter and Wizard, which usually come up for the duel. We will see what roles they fill, and why it is unimportant which is the more powerful. The Fighter The fighter's primary purpose is to face foes toe-to-toe, in melee combat. Sure, they can do other things like fire arrows and the like, but the role for which they are designed is primary melee combatant. At low levels, this means that they will be dealing the majority of the damage to foes; especially with feats like Power Attack and Cleave. However, at high levels, they cannot expect to match the wizard in damage dealt. That is okay. As stated, the role is to stay in melee combat with the enemy, not "deal massive damage." By maintaining melee contact with the enemy, the fighter allows his spellcasting allies to put the hurt on the bad guys. Without the fighter in the front line, the wizard will have a tougher time doing so. The Wizard The wizard's primary purpose is to cast arcane spells, usually from a distance. They, too, can do other things like fire crossbows, but the role for which they are designed is primary arcane casting. At low levels, this will be mostly supportive spells, with the occasional magic missile or color spray. But even so, they won't be dealing much damage at these levels. At mid-to-high levels, they can really start to wallup on the bad guys. And they are much more effective if they have the support of a burly fighter to keep any threats at bay. So at low levels, the wizard is mostly supportive while the fighter deals damage, and at high levels the fighter is mostly supportive while the wizard deals damage. The point is that each makes the other's job easier. You can truly have fun with whichever character you play if you simply allow yourself to enjoy the role for which he was designed. Comments and criticisms welcome, StoneStokes
Shadowhowler 04-10-07, 03:07 PM	I'm not as intrested in a classes 'intended purpass' bit as you are... but I do agree that when it comes to a Mage being more powerful then a fighter... who cares? In my opinion a Wizard should be more powerful then a fighter... there is a LOT he has to do to get/use his power... and it has limits. I always refer to my main rule for dealing with balance issues, min-maxers (nowdays more polite refered to as Character Optimizers, heh) and other assorted crap: Don't game with a$$hats, and your game will be fun.
Seeker95 04-10-07, 03:21 PM	My response: Who cares?In general, not I. :tiphat:
KillerGM 04-10-07, 03:38 PM	I don't really care if someone thinks that the classes aren't equal - because I think they are. It's so weird. I just don't get it. :eek: Obviously, each class will outperform in certain areas, if certain contiditions are met, certain rules apply, and it's the appropriate day of the week. But overall, I think they're all pretty even. Maybe this is bias from my classless system days, where one character would DOMINATE a certain area (for example, combat), and others wouldn't have a chance (ie: the armchair historian everybody seems to want to play for WoD games). A lot of times, I've had new players in my game come in saying "X class is the best EVAR!" Then something happens: they realize that actually playing the class doesn't afford them all the prep time/tactical advantages/infinite combos that they thought it would. And I don't try to nerf their idea, I just run the game by the rules. I remember, back in the day when everyone was saying that Clerics are teh r0xx0rz, a player of mine made one up to crush everyone in combat. By the time he had all his buffs and things up, the Fighter had already almost killed the monster. It worked in his head, but it just didn't gel at the table. I view all the classes as equal mechanically. I prefer certain classes for flavor (Sorcerer over Wizard, for example), but never for mechanics. If I thought the classes were unbalanced, then yes I would try to fix them, because I believe they should be "equal" in terms of relative power level - meaning the BAB progression, special abilities, skills, HP, and saves all kind of balance out over all the classes. Not to mention that the classes are built to work together - the game is designed to have a party, capable of dealing with different obsticles with different party members' abilities.
celtredleg 04-10-07, 04:21 PM	I play the game to have fun, not as some sort of mathmatical exercise to prove a point. Aft 30 years, I still play dwarf fighters. And still have fun.
Archangel62 04-10-07, 04:40 PM	I don't want the classes to be the same. I do however want each class to be able to do something at high levels that an NPC class couldn't.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-10-07, 04:53 PM	I'd like the classes to be kinda equal so I don't have to twist my entire campaign world and adventure planning into contrived scenarios in order to 'let every class shine.' But that's just me.
scienceman47 04-10-07, 06:02 PM	This is Part II of my ranting. Part I is The Intended Purpose of Point-Buy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=826269). I have often heard that spell-casters are more powerful than melee types, etc., etc. Usually this is said as a complaint, and often the "proof" involves some sort of duel between the two. My response: Who cares? More specifically, those of you who do care are missing the point of the game itself. The game is designed around the idea of cooperation. Each character is designed to fill a specific role within the party. I will look at the two classes, Fighter and Wizard, which usually come up for the duel. We will see what roles they fill, and why it is unimportant which is the more powerful. The Fighter The fighter's primary purpose is to face foes toe-to-toe, in melee combat. Sure, they can do other things like fire arrows and the like, but the role for which they are designed is primary melee combatant. At low levels, this means that they will be dealing the majority of the damage to foes; especially with feats like Power Attack and Cleave. However, at high levels, they cannot expect to match the wizard in damage dealt. That is okay. As stated, the role is to stay in melee combat with the enemy, not "deal massive damage." By maintaining melee contact with the enemy, the fighter allows his spellcasting allies to put the hurt on the bad guys. Without the fighter in the front line, the wizard will have a tougher time doing so. The Wizard The wizard's primary purpose is to cast arcane spells, usually from a distance. They, too, can do other things like fire crossbows, but the role for which they are designed is primary arcane casting. At low levels, this will be mostly supportive spells, with the occasional magic missile or color spray. But even so, they won't be dealing much damage at these levels. At mid-to-high levels, they can really start to wallup on the bad guys. And they are much more effective if they have the support of a burly fighter to keep any threats at bay. So at low levels, the wizard is mostly supportive while the fighter deals damage, and at high levels the fighter is mostly supportive while the wizard deals damage. The point is that each makes the other's job easier. You can truly have fun with whichever character you play if you simply allow yourself to enjoy the role for which he was designed. Comments and criticisms welcome, StoneStokes 1. This has been addressed many times. The fighter is not living in a MMORPG. The enemies at high level don't focus on him while the mage brings the real damage to bear, the enemies greater teleport directly to the mage and kill him before slaughtering the rest of the party. Not that the mage dies, but he's spending the exact amount of energy evading the enemy as he would if the fighter wasn't there. 2. Don't diss the bows. Fighters are in need of a competant ranged attack, considering how many things there are that are either hard to get close to or dangerous to be near. 3. The above is also missing the point. You've gracefully ignored the wildshaped dire bear in the room, CoDzilla. If you like fighters, play fighters. But when you talk about "Intended purpose", the fighter fails cause someone else can do it, and do it better to just as good.
StoneStokes 04-10-07, 06:07 PM	I play the game to have fun, not as some sort of mathmatical exercise to prove a point. Aft 30 years, I still play dwarf fighters. And still have fun. :) Great! After 25 years, I still play halflings of just about any class. And still have fun.
Dazzer 04-10-07, 06:23 PM	This seems to be a touchy subject on the site, but I'll attempt a justification system here that albeit "character optimizers" will always find a way to ruin, most will hopefully agree. Firstly: The fighter, IS NOT MEANT to be the melee guy who holds of the enemy, nor is he meant to be a specialist, of any kind. He can be those things, but that is not his primary purpose. His primary purpose, is variable. It depends on the way he makes his fighter. A fighter with Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, Combat Expertise, Whirlwind Attack, Improved Disarm etc... Is much different from a fighter with Power Attack/Cleave/Improved Sunder, Combat Focus etc... The fighter's strength is his versatility. Because he has more feats than everyone else, he can be good at doing many things, or really good at doing one thing. Of course, the wild-shaped druid will be better at him in melee, but the fighter who specializes in melee can wreck that same druid. Oh no, improved grapple, oh no close-quarters-fighting!, oh no, trip attacks counter: Balancing boots, balance skill, combat stability, shield ward, For everything that something can do, there is a counter. The fighter is capable of having MORE of those counters, and being able to get around those same counters, more often (Improved trip, no aop +4 bonus) etc... His primary purpose is being good at many things in combat, or perfect at one thing. The Wizard: The wizards' purpose is problem solving, period. Each spell solves a problem or many problems. Ray of Enfeeblement solves Ogre Bashing problems, Illusions solve problems in distracting people or many other things depending. Enchantments solve social problems, Spider Climb solves mountains, water breathing solves just that, Wish solves all problems! If you are wondering, yes, fireball solves problems of facing masses, and any combat spell solves the problem of the wizard sucking in combat otherwise. So, We have a guy, who is good at combat, and countering combat, and we have a guy who is generally good at solving problems. Of course, at low levels, the combat guy will win. At high levels the wizard CAN have a spell to deal with anything, it's what he does. Lets assume the wizard knows everything about Fighter McWarrior...yes...he'll beat him...probably hands down. Lets assume the wizard doesn't know the fighters style, and had prepared spells to get around a dungeon that day...well...the fighter who is a constant, might beat down the wizard today. Its situational. If they start in melee, the fighter could have feats to truly screw a wizard (you know those ones that make the fighter always threaten the wizard even if he casts defensively fighter gets AoP) The penalty for having that, is -4 caster level to all the spells the fighter casts...the prereq is ranks in some cross class skills...and not many are needed. If they start away, the wizard may win, probably will, or will run away and come back when he can win. That's not the issue. The issue is, when facing a Balor, with all it's Balor minions, and the cultists that worship the Balor, and the traps around the Balor's Lair, and the Monsters that come out of the walls, and....the encounter goes on and on...one day...the wizard will...run out of spells...the fighter will run out of hitpoints...the cleric will tap out of healing...but because they are all together and helping eachother, they win anyway. If it was just the wizard, he would die, just the fighter...dead...just the cleric...dead but since he can heal it would take longer..... It's a party based game, without an element the party is made weaker. The more bases the party can cover, the better. When facing a problem like, There is an enemy spellcaster over there, and a raging monster coming towards us. A wizard could maybe take them both, but what happens when the enemy spellcaster simply uses his action to counter-spell while the monster rips the wizard apart...the only way to stop that would be to...put the fighter in the way? hey look, he's needed. :D
Mr. Master 04-10-07, 06:34 PM	I care. I mean,I care if "equal"'s meaning is "able to perform their task without being less powerful in doing so than another class". At least here in 3.0,all classes are "equal" (with some house rules,of course). Wizards can annihilate almost everyone at high levels...if these guys fail their STs...if they are not attacked by a single decent fighter in melee combat (even long distance combat can be dangerous for them...)...if they succeed in their Initiative check (wizards seem to be the first target of enemies' attacks,how strange...) Fighters can ahhiliate almost everyone at high levels,provided they have carefully chosen magic equimpent and magic help from their allied spellcasters and time do kill the enemy (unless they are Knights charging enemies...).They are the party's shield and sword,they provide spellcasters the time they need to cast spells,they give thieves and bards the chances to use their skill,they are the Damocle's sword on the enemies charging the spellcasters ("Ok,you can kill the cleric,but you'll die immediately after that.It's your choice..."). Clerics keep the group alive,boost other characters powers,are a serious threat for undeads and are good 2nd choice warriors...but they can't kill enemies with the same ease of wizards...they don't have the same amount of skill points of thieves and bards...and they can't even annihilate a single enemy like a fighter does,because the first succesfully dispel magic casted on them can reduce them to what they truly are (2nd choice fighters). And things can go on for other classes as well...They are good at different things and each one of them can't do other things like other classes do,because they either lack the tools to do such things or they can be easily countered when doing so.
mlund 04-10-07, 06:59 PM	Let's face it. Some classes scale really well and some just don't. Spell Levels scale to the point of Awesome Cosmic Power. Weapons, Skills, and Feats - not so much. 7th - 9th Level spells often put every other character out of business when it comes to any individual task. The only reason non-casters exist is to compensate for the fact that the caster only gets one Action per round (mostly) or deal with the random immune-to-magic beast that jumps out of the shadows. Magic is the supremely dominant force of high-level Dungeons and Dragons. When I feel like the high-level magic takes away the spotlight from all the other character archetypes I just play a lower-level game. What's even better, though, is when the players actually focus on complimenting one another's abilities rather than trying to upstage one another or solving everything on their own. That's when high-level magic truly shines in D&D, IMO - lots of Abjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion and a little less Evocation, Conjuration, and Necromancy. These same problems can come up in low-level games too, even when it isn't a power imbalance. Someone who constantly summons up hordes of Celestial or Fiendish minions is going to be cutting his or her fellow players out of game time due to the number of actions he or she directs on his or her turn. Man, but can combats with a Druid + Animal Companion + 5x Summoned Critters + Cohort get to be a drag for everyone else at the table. Just because you are powerful enough to resolve an encounter without any help from the other players doesn't mean you should. - Marty Lund
green_yawgmoth 04-10-07, 07:14 PM	Don't game with asshats, and your game will be fun.Not only do I agree with you, but I also removed your masking. :) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Always-Late 04-10-07, 07:19 PM	I care. On top of being able to whomp the fighter as a standard action, a cleric can turn into a fighter who's pretty much worth three of the party fighter. It's like playing a Warrior 6 when somebody else is playing a Fighter 6. Sure, different roles, you tank and he does tricks.
YellowKnight 04-10-07, 08:04 PM	Two things I'd like to point about in the whole caster versus non thing, hopefully without starting a long competition: 1) Magic is supposed to be better than normal. If magic wielding and primarily training-based combat were equal, then no one would bother learning magic except to do parlor tricks, because it'd be just as dangerous and in reality extremely time consuming and expensive to do so (unless you're a sorcerer, and even then it'll take time to hone your powers and might risk destroying expensive stuff in the process). That's why you have magic items for fighters to wield in the first place - and even then they're not better. Magic is such a powerful force in D&D that you shouldn't try to make non-magical warriors and such try to be equal, because you'd effectively be balancing against every contingency of spells and every situation where magic could cause harm. People study it because it is powerful, and it's much more efficient than picking up an ordinary or even enchanted sword and running into combat hoping you don't get your head cut off. 2) Why does everyone spend so much time looking at how well a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer can mimic being a fighter, instead of looking at how they can make the fighter way better than it already is and throwing in enemy-targeting spells to boot? I see all of these examples where people eliminate the need for a fighter because they can get a cleric or a wizard that can buff up to be as effective as the fighter in basic combat (and that's just BASIC, mind you, the special tactics are a little harder to come by for a cleric or wizard), with having all of the nice end-all spells like instant-deaths or Meteor Swarm or Time Stop or whatever at the same time. Why not instead use your slots for a mixture of buffs that make the fighter or primary melee combatants in general even more effective at what they do, while keeping some to protect yourself and a few to do some real damage with the spells that really mess people up? It's so much more effective. Druids can still kind of do this and be ridiculous in melee, but that doesn't change the fact that they can still help to make the fighter or ranger or barb or paladin or what have you be even better than it already is. Those points being said, I'd like to say that I love playing non-casters and semi-casters. My favorite character to play is usually a Fighter/Sorcerer or Fighter/Wizard human (sometimes with Spellsword levels), a Fighter/Wizard dwarf, or a human Druid. My multiclass Fighter/Casters are always at a 1 : 1 ratio, meaning my caster level and worst DCs can be a little low unless I take special feats, items, or use alternate rules like those in UA for effective magic levels. But I have fun doing it. And I've never seen one of the groups I DM for have more fun buffing themselves up to be better than the fighters than when they buffed the fighters and lent support as well as troubleshooting from safety. Even my parties in Baldur's Gate 1/2 (though a very different situation) worked better when the meleers were buffed with things like Negative Plane Protection, Haste, and the various anti-Chaos/mind control spells (it was harder to buff them otherwise because of so many spells being centered on self, but).
WolfHati 04-10-07, 08:13 PM	The classes are also assumed to be in a party and not fighting each other in 1 on 1 duels. A party with a nice mix of classes is going to have an easier time than one without. If that's not the case, *then* there's a problem.
Solik 04-10-07, 08:20 PM	All of your assumptions are false. Comparative power is NOT demonstrated through duels. It's demonstrated by comparing the value to the party of having one class versus another. In the case of the Fighter, it is easy. You can replace the Fighter with a Barbarian, or even better, with a melee-built Cleric or Druid, and the party will be better. That is, the other classes do exactly what the Fighter is supposed to do BETTER than the fighter does it (and then some). Now, it's entirely possible to game without caring if the characters are equal (because let's face it, that's more important than the classes being equal). To do this, the group must not be interested in having everyone pull their own weight and on having everyone get equal "spotlight time" (in the game itself -- not talking about freeform roleplay scenes). But in this case, ranting is pointless, because you are spewing your opinion to people who don't play like you and thus receive absolutely no valuable insight or information from reading your material.
swallowyersoul 04-10-07, 08:29 PM	again, i've gotta respectfully disagree. the classes are as balanced as something as complex as they are can be. wizards spent time and used math to make it so, and they did their job well. now, once we hit high level play we get to the point where the classes start to make other classes less fun. the wizard pretty much eliminates the need for a rogue's trap skills and lockpicking. if there's a monster with an AC that challenges the fighter, nobody else can hit it at all. a skill DC that's trouble for the rogue or bard just isn't possible for the cleric, although with wild shape he can ignore most of 'em anyway. a lot of people call that sort of 'rock-paper-scissors' experience unbalanced. in actuality it's a scaling issue, which is different from balance.
Solik 04-10-07, 08:34 PM	the wizard pretty much eliminates the need for a rogue's trap skills and lockpicking false if there's a monster with an AC that challenges the fighter, nobody else can hit it at all false and irrelevant (damage becomes obsolete pretty fast) a skill DC that's trouble for the rogue or bard just isn't possible for the cleric, although with wild shape he can ignore most of 'em anyway Clerics don't get wild shape, but I know what you mean, and you're on the right track with this one at least.
Sroblin 04-10-07, 09:58 PM	I have often seen this claim that wizards with knocks spells and invisibility end up 'replacing' rogues, but I have never seen this to be case. I've never seen a wizard loading himself up with 'knock'- easier to leave it to the maxed out rogue, while the wizard can focus on his own stuff.
Sroblin 04-10-07, 10:07 PM	I have often seen this claim that wizards with knocks spells and invisibility end up 'replacing' rogues, but I have never seen this to be case. I've never seen a wizard loading himself up with 'knock'- easier to leave it to the maxed out rogue, while the wizard can focus on his own stuff.
Vaelan 04-10-07, 11:10 PM	The only thing even remotely resembling a problem is that spells that emulate other classes scale too well, meaning that as a spellcaster gets higher in level, it becomes easier for them to emulate other classes because they're still using the same relatively low level spells to do so. If the spells that make casters reasonably good melee fighters and the ones that replace skills actually required higher level spells to function well at higher levels, nobody would claim that a spellcaster can reasonably replace anyone.
WayneTheGame 04-10-07, 11:55 PM	The only issue I want to say is that all the examples of anti-Fighter people (and how did we get into that can of worms again??) have the Cleric/Druid player looking to outshine the fighter and basically say "Hey, sucker, go home cuz you're useless now." Does this kind of bullcrap actually happen in a game you supposedly play with your friends?? In my experience it'd be more like this: Fighter: Okay, we can take this guy. Druid, help me out here, would you? Druid: Sure thing. *buffs the Fighter* Let's do this! *wildshapes into bear* Wizard: One-sided battlefield, here we come *uses battlefield control spells to help out the Fighter and Druid* Fighter and Druid then tag-team the enemy and win, aided by the Wizard's use of battlefield control to assist them. Fighter (OOC): Now that was a sweet combat. Good job. Druid (OOC): Damn right. We're great as a team. Wizard (OOC): Yep. DM (to himself): I love it when they work together. And yet every single example cited seems to run more like this: Fighter: Hey, let's team up and beat this guy down. Druid: Umm... I don't need your help. *buffs himself only, wildshapes into a dire bear* Wizard: Hmm... Time Stop! now let me place some delayed fireballs.. and... kaboom! Fighter: Uhh.. what happeend to being a team? Druid: Sorry, but I can do your job better than you can, so we don't need to team up. DM (to himself): ARRRRGH! I cannot imagine playing with people who try to one-up each other when they should be working together. Can the Druid emulate the Fighter and do it better due to spells? Sure. But if he works WITH the fighter instead, you pretty much DOUBLE your offensive power instead of making someone feel redundant. The Wizard should be using his arsenal to aid the others, not make them feel worthless by pulling some hijinks and then laughing when the rest of the group has nothing to do. That's not a social game, that's an appendage-wagging contest.
StoneStokes 04-11-07, 01:14 AM	That's not a social game, that's an appendage-wagging contest. QFT
GhostStepper 04-11-07, 01:28 AM	I cannot imagine playing with people who try to one-up each other when they should be working together. I think the real point some people are trying to make is that if the druid can do the fighters job as well as fill a few other roles then the party is better off with a druid instead of a fighter. The issue isnt if the druid of the party X outshines fighter of party X but whether party X would be better off with 2 buffed druids and 2 dire tigers or one druid, one tiger and a fighter.
CCS 04-11-07, 01:47 AM	I'd like the classes to be kinda equal so I don't have to twist my entire campaign world and adventure planning into contrived scenarios in order to 'let every class shine.' But that's just me. You don't have to. A proper job of DMing would involve making sure that each CHARACTER, regardless of class, has the oprotunity to shine. Of course some of this burden also falls upon the players themselves. If they don't seize it.... But far too many DMs get caught up in telling THIER story - with the PCs essentially along for the ride. Resulting in your complaint of having to force contrived scenarios to accommodate the characters.
navar100 04-11-07, 02:54 AM	The only issue I want to say is that all the examples of anti-Fighter people (and how did we get into that can of worms again??) have the Cleric/Druid player looking to outshine the fighter and basically say "Hey, sucker, go home cuz you're useless now." Does this kind of bullcrap actually happen in a game you supposedly play with your friends?? In my experience it'd be more like this: Fighter: Okay, we can take this guy. Druid, help me out here, would you? Druid: Sure thing. *buffs the Fighter* Let's do this! *wildshapes into bear* Wizard: One-sided battlefield, here we come *uses battlefield control spells to help out the Fighter and Druid* Fighter and Druid then tag-team the enemy and win, aided by the Wizard's use of battlefield control to assist them. Fighter (OOC): Now that was a sweet combat. Good job. Druid (OOC): Damn right. We're great as a team. Wizard (OOC): Yep. DM (to himself): I love it when they work together. And yet every single example cited seems to run more like this: Fighter: Hey, let's team up and beat this guy down. Druid: Umm... I don't need your help. *buffs himself only, wildshapes into a dire bear* Wizard: Hmm... Time Stop! now let me place some delayed fireballs.. and... kaboom! Fighter: Uhh.. what happeend to being a team? Druid: Sorry, but I can do your job better than you can, so we don't need to team up. DM (to himself): ARRRRGH! I cannot imagine playing with people who try to one-up each other when they should be working together. Can the Druid emulate the Fighter and do it better due to spells? Sure. But if he works WITH the fighter instead, you pretty much DOUBLE your offensive power instead of making someone feel redundant. The Wizard should be using his arsenal to aid the others, not make them feel worthless by pulling some hijinks and then laughing when the rest of the group has nothing to do. That's not a social game, that's an appendage-wagging contest. Amen
navar100 04-11-07, 02:58 AM	I think the real point some people are trying to make is that if the druid can do the fighters job as well as fill a few other roles then the party is better off with a druid instead of a fighter. The issue isnt if the druid of the party X outshines fighter of party X but whether party X would be better off with 2 buffed druids and 2 dire tigers or one druid, one tiger and a fighter. If you feel that way, then play a druid. No one is stopping you. However, if someone else chooses to play a fighter, it's not your perogotive to say "you should have played a druid". Anti-fighters keep saying this is not relevant to the question of "balance", but it is relevant. The fighter does what he does well. Whether another class can do it "better" is irrelevant. Play that other class all you want to your heart's content, and let those who like the fighter play the fighter. If while playing your non-fighter you feel nothing but contempt to the fighter player, then you are being a jerk. It has nothing to do with how great your non-fighter class is.
cruxvader 04-11-07, 03:19 AM	My name is Vile Elrand, I am a dispatch of the imperial kingdom of Azori. I was trained as a stealth specialist even from my youth... memories of my father training me riding steeds, and learning how to procure a situation... A demonstration of my finesse is here... Two pickaxes 1d6x4 all the feats to accompany two hand weapon fighting ambidex i've learned how to wield them over time weapon focus specialization keened weaponary, with improved crits... 1d6 mw +1 spec+2 str+4 = +7 17-20 x4 16.5 percent chance every attack roll i can do 4d6+28 max 52 4d6+28 max 52 all this can be aquired around level 6-8 depending if human vs what? ice storm? lol no, quite balanced until around level 15ish if you really want to complain, complain about psyonic powers... they are supposed to be templetes maybe they should make a vampire class too, lame enough for you?
Always-Late 04-11-07, 03:28 AM	I want anybody who defends the fighter because of teamwork to tell me that the expert is a bad class. Or the adept. Or the warrior.
RedUncle 04-11-07, 06:41 AM	the most fun I've ever had playing EVER was when I made a deliberately weak, incompetent, frail, vain, confused character... during combat, he was so atrociously weak-willed, that he actually had a 50% chance of FAINTING in horror before the first swords even clashed... I asked the DM to give me BAD FEATS (we called them anti-feats) - so I could better roleplay the character ---- half elf bard - who wore pink leather, make-up, and was painfully aloof and sexually ambiguous .... he was ALWAYS irritating NPCs (because most "enemies" are badasses, he stood in very stark contrast) --- although he was amazingly skillful with seduction (having a stupidly high CHA) --- but because he was so rude and stuck-up, it worked to cancel out his best attribute... he also had a really really bad temper, and would often times pound and hit himself while enraged - but again, because he was so WEAK - he frequently knocked himself out while angry... what I'm getting at: it doesn't matter if you character is "bad" or "weak" -- in fact, I say it's more often than not a BENEFIT for play... lots of fun!! :D
Haruspex 04-11-07, 07:41 AM	So if an adventuring party defeated a fighter, would they get less XP than if they defeated a druid of equivalent level?
Archangel62 04-11-07, 07:50 AM	So if an adventuring party defeated a fighter, would they get less XP than if they defeated a druid of equivalent level? Most likely yes. If only because of comparative resource consumption. See here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=705076).
Haruspex 04-11-07, 08:08 AM	Then if a fighter defeated a druid he would get more XP?
kintire 04-11-07, 08:14 AM	Anti-fighters keep saying this is not relevant to the question of "balance", but it is relevant. The fighter does what he does well. Whether another class can do it "better" is irrelevant. Play that other class all you want to your heart's content, and let those who like the fighter play the fighter. If while playing your non-fighter you feel nothing but contempt to the fighter player, then you are being a jerk. It has nothing to do with how great your non-fighter class is. This is nonsense. No one is suggesting you should feel "contempt for the fighter player". That has nothing to do with balance. Balance is about whether each of the classes in the PHB can contribute to a party to a roughly equal degree across the course of a campaign. One class performing another class' core role better than they do has EVERYTHING to do with that. This is a question of mechanics in the design of a character class, not some vendetta against "fighter players". In my experience, if a group is going to have fun they all need to be able to contribute to the party. Having someone else steal all your thunder all the time is just not fun. It IS important that each class should have a solid role to play in a group, and it is a problem that wizards, druids and clerics can to everything better than any other class at higher levels. It is a very serious problem that Druids can outclass fighters and Barbarians at their core role in the party basically from level 1.
Steely_Dan 04-11-07, 08:18 AM	I want anybody who defends the fighter because of teamwork to tell me that the expert is a bad class. I think the Expert is a badass class – 8 Skills of your choice as class Skills…nice
Archangel62 04-11-07, 08:23 AM	Then if a fighter defeated a druid he would get more XP? If he soloed it yes, if part of a group, no. I would argue that the actual problem is that a level 18 druid is a CR19-20 depending on prep time and available resources whereas a Level 18 fighter is closer to a CR16 or possibly lower without a lot of support.
Haruspex 04-11-07, 08:31 AM	So if I understand this correctly, a party of four fighters will earn more XP than a party of four druids, in most encounters.
Kursk 04-11-07, 11:43 AM	"Equal" and "balanced" are two different things.
Vrael 04-11-07, 12:11 PM	While I agree that fighters are underpowered, but I do feel I have to say this- Wizards can do anything, but they can't do everything. For that, you have to wait a day (or if they've left slots open, fifteen minutes).
Leo 04-11-07, 12:14 PM	Yeah, because geting a mind fresh from rest to study spells is a free action... Also, what I came to understand is that many people around here forget the game is not a competition. The players can never truly win because the DM has infinite power. Thus it really doesn't matter if the characters aren't in the same power level. There is no one watching and judging you, no real reward at all from making an optimized character than being able to claim it. What matters is that everyone is having fun by going around town doing whatever they want to do. It may be even something as simple as swinging a sword and geting in bar fights, but hey, who doesn't like that? Even if your character gets himself killed, he dies happilly doing what he likes to do, and that's what really counts in D&D:doing what you want.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 01:06 PM	You don't have to. A proper job of DMing would involve making sure that each CHARACTER, regardless of class, has the oprotunity to shine. Of course some of this burden also falls upon the players themselves. If they don't seize it.... But far too many DMs get caught up in telling THIER story - with the PCs essentially along for the ride. Resulting in your complaint of having to force contrived scenarios to accommodate the characters. I don't think you quite got what I was saying. The system demands I twist my game such that my players have 3 to 5 encounters every day so that the fighter has a chance to contribute at an equal level to the cleric and wizard in combat. And I know my players want to shine in combat, because if we weren't planning on killing things and taking their stuff we'd be playing a game system with good rules for social interplay. When the system demands you alter the way your world works in order to acquire some level of "ballance" it has failed. Fortunatly with the multiclassing rules and other suppliments my group has come to a psudo ballance area where everything is fine. But we shouldn't hand wave away all the issues. In this case my belief is this: Ballancing classes based on battle fatigue should NOT be done on a per day basis unless ALL classes use the same standard. (ie. if the GM wants to play a 1 encounter per day game fighters should be able to nova as well as Wizards. If the gm is playing a 10 encounter marathon the wizard should crash exactly when the fighter does.) Why? Because if a class is ballanced on its ability to "last" through multiple combats then every time a person finds a way to last longer with the limited classes (and they will) that class becomes a joke in combat, relegated to killing things the 'real adventurers' can't be bothered to handle. (Edit: Theres more, but that's an arguement for another day and another thread. Though I will add that while my players stick together out of loyalty, I've noticed many a time where if the party had ditched the melee types and gone in with just a rogue, wizard and cleric they could have accomplished their goals or escaped with no real threat to their life.)
GhostStepper 04-11-07, 01:45 PM	If you feel that way, then play a druid. No one is stopping you. However, if someone else chooses to play a fighter, it's not your perogotive to say "you should have played a druid". I never said it was anyone's perogative to do anything. I was just pointing out that the arguement for many people is not that the druid or cleric should try to outshine the fighter but the fact that because they can do so (making the fighter less fun to play for some) there is a problem. The fighter does what he does well. Whether another class can do it "better" is irrelevant. That sounds like imbalance right there. Class X does A well. Class Y does A better, as well as doing B, C and D well. Sounds very relevant if we are just talking about mechanics. Play that other class all you want to your heart's content, and let those who like the fighter play the fighter. If while playing your non-fighter you feel nothing but contempt to the fighter player, then you are being a jerk. It has nothing to do with how great your non-fighter class is. I never said anything about feeling contempt for anyone, i was mearly clarifying what i believe most of the "anti-fighter's" point actually is. If the fighter player is happy thats all that matters but some people have a problem when other players with a similar level of optimizational skill can routinely outshine them in their own area of expertise because of class imbalance.
Grand Theft Otto 04-11-07, 02:25 PM	This is Part II of my ranting. Part I is The Intended Purpose of Point-Buy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=826269). I have often heard that spell-casters are more powerful than melee types, etc., etc. Usually this is said as a complaint, and often the "proof" involves some sort of duel between the two. My response: Who cares? People who want to play a non-caster, but dont want to play a benchwarmer. More specifically, those of you who do care are missing the point of the game itself. The game is designed around the idea of cooperation. Why not do it the Ars Magica way? Everyone created a magic user, and a bunch of non-caster losers (grogs)? Everyone can share the spotlight. Except thats not what the pro-imbalance side wants. I'll say it right now. Gamers are terrible people. The level of schadenfreude in the hobby has always been an embarassment. Its not about everyone having a good time, its about your mage rocking while his fighter blows. Gygax's old design sucked. Its your typical pathetic nerd revenge fantasy. The whole fighters drool, mages rule paradigm of previous editions wasnt acceptable to many then, and its even less so now. Who wants to be sidelined the longer you play a character? Good design is everyone has the opportunity to contribute equally to the success of the group. If you want to play a guy that sucks, its not overly hard to simply choose to not level up. Blam, you can have your suckitude all you want. On the other hand, the guy who wants to play a powerful non-caster at upper level shouldnt have to jump through hoops to be useful just because a mediocre game designer said so 30 years ago. The system goal should be balance between the classes. If you deliberately choose to play some loser who faints 50% of the time, thats your choice.
Downtym 04-11-07, 02:37 PM	I have often heard that spell-casters are more powerful than melee types, etc., etc. Usually this is said as a complaint, and often the "proof" involves some sort of duel between the two. How about a rephrasing of the argument: Spell-casters are more fun than melees because they have more options. ...at high levels the fighter is mostly supportive while the wizard deals damage. This would be a valid point if the fighter class had any skills, abilities, or feat choices (out of the core set) that allowed him to be supportive. A fighter's skillset are entirely focused at allowing him to overcome obstacles or reach objectives. A fighter's feat-set are entirely focused at allowing him to be better at dealing damage or overcoming obstacles. If a fighter got "buff" abilities or skills that could be used to help others out (And I don't count "Here's a +2 on your Climb check from Aid Another!"), you might have a point. But since he doesn't, you don't.
WayneTheGame 04-11-07, 02:42 PM	Do you actually have some proof to back up this "pathetic nerd revenge fantasy" conspiracy theory? Everyone always brings that crap up in these kinds of arguments, but it sounds more like perpetual whining from Gygax-haters than something that's actually true. Is there any hardcore factual evidence that such a thing is anything more than baseless accusations?
swallowyersoul 04-11-07, 03:08 PM	false[QUOTE] dude, support your argument. for example: once a wizard has access to knock, fly and invisibility a rogue's skills for open locks, climb and sneak start to play second fiddle. now, good adventure design can fix that but it's definitely something to look out for. [QUOTE=Solik;12051812]false and irrelevant (damage becomes obsolete pretty fast)[QUOTE] um, actually true. fighter 20 with 24 strength, weapon focus, greater weapon focus and a +5 weapon. attack bonus=33. a reasonably challenging AC would be 45. rogue 20 with a 24 dexterity, weapon finesse and a (generous) +3 weapon. attack bonus = 25. 45 minus 25 = 20. okay, so i'll give you that the rogue would hit 5% of the time (which could mean once every couple rounds with the right feat selection) and damage becoming irrelevant (which i agree with in many situations) is another point in my favor: a fighter's forte (dishing out damage and taking it) gets outstripped by the casters. [QUOTE=Solik;12051812]Clerics don't get wild shape, but I know what you mean, and you're on the right track with this one at least. oops. druids get wild shape. i'm not a follower of the CoDzilla cult, but both do show how out of whack high levels can get. like i mentioned above, most if not all of that can be alleviated or eliminated by a good dm. but it's there and it's not a balance problem. it's a scaling problem.
Kresalak 04-11-07, 03:16 PM	Ballancing classes based on battle fatigue should NOT be done on a per day basis unless ALL classes use the same standard. (ie. if the GM wants to play a 1 encounter per day game fighters should be able to nova as well as Wizards. If the gm is playing a 10 encounter marathon the wizard should crash exactly when the fighter does.) Why? Because if a class is ballanced on its ability to "last" through multiple combats then every time a person finds a way to last longer with the limited classes (and they will) that class becomes a joke in combat, relegated to killing things the 'real adventurers' can't be bothered to handle. As such, there are basically three ways to give out abilities. Abilities can be at-will, they can be x/encounter (as long as you define encounter specifically enough), or they can not exist at all. As soon as shooting a bolt of magic and a bolt of wood and steel are mechanically different, the game is unbalanced.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 03:32 PM	As such, there are basically three ways to give out abilities. Abilities can be at-will, they can be x/encounter (as long as you define encounter specifically enough), or they can not exist at all. As soon as shooting a bolt of magic and a bolt of wood and steel are mechanically different, the game is unbalanced. Not entirely true. As much as I despise admitting it some abilities must be set to a per day limit. However the balance principle shouldn't be "okay this class is invincible for three fights, but might lose the fourth or fifth if he doesn't have a 'long term' class with him. Unless he optimizes." It should be "Okay the cleric should only be able to heal X hp per day so that the party doesn't just recharge to full after each battle." (Though I wouldn't mind a system that assumed infinate healing power to tell the truth.)
Grand Theft Otto 04-11-07, 04:18 PM	Do you actually have some proof to back up this "pathetic nerd revenge fantasy" conspiracy theory? Everyone always brings that crap up in these kinds of arguments, but it sounds more like perpetual whining from Gygax-haters than something that's actually true. Is there any hardcore factual evidence that such a thing is anything more than baseless accusations? What is the nerd revenge fantasy? Its that the jocks bully the nerds in highschool (low levels), then the nerd rises and dominates later in life (high levels). When are fighters good? When do they suck? When do wizards "rule the school". In fact, this is the stated (and ******) GOAL of the game "balance". Ask any 1st edition gamer, they'll be up front with how it was (and sadly many still think its a good idea). Use some common sense, and look at the target audience for D&D in the 70's and 80's (virginal basement dwellers). Its not a conspiracy theory when its all out in the open about design intent. Its not rocket surgery to put 2 and 2 together.
Kresalak 04-11-07, 04:19 PM	Its not rocket surgery. Rocket surgery? Damn, what field to I have to go into to do that?
Leo 04-11-07, 04:22 PM	What I find funny it's that even so every week someone comes to the boards claiming: "OMG fighters ROCK so much!" Not bad for a benchwarmer. I even heard such stuff as wizards and druids sucking. Care to explain? It doesn't matter what the CO people like. It cares what ALL the people like. And altough everybody has diferent tastes, fighter still is a popular class among lots of people. Unless you are willing to follow the CO way of doing things and study 20 books worth of feats and classes just to make a single class. Hmm, no, thanks. EVERY class can get stronger with it. Even the druid got more complicated thanks to Planar sheperd, wich just shows the D&D development team humor: CO guys:muahaha druid 20 are the pwnrz!!!! D&D guys:Ok, here's planar sheperd just for you guys. Honestly, when you have a game system as versatile as D&D, it's impossible to keep balance. Just sit down and have fun blasting stuff:D Don't worry, if someone starts getting too arogant as to always steal the show I'm sure your Dm will have no trouble throwing a lv60 character to give him a lesson:P.
WayneTheGame 04-11-07, 04:31 PM	What is the nerd revenge fantasy? Its that the jocks bully the nerds in highschool (low levels), then the nerd rises and dominates later in life (high levels). When are fighters good? When do they suck? When do wizards "rule the school". In fact, this is the stated (and ******) GOAL of the game "balance". Ask any 1st edition gamer, they'll be up front with how it was (and sadly many still think its a good idea). Use some common sense, and look at the target audience for D&D in the 70's and 80's (virginal basement dwellers). Its not a conspiracy theory when its all out in the open about design intent. Its not rocket surgery to put 2 and 2 together. Sorry, but I consider it a "conspiracy theory" when there's no hardcore evidence that it's intentionally designed that way, just a lot of speculation and "Put two and two together and it makes sense." I'm not saying the logic is faulty (because it's not, it DOES make sense), but I find it hard to believe that D&D was designed to act out this "revenge fantasy".
swallowyersoul 04-11-07, 06:43 PM	fyi there, otto... d&d was originally designed for (and by) adult men with disposable income. it came from the wargame community, and therefore targeted people who could afford to buy minis. although there's a stereotype of the high school nerd gamer, historically it's been the 20 somethings that are the real target demographic. i'm not saying there are no active 'conspiracies' (or 'legitimate marketing strategies' in english) in game design, but if they exist they won't be to fulfill the fantasies of a small portion of a relatively minor percentage of the market.
Solik 04-12-07, 11:58 AM	dude, support your argument. for example: once a wizard has access to knock, fly and invisibility a rogue's skills for open locks, climb and sneak start to play second fiddle. now, good adventure design can fix that but it's definitely something to look out for Knock is true if you get it in wands, but the rogue can UMD the wand, so I guess you could say that he obsoletes himself? Move Silently is necessary even with Invisibility, and Hide is good for creatures that can detect invisibility (fairly common). Yes, there's also Silence, but there's something to be said for having the ability to use the skills immediately without having to stop and cast two spells. You're not going to be using the rogue to scout beyond the first few levels, but the rogue will still want to be able to hide in order to deliver sneak attacks or similar things. Yes, climb is useless beyond the very beginning of the game. That's more of a hit to the fighter-types that don't have many alternate skills than a hit to the rogue. If for absolutely no other reason, rogues stay useful with UMD, but I'd argue that several other skills are also nice. um, actually true. fighter 20 with 24 strength, weapon focus, greater weapon focus and a +5 weapon. attack bonus=33. a reasonably challenging AC would be 45. Clerics and druids can easily meet, if not surpass, fighter attack bonuses, and wizards often can as well. Rogues have more trouble, true. and damage becoming irrelevant (which i agree with in many situations) is another point in my favor: a fighter's forte (dishing out damage and taking it) gets outstripped by the casters I'm not disagreeing with you regarding casters outstripping fighters. I was disagreeing with your individual points. i'm not a follower of the CoDzilla cult, but both do show how out of whack high levels can get. like i mentioned above, most if not all of that can be alleviated or eliminated by a good dm. but it's there and it's not a balance problem. it's a scaling problem. There's a thread on the Classes board where people are discussing how a druid's animal companion class feature matches or outfights the fighter at various points during the game, including level 1. It's more than just a scaling problem; the scaling problem simply makes it worse.
Grand Theft Otto 04-12-07, 12:28 PM	Sorry, but I consider it a "conspiracy theory" when there's no hardcore evidence that it's intentionally designed that way, just a lot of speculation and "Put two and two together and it makes sense." I'm not saying the logic is faulty (because it's not, it DOES make sense), but I find it hard to believe that D&D was designed to act out this "revenge fantasy". Fair enough, but you DO at least concede the conscious design (of earlier editions) to make wizards and clerics more powerful than fighters and rogues at higher levels at least, yes? Gygax and other designers talked a fair about how the wizard grows to supremacy. Thats not a conspiracy any way you slice it. The problem being, of course, the sidelining effect where tis better for you to retire your fighter at 15th level and make a cleric or whatever, and if you only play low levels, the wizard pays his dues for something thats never going to matter. Sort of like how demihumans were hands down better than humans w multiclassing (which put you only a level behind). Whatever the real reason behind it, I'm for ending that design concept. No one rides the bench at any point, no one is an exp leech, and every archtype gets to be cool and fun at all levels of play. Sure, its not going to pan out 100%, but lets make it a goal.
Grand Theft Otto 04-12-07, 12:30 PM	fyi there, otto... d&d was originally designed for (and by) adult men with disposable income. it came from the wargame community, and therefore targeted people who could afford to buy minis. although there's a stereotype of the high school nerd gamer, historically it's been the 20 somethings that are the real target demographic. i'm not saying there are no active 'conspiracies' (or 'legitimate marketing strategies' in english) in game design, but if they exist they won't be to fulfill the fantasies of a small portion of a relatively minor percentage of the market. Wait wait wait, you're saying nerds dont make up the majority of gamers? Go to a con, and take a big whiff some time ;) Ok, maybe I should ammend my statement to hardcore gamers. I honestly dont think the average guy or gal who grabs some dice and beer is that big a spazz.
WayneTheGame 04-12-07, 02:35 PM	Whatever the real reason behind it, I'm for ending that design concept. No one rides the bench at any point, no one is an exp leech, and every archtype gets to be cool and fun at all levels of play. Sure, its not going to pan out 100%, but lets make it a goal. *nods* Amen to that. :clap:
lastknightleft 04-12-07, 05:10 PM	1. This has been addressed many times. The fighter is not living in a MMORPG. The enemies at high level don't focus on him while the mage brings the real damage to bear, the enemies greater teleport directly to the mage and kill him before slaughtering the rest of the party. Not that the mage dies, but he's spending the exact amount of energy evading the enemy as he would if the fighter wasn't there. 2. Don't diss the bows. Fighters are in need of a competant ranged attack, considering how many things there are that are either hard to get close to or dangerous to be near. 3. The above is also missing the point. You've gracefully ignored the wildshaped dire bear in the room, CoDzilla. If you like fighters, play fighters. But when you talk about "Intended purpose", the fighter fails cause someone else can do it, and do it better to just as good. I hate when people say CoDzilla rules, I cannot make an adequate CoDzilla to do some cool concept like I could with the fighter. Yes a CoDzilla can own the melee combat arena, but the ones that do always seem to be cookiecutter characters Name one Druid that doesn't take natural spell, yes they can be powerful, yes they can be original yes they can be both, can they be both in as many disparate ways as a fighter no... P.S. this isn't an attack just you're the first I read to say this so I used you as an example. No offense or justification from you needed
Shatteredtower 04-12-07, 05:17 PM	Whatever the real reason behind it, I'm for ending that design concept. No one rides the bench at any point, no one is an exp leech, and every archtype gets to be cool and fun at all levels of play. Sure, its not going to pan out 100%, but lets make it a goal.Since the player is more likely to be a factor in all of these cases than the class, there doesn't seem to be much point to that goal.
Grand Theft Otto 04-12-07, 05:40 PM	Since the player is more likely to be a factor in all of these cases than the class, there doesn't seem to be much point to that goal. A character is player input + abilities. Sure, you cant account for one of those varables in game design, but does that mean you shouldnt work on the other one? Let me also add that I think that 3.5 is leaps and bounds more favorable towards non-casters than previous editions. The power gap has shrunk considerably, which is a good thing IMO.
The Hive Custodian 04-12-07, 06:01 PM	I hate when people say CoDzilla rules, I cannot make an adequate CoDzilla to do some cool concept like I could with the fighter. Yes a CoDzilla can own the melee combat arena, but the ones that do always seem to be cookiecutter characters Name one Druid that doesn't take natural spell, yes they can be powerful, yes they can be original yes they can be both, can they be both in as many disparate ways as a fighter no... P.S. this isn't an attack just you're the first I read to say this so I used you as an example. No offense or justification from you needed Hmm... this brings up an interesting point: could the Stormwind Fallacy be called on this? As I read it, it rests, in part, on the fluff behind options, including classes, being irrelevant, which is required for this to be true: Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other. Or is the Stormwind Fallacy using a different definition of roleplaying than I'm thinking of?
Solik 04-12-07, 06:10 PM	I don't think you could, because he's really calling the character builds cookie-cutter, not necessarily the "character" of the character.
Shadowhowler 04-12-07, 06:29 PM	Not only do I agree with you, but I also removed your masking. :) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif Thus expossing me for the coward that I am... :( Heh
Ikyotojin 04-12-07, 06:38 PM	:) Great! After 25 years, I still play halflings of just about any class. And still have fun. And I'm still having fun with gnomes. Started out with a thief/illusionist and am having lots of fun with an alchemist. He's got pretty good dex and loves tossing things around - though sometimes he just picks a vial at random. Point? Oh yeah - the longer a person plays the better they get at a certain type of character. It's like any other thing people do for fun. Pick a way of doing it that you like and work it into a way to have fun on a consistent basis. I've had characters of all sorts, from a fighter who eventually became a king (died of old age!) and a wizard who formed a school and business that turned into the magic "five and dime" for the world. There have also been the barbarian who died in a blaze of glory taking down a demon that was destroying a forest, the thief who laughed his way to the gallows because he actually DID manage to steal a kingdom... The game is about ROLE PLAYING, not just killing monsters.