The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)

[deadDMwalking]

Secondly, as I have done before, an examination of the spell lists themselves shows a pretty even mix of combat, non-combat, and utility spells.  Perhaps a third of the spells are usable more or less strictly in combat; another third can be useful in combat, but mostly used outside of combat; and the remaining third are utility spells that don't have any direct combat applications.  'Most' of the spells are not used in combat, in other words.

This is something I'd like to see evidence for.  No need to worry about 'sample size', but how do you figure?  

In my experience, outside of combat there usually isn't PRESSURE to use spells.  There are some times when time pressure may be an issue (we need to storm the castle before Prince Humperdink marries Buttercup) but mostly, if there's no pressure for immediate success, spells are unnecessary.  

Some spells like overland flight might count for these purposes, but really they're used to 'skip' the travel montage stuff.  Same for teleport.  Usually, if they're IMPORTANT, it's because they're used in combat.  But I think counting a spell that allows you to bypass combat (especially random encounters) could be construed as a 'combat' spell, even if it's not cast in combat.  That is to say, if a spell is used either to defeat a combat or avoid a combat, the significance of the spell is related to how frequent combat occurs.

A further argument that spells that allow you to avoid combat (like magnificent mansion or heal up from combat damage (like restoration are important again because of combat - even if they're strictly used outside of the combat encounter.  

I guess I'm curious to see what spells besides legend lore are most useful without considering their relevance to combat by:

a) making you more formidable for combat (ie, buff)
b) reducing an enemy's capability for combat (ie, debuff or attack)
c) allowing you bypass encounters (ie, mobility spells, most illusions)
d) recovering from combat damage (ie, cures)

[jibbajibba]

Does D&D (any edition) reward combat?

Yes.  You get experience points for murdering humanoids and anything else that's called a 'monster'.  

If you want to level-up, which is a built-in assumption of the game, you need to plan on killing things.

Suggestions for giving XP for 'bypassing' an encounter or as a 'role-playing' award are just that - suggestions.  While different DMs may encourage other styles of play, they're swimming upstream.  

So while it's possible that the game having only 1 page devoted to combat and 99 pages devoted to everything else might seem to have little in it to encourage combat, you can get a true sense of what the game 'intends' based on how characters are rewarded.  In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).  

It doesn't have to be 'hack & slash' which is intended to be derogatory, but it tends to have a significant amount of combat - and the game REWARDS success in combat.  That's part of the reason why all classes need to be good at combat - if only Fighters were good at it, they'd be the only one advancing to name level.

Not entirely true in 1e you get most of your reward for getitng gold, the reward for killing monsters is relatively low. So killing an ettin 1950 +14/hp, getting the Ettin's treasure worth 10,000 gp = 10,000xp ....
A typical 1st level PC woudl need to kill c 200 goblins to get to 2nd level but they could find a gem worth 2000gp and that woudl be all they need.

So yes Combat is rewards but stealing stuff is rewarded more.

[jibbajibba]

This is something I'd like to see evidence for.  No need to worry about 'sample size', but how do you figure?  

In my experience, outside of combat there usually isn't PRESSURE to use spells.  There are some times when time pressure may be an issue (we need to storm the castle before Prince Humperdink marries Buttercup) but mostly, if there's no pressure for immediate success, spells are unnecessary.  

Some spells like overland flight might count for these purposes, but really they're used to 'skip' the travel montage stuff.  Same for teleport.  Usually, if they're IMPORTANT, it's because they're used in combat.  But I think counting a spell that allows you to bypass combat (especially random encounters) could be construed as a 'combat' spell, even if it's not cast in combat.  That is to say, if a spell is used either to defeat a combat or avoid a combat, the significance of the spell is related to how frequent combat occurs.

A further argument that spells that allow you to avoid combat (like magnificent mansion or heal up from combat damage (like restoration are important again because of combat - even if they're strictly used outside of the combat encounter.  

I guess I'm curious to see what spells besides legend lore are most useful without considering their relevance to combat by:

a) making you more formidable for combat (ie, buff)
b) reducing an enemy's capability for combat (ie, debuff or attack)
c) allowing you bypass encounters (ie, mobility spells, most illusions)
d) recovering from combat damage (ie, cures)

There are a number of other spell types in 1e and 2e
i) Knowledge gathering - divination of various sorts
ii) Outdooors survival stuff, create food, resist cold etc
iii) spells that make a wizards life easier, tensers floating disk, unseen servant etc
iv) meta spells that affect other spells
v) spells that act to restict access to certain things, explosive glyphs, sepia snake sigil, alarm etc


there are others as well.

The loss of those spells in later editions (well 4e, I am sure they are there in 3e too ...) is a huge loss to the depth of the game.

[StormBringer]

Does D&D (any edition) reward combat?

Yes.  You get experience points for murdering humanoids and anything else that's called a 'monster'.  

If you want to level-up, which is a built-in assumption of the game, you need to plan on killing things.

You get more experience for taking things.  Often, combat is a pointless and unrewarding choice that only expends resources for a very small return.

Suggestions for giving XP for 'bypassing' an encounter or as a 'role-playing' award are just that - suggestions.  While different DMs may encourage other styles of play, they're swimming upstream.  

Wholly incorrect.  2nd Edition had a pretty solid set of actual rules for awarding xp for actions that weren't directly related to combat.  The Individual Awards got a blue optional section, but Table 34: Individual Class Awards (pg 48) did not.  It was as official as anything else in the books.  And a good deal of those involved very non-combat activities.

Nowhere in that section does it state that opponents must be killed to earn the experience points.  It constantly refers to 'defeated' opponents.  And the optional section at the bottom of the third column on page 47 provides for the previous version's 'xp for gold' activity as well.

So while it's possible that the game having only 1 page devoted to combat and 99 pages devoted to everything else might seem to have little in it to encourage combat, you can get a true sense of what the game 'intends' based on how characters are rewarded.  In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).

So, what the game authours intended is secondary to how you interpret it.

It doesn't have to be 'hack & slash' which is intended to be derogatory, but it tends to have a significant amount of combat - and the game REWARDS success in combat.  That's part of the reason why all classes need to be good at combat - if only Fighters were good at it, they'd be the only one advancing to name level.

It also REWARDS success in avoiding combat and taking the treasure by other means.  In fact, 1st Edition rewards that more highly, because you don't risk your party members, and the payoff is higher.

That is why Fighters are the only ones that need to be really good at combat; the other classes have a myriad of ways to earn experience that relate to the non-combat functions their classes fulfil.  Only later editions assumed that the vast majority of experience was earned by killing opponents, taking that misconception and basing a game paradigm around it (ie, all classes should be good at combat).

EDIT:  Ninja'd!

[Lord Mistborn]

Not entirely true in 1e you get most of your reward for getitng gold, the reward for killing monsters is relatively low. So killing an ettin 1950 +14/hp, getting the Ettin's treasure worth 10,000 gp = 10,000xp ....
A typical 1st level PC woudl need to kill c 200 goblins to get to 2nd level but they could find a gem worth 2000gp and that woudl be all they need.

So yes Combat is rewards but stealing stuff is rewarded more.

Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PCs tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PC tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.

What it means is the game actually rewards people who can get the treasure without violence because that is often the safest approach. It is one method of handling XP. There are a number of methods out there.

By 2E it does shift to xp for killing monsters. Though they also list off a bunch of other things to reward players with xp for. Ravenloft, which is a combat light setting, suggests giving players most of their xp for doing things like competing adventures because they generally wont be mowing down as many foes.

[jibbajibba]

Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PC tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.

I think its fair to say it was problematic to some and was toned down and modified by 2e.
And yes PCs prize the eyes out of statues, collect any rare bits of dead monsters they can sell later, try to see if they can remove large marble statues from temples and the like...

[StormBringer]

I think its fair to say it was problematic to some and was toned down and modified by 2e.
And yes PCs prize the eyes out of statues, collect any rare bits of dead monsters they can sell later, try to see if they can remove large marble statues from temples and the like...

Collecting bits of monsters was practically a sideline for my Magic User at low levels.  I am glad we usually ignored the fact that he was walking around with several pounds of rotting meat at any given time.  

[jibbajibba]

What it means is the game actually rewards people who can get the treasure without violence because that is often the safest approach. It is one method of handling XP. There are a number of methods out there.

By 2E it does shift to xp for killing monsters. Though they also list off a bunch of other things to reward players with xp for. Ravenloft, which is a combat light setting, suggests giving players most of their xp for doing things like competing adventures because they generally wont be mowing down as many foes.

The problem for giving XP for achieve plot objectives is the risk of rail roading. Yes I won't force you to recue the princess but if you don't there is no xp.
The problem with using the full 2e model for spells, cast skills used, etc etc is that its fine in a Computer game but impractical in actual play and encourages a lot of dice rolling.

A compromise I moved to is PCs setting their own objectives. You have 3 objectives which may or may not corespond to the plot when you achieve these you get XP defiend by the relative risk.

[jibbajibba]

Collecting bits of monsters was practically a sideline for my Magic User at low levels.  I am glad we usually ignored the fact that he was walking around with several pounds of rotting meat at any given time.  

Belt of many pouches and silk bags. I carried another PC round like that for weeks until we found someone that could res him..... course I had to chop him up quite small so he would fit, terrible scaring but meh...

[StormBringer]

Belt of many pouches and silk bags. I carried another PC round like that for weeks until we found someone that could res him..... course I had to chop him up quite small so he would fit, terrible scaring but meh...

Awesome!  :rotfl:

[Lord Mistborn]

The 3e xp approach probably needs some work as well. In 3e PCs get xp for overcoming challenges cross-referencing the CR with their level. Now monsters and traps have a defined CR but as far as I know WotC never nailed down how to CR other things. (I know that Red Hand of Doom had CRs for it's social encounters and you got xp for them.) I think the way the system is set up has merits since it encourages PC to seek out harder challenges rather than grind on easy stuff.

[jibbajibba]

The 3e xp approach probably needs some work as well. In 3e PCs get xp for overcoming challenges cross-referencing the CR with their level. Now monsters and traps have a defined CR but as far as I know WotC never nailed down how to CR other things. (I know that Red Hand of Doom had CRs for it's social encounters and you got xp for them.) I think the way the system is set up has merits since it encourages PC to seek out harder challenges rather than grind on easy stuff.

That seems like a good model.

[LordVreeg]

There are a number of other spell types in 1e and 2e
i) Knowledge gathering - divination of various sorts
ii) Outdooors survival stuff, create food, resist cold etc
iii) spells that make a wizards life easier, tensers floating disk, unseen servant etc
iv) meta spells that affect other spells
v) spells that act to restict access to certain things, explosive glyphs, sepia snake sigil, alarm etc


there are others as well.

The loss of those spells in later editions (well 4e, I am sure they are there in 3e too ...) is a huge loss to the depth of the game.

I totally agree here.

Again, one can see how much the resource management etc were based on exploriing and not combat by looking at the low level magic user spells.  Knock?  Comp Lang?  Light?  Tenser's floating disc?  Jump?  Enlarge?  It was a good and fun mix, contributing to the actual exploration.

[Lord Mistborn]

That seems like a good model.

CR is still a buggy system, Dragons and Outsiders are often more boss then their CR would suggest(remember the Bone Devil). Giants, Vermin, and Animals after level 5 or so tend to be weak unless they're in confined spaces with the PCs. Traps cap out at CR 10 though I have no idea why (Wail of the Banshee trap is CR 10 enjoy your DC 23 save vs death) and like I said their are no gudelines for CRing things that are not monsters or traps.