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

[Sacrosanct]

50% of the "standard party"(fighter, rouge, priest, mage) are casters.

6 out of 8 2E phb classes cast spells

7 out of 11 3E phb classes cast spells

yeah I think spellcasting is a big part of D&D and most of those spells are probably used in combat. ^_^

Yeah, a 1st level party has a total of 2 spells per day in your group.  Maybe more if the cleric has a high WIS.  Those sessions totally turned into spell casting sessions.  :rolleyes:  And that's assuming half the party were casters, which they often weren't.  It should be a huge surprise when I tell my group that they have to have 50% casters in the party because spells take up 50% of the rules, so obviously by your logic 50% of the time was spent casting spells in the game.


Look dude, you keep making these assumptions despite pretty much everyone saying that you're wrong.

Stop.  Please.

You see from where I'm sitting it's more like this.

Me/MGuy/deadDM: Game design stuff and well reasoned arguments.

Grognards: Those infidels! Advocating anything other than a return to old school, clearly they are OCD autistic rules lawyer munchkins who hate fun. We must circle the wagons and never concede any points to them ever.

Whatever dude.  You've said some really objectively false claims that have been shown to you over and over how and why they are false. And rather than admit to being wrong, you're blaming it on everyone else?  There are hundreds of posts by probably more than  dozen posters showing you why you're wrong, and rather than address any of them, you're acting like everyone is Benoist or Declan.

Grow up.  Be a man and take responsibility for yourself at least once.  For someone who loves to accuse others of being dishonest, you have been one of the worst, as exampled by this post.

[Lord Mistborn]

Yeah, a 1st level party has a total of 2 spells per day in your group.  Maybe more if the cleric has a high WIS.  Those sessions totally turned into spell casting sessions.  :rolleyes:  And that's assuming half the party were casters, which they often weren't.  It should be a huge surprise when I tell my group that they have to have 50% casters in the party because spells take up 50% of the rules, so obviously by your logic 50% of the time was spent casting spells in the game.

posters who can't into sarcasm: StormBringer Sacrosanct

geez I thought the ^_^ would clue people in that I wasn't being serious with the spells thing.

[MGuy]

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.

The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.

[MGuy]

That seems like a good model.

I prefer either not using XP at all or having experience given out based on completing signifcant tasks. Tracking XP is tedious and unecessary in my opinion. I figure it is better to have them gain a level at appropriate benchmarks such as whenever they overcome their personal challenge for the level.

[Black Vulmea]

However the rules of Poker encorage and reward bluffing.

Yes, they do, without ever explicitly mentioning bluffing. It's an emergent property of game-play.

Rules may not tell you everything you need to know about a game.

[Rum Cove]

The thread title should read: "The 3e class balance thread"

[deadDMwalking]

In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).  

I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it.  Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster.  I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.  

Even a spell like Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat.  You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.

[MGuy]

I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it.  Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster.  I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.  

Even a spell like Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat.  You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.

Having progression being marked by wealth is also bad. It promotes greedy/miserly game play. You'd want a game where treasure doesn't equal power I'd imagine because Greyhawking is a thing and  that's not good for most people.

[Rum Cove]

Also, my bicycle doesn't catch any fish.  That is clearly an error.

[Exploderwizard]

I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it.  Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster.  I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.  

Even a spell like Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat.  You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.

Monsters can be relieved of their treasure without killing them. Treasure can be stolen or tricked out of monsters in addition to just being gained through slaughter. Some types of things such as mindless undead cannot be negotiated with but even a room full of zombies can be tricked into following bait somewhere that they can be trapped, while their original location is searched for treasure.

Also note that XP for overcoming monsters can be awarded for tricking, or negotiating a deal in addition to killing.

The original game was designed for players to explore and THINK before rushing straight into combat. Everyone enters the dungeon with about 1d6 hit points. Each attack deals about 1d6 damage (or more). Do the math. Repeated engagement in straight-up fights is a death sentence.

[beejazz]

The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.

Main reason you wouldn't need these things is an open ended game. They don't represent a way to overcome a choke point, and they can never really be "forced" on you like combat. But there's a difference between not needing them and them not being beneficial. Personally I don't always put the monster's treasure *on* the monster, for example, so some of those spells for finding things would be valuable in that respect. In a game with gold-based xp, those finding spells are a really efficient use of resources for obtaining xp. Potentially moreso than combat.

[LordVreeg]

The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.

Um.
Yeah, my whole point was that the spells of the earlier game show that ruleset was role-balanced on exploration, not on combat.  

So, yes, many of the spells did not effect combat since combat was one part of exploring the space.  But you are wrong to think that they just advance plot.  they were a central resource management; a tool for the player to beat an exploration issue or, as the magic was orginally designed, to allow a boost to another niche.  

And sometimes you did need comp lang.  I still run games the same way that Randall does, things are placed and created based on in game logic, not with CR or EL or a railroaded plot in mind.

[jibbajibba]

Um.
Yeah, my whole point was that the spells of the earlier game show that ruleset was role-balanced on exploration, not on combat.  

So, yes, many of the spells did not effect combat since combat was one part of exploring the space.  But you are wrong to think that they just advance plot.  they were a central resource management; a tool for the player to beat an exploration issue or, as the magic was orginally designed, to allow a boost to another niche.  

And sometimes you did need comp lang.  I still run games the same way that Randall does, things are placed and created based on in game logic, not with CR or EL or a railroaded plot in mind.

Its more than that though.
The spells in 1e are there for in game reasons. An invisible bulter than can fetch your slippers make tea, iron your newspaper is just the sort of thing a wizard ought to have.

So the spells are not plot spells because of the games organic growth. What you have is a pot of spells that have evolved because the game evolved and was not formed whole cloth.
This is the reason for stuff like Tenser's floating disc, and its hte reason why 4e for example removed the 'piontless stuff'.

If you go back to the inspiration for the spells, Dying Earth, you will find numerous spells that make the Wizard's life easier. They are translated into the game because the game tries to create a world.

So the spell comprehend languages exists because its a spell that a wizard would create and use a lot not becuase it fulfils a useful gap ion a wizards arsenal.  Yes in play its going to be useless because a plot is never designed such that if you don't find the scroll in room 3 or you are not able to read it then you have no idea what to do or where to go next. That is possibly 'realistic' but its also poor design. You can eliviate the poorness of it or play in a sandbox with lots of similar hooks that can be followed or not.

So when I design a new spell I try to work out where and why it first developed and then try to find an interesting use for it. The Unseen servant for example happens to be a magical invisible creature who can follow quite complex instructions and carry 30lbs of weight. because he can not be damaged expect by magic he is perfect for removing mundane traps. He wasn't designed to be the ideal minesweeper but he is great at it.
So Alberlard my high level mage created Albelard's Maddening Massage. A spell that causes a number of disembodied hands to come into being that act as a distraction they basically poke, twist, nudge and annoy the target, they tie shoelaces together, empty pockets, pour out the contents of potion bottles and undo straps and remove clothing. Now in D&D terms this effect is devastating. It prevents spell casting, destroys or loses magic items, reduces amour class etc etc
Now it emerged from Albelard's Erotic Massage which was itself developed because Wizard academies are notoriously male dominated places ....

So spells in D&D were never diesigned to complement the system. They weren't designed to enabel play or to complement the Pillars of exploration, roleplay and Combat. They were simply things that felt like the sort of things that Wizards would have or create spells to be able to do.
Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.

[Rum Cove]

Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.

I enjoyed your entire post and agree with it.

[MGuy]

Its more than that though.
The spells in 1e are there for in game reasons. An invisible bulter than can fetch your slippers make tea, iron your newspaper is just the sort of thing a wizard ought to have.

So the spells are not plot spells because of the games organic growth. What you have is a pot of spells that have evolved because the game evolved and was not formed whole cloth.
This is the reason for stuff like Tenser's floating disc, and its hte reason why 4e for example removed the 'piontless stuff'.

If you go back to the inspiration for the spells, Dying Earth, you will find numerous spells that make the Wizard's life easier. They are translated into the game because the game tries to create a world.

So the spell comprehend languages exists because its a spell that a wizard would create and use a lot not becuase it fulfils a useful gap ion a wizards arsenal.  Yes in play its going to be useless because a plot is never designed such that if you don't find the scroll in room 3 or you are not able to read it then you have no idea what to do or where to go next. That is possibly 'realistic' but its also poor design. You can eliviate the poorness of it or play in a sandbox with lots of similar hooks that can be followed or not.

So when I design a new spell I try to work out where and why it first developed and then try to find an interesting use for it. The Unseen servant for example happens to be a magical invisible creature who can follow quite complex instructions and carry 30lbs of weight. because he can not be damaged expect by magic he is perfect for removing mundane traps. He wasn't designed to be the ideal minesweeper but he is great at it.
So Alberlard my high level mage created Albelard's Maddening Massage. A spell that causes a number of disembodied hands to come into being that act as a distraction they basically poke, twist, nudge and annoy the target, they tie shoelaces together, empty pockets, pour out the contents of potion bottles and undo straps and remove clothing. Now in D&D terms this effect is devastating. It prevents spell casting, destroys or loses magic items, reduces amour class etc etc
Now it emerged from Albelard's Erotic Massage which was itself developed because Wizard academies are notoriously male dominated places ....

So spells in D&D were never diesigned to complement the system. They weren't designed to enabel play or to complement the Pillars of exploration, roleplay and Combat. They were simply things that felt like the sort of things that Wizards would have or create spells to be able to do.
Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.

Most of the things you mention though are background deals. While I do think that it is common sense that people would apply technology (in this case magic) to comfort and that the existence of that magic would have an undeniable effect on the world at large these are not the things you concentrate on when you're playing the game. I am willing to bet that most of your games are more of the adventurous sort and you wouldn't spend too much time concentrating on how the wizard puts his slippers on at home or how exactly his tea gets made. The kind of spells you describe may be interesting for the setting but they often times don't interact much with the adventure.

Sleep, charm, fly, invisibility, and fireball may be direct and unsophisticated uses of arcane power but they are also relevant and effective to the adventure you're likely to be on. If I have somebody who wants a background spell of very limited relative use like "Unseen Servant" I would loathe to have them exchange adventure effectiveness for it. This is why I like the idea of Catrips. Cantrips barely cost anything to have and are typically spells that don't get a lot of real traction on an adventure. In Pathfinder Cantrips are not limited to per day use and I think that is a good thing.

My exact issues with other spells I refer to as "Plot Spells" are many fold. Some I don't think should exist but do because it makes sense for them to. Case in point: Jump. Jump is a spell I have many problems with. For one its usefulness is terribly limited. Anything you can jump over can be approached in a number of different, more effective/efficient, ways. It eats up one of your limited slots per day but doesn't do anything worth hamstringing yourself for the rest of the day. It also cheapens the Jump skill. However, even having said all this, it makes sense that a spell like this would exist and it is just a bit "too good" to be an all day use cantrip (mostly because it would totally ruin the worth of the jump skill). In the entirety of my time playing DnD I've never, once, seen anyone prepare or purposefully learn this spell.

This isn't true for all spells though. Take Comprehend Languages. If your team doesn't have Comprehend languages at all you never miss it. Sure, you don't know what certain things say but you go on with your adventure anyway. If you completely bypass something without it and you never know you did or you find out after it is too late then that's just a different plot then the one you would've had if your group had it. It, like jump, shouldn't be a cantrip because that cheapens the effort people who went and learned different languages put into  it. The spell is not in a tough position though because those who get it are usually people who prepare their spells and they most likely just won't prepare it unless they know they are headed to a situation where they need it. As long as their spell selection is robust enough to make having it not feel like a punishment or if the campaign they are in necessitates heavy use of it Comprehend Languages has measurable value to a given caster.

@Lordvreeg: CR logic has nothing to do with what I said. In fact if you play your games sandboxxy style that highlights my point. If players don't have the particular exploration magic tools to solve a problem they are either not punished by it or there is simply another solution. Jump will almost never beat straight up being able to fly and in situations where you're too low level to fly you have a very limited spell resource and it would not be served by having a spell like "jump" prepared. Comprehend Languages, while interesting, is simply not necerssary to just adventure. The plot will go on whether or not you have comprehend languages prepared. It has to because a given group doesn't necessarily have it.

@beejay: They are beneficial (of that there is no doubt) but certain spells are undeniably better than others and more mundane approaches are simply more efficient than clogging up a casting slot. Comprehend languages is simply not as useful for exploration/navigation as Invisibility or even Light for that matter and, as I said before, unless you know you're going to use/need it you are less likely to attempt to learn it and even less likely to actually prepare it. Something like Knock isn't going to be prepared if you have a rogue in the party. If you don't then the fighter is just going to bust down the doors. If he can't then I am willing to bet that a given caster has prepared it for that day, at least not enough times to get through a dungeon with 2 or more locked (unbustable) doors unless he has foreknowedge that he will have to (and that's if he bothered to learn it).