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

[Bedrockbrendan]

So is your response.

A) You're right LM a 9th level fighter being able to singlehandedly defeat a insect the size of a short bus is clear proof that where not dealing with "normal" humans.

B) That's wrong LM, fighters should always remain in the ballpark of what a normal human can do even at level 20.

Edit: This very important. If the fighter is not allowed to keep up at high levels then taking levels in fighter should not be an option passed that point. At least in a balanced system.

I responded to this several times over the past few months. Nothing is going to be gained be re-exploring this subject except thread derailment. Making the same exact point you and mcguy made last month to the same exact people who disagreed with you last month is pointless.

[Lord Mistborn]

I responded to this several times over the past few months. Nothing is going to be gained be re-exploring this subject except thread derailment. Making the same exact point you and mcguy made last month to the same exact people who disagreed with you last month is pointless.

Listen if you're going be passive-aggressive like this then stay out of this thead and be a negative Nellie elsewhere.

OK, people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Listen if you're going be passive-aggressive like this then stay out of this thead and be a negative Nellie elsewhere.

OK, people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.

You asked me a direct question and I gave my answer. I am not the only one who made this observation. I have a feeling lots of others agree with my assessment.

[deadDMwalking]

Lord Mistrborn,

BedrockBrendan is right.  We've had this discussion before.  Some people (like BedrockBrendan) think it's okay that the Fighter is 'good' at low-levels where the Wizard kind of blows, but it 'evens out' because the Wizard is awesome at high levels while the Fighter blows.  You see, you trade 'good now' for 'sucky later' or 'sucky now' for 'good later'.  While that doesn't work for me, it works for quite a few people around these parts.

Secondly, a number of people refuse to agree that a character that can do anything the player can imagine plus has additional abilities written on his character sheet that nobody else can do has more options than someone with just his imagination.  

A few other posters have basically said 'of course high level Fighters are crappy compared to Wizards in 3.x; everyone knows that, why is this debate going on for 4000+ posts'.  I'm paraphrasing, but that's RPGPundit's view.  

Some of those people agree that it was an issue in high level play in earlier editions, but it doesn't matter because who gets to high levels anyway?  

Some of those people disagree - they think the Fighter was awesome in earlier editions, but not 3.x - in large part because the Fighter is at the same level but everyone else got a boost - and so making the Fighter better is not a priority, and if they were doing anything about it, they'd make everyone else suck (mostly make spells more dangerous and make disruption easier).  

Finally, there is a very vocal group that don't care if the game doesn't work because the DM can always fix it.  Play the game, not the rules.  

And nobody has been convinced to change their position in a meaningful way.  As far as it relates to 'play style', it doesn't matter.  But in any case, outright denial of the issue at least in 3.x is mostly gone away.

[Lord Mistborn]

This is a thread about balance.

If a class is definitionaly not allowed meaningful abilities at high levels then if we want a balanced game the option of still taking levels in that class can not be on the table at high levels. This is A=A people.

Now what I'm also saying is the idea that old edition fighters never step out of the just a guy with a sword paradigm is false. If you stack enough levels you will get to the point where you can beat an huge earth elemental to death with your bear hands.

Given that high level fighters are already superhuman then to what extent are they allowed to spin that superhumanity into lateral advancements.

[RandallS]

OK, people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.

In any D&D edition, I'm going to play or GM, fighters are limited to what a real human could do. Of course, in the editions, I play, high level fighters generally have troops under their command, retainers, a good collection of magical items, and once they reach 15th level or so, they probably have at least one useful permanent spell cast on them. So they don't have to take on those city-bus sized monsters alone -- and they have learned enough strategy and tactics to not take such a monster on in a standup "fair" fight unless they have no choice (and they try hard to avoid having no choice).

Then they likely have a magic-user buddy or two -- they guy they protected and and kept alive at low levels is now a fairly powerful wizard who owes them his life a few times over and can be persuaded to come along and try to soften up the target before the fighter and his group move in on it. Etc.

I realize that this is apparently not the type of play you and Mguy seem to want for the fighter at high level, but it works well for a lot of people who don't want fighters gaining all sorts of supernatural abilities as they level up.

[Lord Mistborn]

In any D&D edition, I'm going to play or GM, fighters are limited to what a real human could do. Of course, in the editions, I play, high level fighters generally have troops under their command, retainers, a good collection of magical items, and once they reach 15th level or so, they probably have at least one useful permanent spell cast on them. So they don't have to take on those city-bus sized monsters alone -- and they have learned enough strategy and tactics to not take such a monster on in a standup "fair" fight unless they have no choice (and they try hard to avoid having no choice).

Then they likely have a magic-user buddy or two -- they guy they protected and and kept alive at low levels is now a fairly powerful wizard who owes them his life a few times over and can be persuaded to come along and try to soften up the target before the fighter and his group move in on it. Etc.

I realize that this is apparently not the type of play you and Mguy seem to want for the fighter at high level, but it works well for a lot of people who don't want fighters gaining all sorts of supernatural abilities as they level up.

The thing is the fighter is already going to be superhuman. Even the weaksauce 3e fighter can punch a short bus sized monster to death at 10th level. (Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede is CR 6 truefacts.)

[LordVreeg]

I think the better part of what they're saying is that:

1) You can't always opt out of combat (people attack you).
2) Combat spells affect the likelihood of success in combat.
3) Combat can kill you.

Basically because you can't always pick your combat encounters, and because they represent a point at which the game may end, you're more likely to need (in the survival sense) combat spells than non-combat spells.

____________________________

Comp lang has been used as the example, which adds two minor points:

1) Utility spells can bypass combat entirely.
1a) But you're glad you had complang because combat.
1b) Therefore if you didn't have it, and prepared combat spells, you'd still be glad you prepared combat spells.
2) Some spells are not required here and now. You can delay on translating a book, or ignore the runes on the walls.

How a game is run adds:

1) There shouldn't be chokepoints that depend on a utility spell in a linear adventure.
2) In a nonlinear adventure there can be chokepoints for optional content (I mentioned requiring a spell to get treasure, which would make it the difference between xp and no xp in some editions).

And then there's the last little scraps:

1) Some spells (flight, invisibility, most illusions) are both combat and non combat.
2) Some spells have (more time consuming or difficult) alternatives that don't rely on a spell slot. Comp lang isn't a great example. Maybe knock? Why waste the spell slot if you've got a rogue?

______________________________

Does that more or less sum up the state of the argument at the moment?

EDIT: I'm now realizing I've lost the connection between this and class balance. Care to sum it up, anybody?

Well, a few people tried to bring in the class balance thing.

The class balance part of the whole 'comp lang vs fireball' is that the guy with the armor is there to fight, it's what he does, it's his niche, role, whatever.  
The guy with thr holy symbol heals, takes care of undead, and does some fighter support in most games, and later got some spells specific to these tasks.
The guy with the leather armor is important for town games and exploration games (in later games one of the biggest screw ups was trying to make this roguish fellow better in combat, since that IS NOT WHAT HE WAS DESIGNED FOR) since he finds traps, defuses them, unlocks doors and is the best scout (an incredibly important part of many games).  Also decent with a bow to support the guy with the armor.
The guy in the robes is none of these, he's the utility guy.  That's what the mage really is.  Look at the spell list, especially the low level spell list for magic users in the first couple generations.  In the adventuring mode, if the group is going to a high combat area, the magic user can aid the fighters.  If the group is going inot a heavily evil or undead area, protection from evil is there.  If there is lots of sneaking, we have audible glamer and ventriliquism, and if they are going into an alien place from an ealier group, comp lang and detect magic are critical.  But the guy in the robes is not there to replace the fighter.

So this is an attempt to tie the spell conversation back to the original ideas of class balance.

[Bedrockbrendan]

. This is A=A people.

.

no it isnt.

[Sacrosanct]

Lord Mistrborn,

BedrockBrendan is right.  We've had this discussion before.  Some people (like BedrockBrendan) think it's okay that the Fighter is 'good' at low-levels where the Wizard kind of blows, but it 'evens out' because the Wizard is awesome at high levels while the Fighter blows.  .

Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels.  My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.

[Lord Mistborn]

no it isnt.

Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting spells.

Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels.  My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.

And I assume that he glowed like a Christmas tree under detect magic.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting spells.

I dont think any suggested it was a coincidence.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels.  My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.

And to be clear my argument wasnt that the fighter "blowed" at higher levels, just that the wizard started out weaker than him but ended up stronger.

[Sacrosanct]

And to be clear my argument wasnt that the fighter "blowed" at higher levels, just that the wizard started out weaker than him but ended up stronger.

No worries, your position was clear.  I just wanted to clarify that his misrepresentation of your argument wasn't necessarily true.

[Sacrosanct]

Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting spells.

And I don't think it's any cooincedence that magic users's THAC0 in 2e got better as they leveled up.  :rolleyes:

And I assume that he glowed like a Christmas tree under detect magic.

How many times do we really need to go over this?  If you take away magic items from a fighter, then you take away magic items for a MU as well (including his spell book).  The fighter class was specifically designed to be the one class that had the best range to magic items.  That's a core aspect of the class design, just like hit points and the ability to cast spells.