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

[Sacrosanct]

The fighters are already superhuman.

not really, and here's why:

An Iron Golem is 5'000 lbs. of solid iron given motion, purpose and imunity to magic by a spellcaster. This is supposed to be the encounter in which the fighter shines btw. The fighter is then supposed to kill 2 1/2 tons of malevolent metal with sharpened pieces of steel, likely while it punches him in the face. There is no way in hell you're going to do that while "remaining within the bounds of a normal human."

A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world.  It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting.  He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage.  He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.

There.  Pretty simple.  Just because these are alien concepts to you, doesn't mean they are invalid concepts to begin with.  At this point, you sound an awful lot like a teenager who is adamant that he knows everything about the real world and how it works and all the adults are just wrong and bitter.

[StormBringer]

While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues.  More specifically, it is true at high levels when spellcasters have better access to spells making them more flexible, allowing their powers to scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the most powerful abilities in the game.  How many 'sword strokes' is finger of death equivalent to?  

In any case, if you value logic SO MUCH, you should be willing to explain your point, and then use logic in support of it.  As is, it looks like you're trying to build an easily torn apart straw man.  If I agree with your premises, you'll point out that they're false like I just did.  I don't agree with your premises, so if you want to attack my argument, you can do that without turning to 'illogic'.  

Oh, no, it's even simpler than that.  If all of those premises are false, then how about you come up with a set that makes your conclusion true?  All I have heard since your cohort arrived is that Wizards are more powerful because spells.

How many sword strokes are equivalent to Finger of Death?  I dunno, how many sword strokes are usable once per day?

People have defined balance several times in this thread, including Mguy and LordMistborn.  What I think is that you'll never admit that people have done what you asked.

Then you shouldn't have any problem quoting that post.  At the very least, "They have defined balance in post #XX, again in post #XX and one more time in post #XXX"

Relative balance of Fighters and Wizards is illustrative of concerns I have with balance.  I want balance, and that's a very easy way to explain why high level games aren't balanced.

Then you could, perhaps, illustrate it instead of simply asserting it.  That way, your premise would not be false.  "High level games aren't balanced" is a conclusion, and "Fighters and Wizards aren't balanced" might be a premise, but is certainly isn't an explanation for the former, nor is it a premise that supports your conclusion.

If this is what you call 'logic', it's no wonder you avoid it like the plague.

But I'm not interested in 'your logic', which isn't logical.  Nor am I scuttling off to a dark corner.  I'll continue to discuss the positions in good faith (depsite accusations to the contrary) because I believe that most of our positions are not as far apart as you might like to pretend.

Then dazzle me with your brilliance.  Let's see this awesome display of logic that makes your case as watertight as you believe it is.  Because every time you assert "Wizards are more powerful than Fighters" without a set of premises that supports that, you may as well be agreeing with the premises I provided.

[Black Vulmea]

Just gonna leave this here.

As I already point out to you in the other thread, 3e mage hand only lets you lift something of five pounds or less. That's not enough force to open a "stuck or heavy door," which is what the fighter's usually the best at by virtue of having the highest Strength score in the party.

You were wrong about this the first time you brought it up, too.

[jibbajibba]

Sure, and I posted that in your response as an example of one direction the previous argument could take.  I don't mind discussing it with you, but I largely agree with your assessment.  I was hoping one of the people who piss and moan about 'logical' discussions could take a look at it, though.

The only truth to be had really is that spells give you more options.
Each spell is basically an option that a non caster doesn't have.
Wearing armour and having good HP are also options, as are thief skills.

At low levels wizards, for example, but we could apply it to monks or whoever, don't get the option of wearing armour or swinging a sword effectively. As they gain levels their options increase.
The fighter does get the option of using a sword and wearing armour.

As they advance in levels the number of new options open to the fighters grows less quickly than the number of options open to the caster. Thus at some point the caster has more options than the fighter.

Logically speaking

A = W + Y(level)
B = T + Z(level)

If Y is bigger than Z that at some point A will surpass B whatever the values of W & T (their starting options)

Most people would say that a 30th level Wizard in 2e D&D was more powerful than a 30th level fighter. Most people say that a 20th level wizard was more powerful.... a question to ask would be what is the lowest level value where this starts to be the case.

Another critical question is are you happy with balance being over a campaign and not at any particular level (for any and all defintions of balance). If this is the case then You have to ask if the disparity between fighters and casters at the low levels is a balance for a disparity at high levels - you are likely to play at. That last bit is key because is you consider all levels then the caster will always win because their are infinite levels. In reality do your games peak at 12th? 8th? 20th? 30th ?
If we postulate that the tipping point is 12th level (where casters surpass fighters) and your games peeter out at 8th level then the balance issue you have is propably that your wizard needs to be tougher at low levels.
If we decide that the tipping point is 8th level and your games quickly get to this point and you play for years at levels 15 -20 then maybe the fighter needs help at higher levels.

Then you have a slew of fixes. Some of which are in the game already and might work for your group. Magic items are a classic example. If you are happy with items dominating the game then equiping the high level fighter with items or indeed the low level Wizard fixes the imbalance easily. Not everyone is going to like that method.
You can change the focus of play and move from adventures to Domain Management. Some players will be happy with this. I expect a larger group will want to continue in the style they played earlier (this is supported by the move in D&D away from Domain Management to continued adventure style play at high levels in future releases).
You can allow fighters and other mundanes to take new classes. Prestige classes with magic powers or just dip into magic using classes. This is the 3e fix.
You can add new powers that classes collect as they level, feats. the very powerful ones can be like magic powers.
You can houserule stuff so that mundane classes get spell like powers or add new feats or whatever

Or you can live with the disparity.

The things that have frustrated me most in this whole balance malestrom (I know no one cares but what the heck ), are the refusal to accept any disparity at any point and the arguement that because PCs are run by players there are infinite options at all levels.
I think one of the few points that has been clearly demonstrated through logic is that options not related to the actual character ie 'stuff on the character sheet' balances out for all classes or ...
A+B > A for any value of A
(we can discount B = 0 because very few games don't have any character sheets at all, although having B as a negative integer where character sheets are merely restrictions on actions PCs can take is an interesting path to persue .....)

[RandallS]

A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world.  It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting.  He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage.  He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.

This, or while maneuvering it to where it gets stuck, falls, etc.  Or for the most fun, herds it into a rust monster.  I've had fighters beat iron golems in single combat in TSR D&D before. Not even that high a level of a fighter in one case, 8th or 9th level as I recall, but he had a Rusty Sword (a old, rusty looking sword that causes metal it touches to turn to rust where it hits) which allowed each blow to do extra damage and managed to get the golem to trip and fall.

[Lord Mistborn]

not really, and here's why:

Enlighten me.

A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world.  It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting.

Is that so.

He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage.

Wait what, it's a Golem it has no flesh and no organs it's just 2 1/2 tons of iron given motion by a bound earth elemental. I specifically chose the golem because it a large monster made out of an undifferentiated substance.

He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.

That's wrong and you know it. This is a Fighter 80% of his AC is coming from his armor which only should count if the golem is making contact. When 5'000 lbs. of iron punches you, you're not getting back up unless you've left regular humanity behind a long time ago.

[Sacrosanct]

As I already point out to you in the other thread, 3e mage hand only lets you lift something of five pounds or less. That's not enough force to open a "stuck or heavy door," which is what the fighter's usually the best at by virtue of having the highest Strength score in the party.

You were wrong about this the first time you brought it up, too.

At this point, the conversation has been so circular I can script out replies ahead of time.


Grognard:  You're a 3rd level MU, and your party enters a dungeon.  A group of 6 orcs surround you all with weapons."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes, because I cast sleep and take them out all at once."
Grognard: "The orcs were guarding a treasure chest, but it's locked."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes, because I cast knock to open the chest, rendering the thief useless."
Grognard: "Assuming you didn't just die from a trap, we'll let you open it.  In the chest is a necklace with inscriptions."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes because I cast identify.  The bard is useless."
Grognard: "I'm not even going to look see if you just so happened to have sleep, knock, and identify as your memorized spells.  I'll give you benefit of the doubt, although I am highly dubious.  Attracted by the earlier battle, 6 orcs come at your group form the passage you entered the room at."
Denner" "Once again, the MU is best because I cast sleep."
Grognard :"Sorry, you're out of spells.  There is a door on the side of the room closest to you to escape from, but it is locked."
Denner: "I mage hand the door open."
Grognard: "Sorry, but like I said, you're out of spells."
Denner: "Knock."
Grognard: "out of spells."
Denner: "Then we rest."
Grognard: "You're in the middle of a battle.  So just how is a MU better than everyone else again?"
Denner:  "I'm just going to ignore you because you old bitter people can't handle logic and refuse to partake in an adult conversation."

[Sacrosanct]

Is that so.

Yes, it is.  I explained it already.  What's the difficult part?

Wait what, it's a Golem it has no flesh and no organs it's just 2 1/2 tons of iron given motion by a bound earth elemental. I specifically chose the golem because it a large monster made out of an undifferentiated substance.

An object doesn't need to have flesh to be damaged.  Ever taken a hammer to a brick wall?  Holy christ....

That's wrong and you know it. This is a Fighter 80% of his AC is coming from his armor which only should count if the golem is making contact. When a 5'000 lbs. of iron punches you, you're not getting back up unless you've left regular humanity behind a long time ago.

Once again this is an example of you knowing jack shit about the game you professing to know stuff about.  Do you know what HP are?  Here's a lesson, pay attention.  Hit points include things like "experience and luck to avoid taking direct hits."  I'm pretty sure every edition has a description like that.  Not everything is AC.  Hell, in the AD&D PHB, it explicitly talks about hit points being used to avoid taking direct hits even if the monster rolls max damage, using a war horse as an example.  Since you "Own.The.Fucking.Books.", you should have known that, right?

But I suspect you'll complete ignore this.  Here is a concrete example of someone pointing out to you how and why you are wrong, and I bet dollars to donuts you and MGuy will still claim that we're just being mean to you and not refuting any of your logic.  

Do you even play D&D?  I gotta ask, because you're missing some of the most basic concepts.

[jibbajibba]

This, or while maneuvering it to where it gets stuck, falls, etc.  Or for the most fun, herds it into a rust monster.  I've had fighters beat iron golems in single combat in TSR D&D before. Not even that high a level of a fighter in one case, 8th or 9th level as I recall, but he had a Rusty Sword (a old, rusty looking sword that causes metal it touches to turn to rust where it hits) which allowed each blow to do extra damage and managed to get the golem to trip and fall.

So here the disparity was fixed because of a magic sword.

Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....

[Sacrosanct]

Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....

I hope not because it's assumed, and built into the rules, that a fighter of high level would have a magic weapon.  Having a magic weapon doesn't make the fighter super human.  It's a tool.  The same as me having a .308 allows me to destroy a milk jug from 100 meters out.

[Lord Mistborn]

An object doesn't need to have flesh to be damaged.  Ever taken a hammer to a brick wall?  Holy christ....

It's 12ft tall and made of iron it's not like some of the squsiher big monsters where you could plausabilly be cutting arteries. Somehow the fighter has to make a 2 1/2 ton metal moster notfuntional with his sword. Without being superhuman of course.

Once again this is an example of you knowing jack shit about the game you professing to know stuff about.  Do you know what HP are?  Here's a lesson, pay attention.  Hit points include things like "experience and luck to avoid taking direct hits."  I'm pretty sure every edition has a description like that.  Not everything is AC.

But I suspect you'll complete ignore this.  Here is a concrete example of someone pointing out to you how and why you are wrong, and I bet dollars to donuts you and MGuy will still claim that we're just being mean to you and not refuting any of your logic.  

Do you even play D&D?  I gotta ask, because you're missing some of the most basic concepts.

The game always says the hp are luck and/or some other bullshit to stop the model train enthusiasts (who really should just be playing GRUPS instead) from whinging it's still bullshit. HP only make sense as a measure of how much you can be punched in the face. If you want to have this debate that's fine, go ahead make my day.

[deadDMwalking]

How are they false?

Are you trying to show everyone that you lack reading comprehension skills?  

But if you do, it'd be best to avoid starting with false premises.

Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D

There are a number of factors that contribute to 'power'.  If spells were the 'most powerful element', then a gnome would be more powerful than a dwarf, because gnomes get speak with animals for free, and dwarves don't have any spells.  Spells are among the most powerful resouces in D&D - largely because they are flexible, scalable, and renewable.  This premise is false

Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.

This isn't necessarily true. First off, some classes can use more spells more often and/or more reliably than others.  A bard isn't necessarily 'more powerful' than a Fighter because he has access to spells.  In 3.x, people talk about the Beguiler and in Pathfinder the Summoner as a good class - while they are less powerful than a straight wizard or cleric, they are fun because they're built on a theme.  A standard wizard might have a spell that kills people instantly finger of death, lots of mobility spells (teleport, dimension door, fly, etc).  Spells are a resource.  Access to a resource is a net gain in power.  The quality of the resource determines which is more powerful.  Thus, someone could argue that 'fighters are more powerful' because they have 'better access' to feats.  Feats are a resource, like spells, and having more of, and better access to, increases character power.  

In the case of D&D 3.x, spells scale more quickly than feats, so in the long run, it is a more 'powerful' resource, assuming sensible selection of spells.

Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells

This is mostly true, but isn't necessarily true.  A Wizard in Full Plate can't use spells.  A Wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can't use spells.  A wizard that is affected by a feeblemind spell, therefore, doesn't have access to his spells.  But in general, this statement is largely true.  Not enough to stand up to a strict logical evaluation, but this one I'll generally grant you.

Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.

Again, not strictly true.  Use Magic Device is a skill.  With enough ranks in the skill, a Fighter or Rogue could cast spells.  Drinking a potion is 'using a spell'.  Let's say that Fighters are Rogues have limited access to spells, and generally, the access that they DO have is not as flexible, scalable, or powerful as that available to equal level 'spell casters'.

Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.

While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues.  More specifically, it is true at high levels when spellcasters have better access to spells making them more flexible, allowing their powers to scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the most powerful abilities in the game. How many 'sword strokes' is finger of death equivalent to?  

So, if you've read all this, you know that I explained how they were false.  You know what I didn't do?  I didn't ignore you.  

Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post?  I must be psychic.  I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.

You know what you did?  You ignored my post.  I explained why your premises were flawed and then you asked me to explain why they were false (even though I just did so).  I guess it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters 'you want to have'.  I'm not going to pitch a fit about it like you did, you whiny little dumbass, because I don't really care if you ignore my posts.  As I've said before, you're a dumbass, and I don't respect you or your opinions.  But if you're going to ignore my posts, do it right.  Don't quote part of it, leave out the part that I gave you the response, and then pretend that I didn't respond - that's the definition of disingenuous you little shit.

[jibbajibba]

I hope not because it's assumed, and built into the rules, that a fighter of high level would have a magic weapon.  Having a magic weapon doesn't make the fighter super human.  It's a tool.  The same as me having a .308 allows me to destroy a milk jug from 100 meters out.

See my larger post.

Magic items are a method provided by the rules to decrease disparity between classes.
They are not of them selves part of the class - unless you are suggesting some trade XP for a magic sword or a x level fighter needs a sword that is x/2 by default as an entitlement - which I doubt.
So the fighter + balancing factor A (a magic sword) is able to beat the golem.

The fighter sword combo can realistically not be considered 'mundane' any longer. He has a sword that can cut through a giant iron man.

Does it matter if that sword was
a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)

[Sacrosanct]

It's 12ft tall and made of iron it's not like some of the squsiher big monsters where you could plausabilly be cutting arterys. Somehow the fighter has to make a 2 1/2 ton metal moster notfuntional with his sword. Without being superhuman of course.

Or with a weapon that can damage iron.
Or luring the golem into a trap
Or hitting gears


Seriously kid, why is it so hard for you to think outside of the box?  Do you need instructions for putting on your underwear?

The game always says the hp are luck and/or some other bullshit to stop the model train enthusiasts (who really should just be playing GRUPS instead) from whinging it's still bullshit. HP only make sense as a measure of how much you can be punched in the face. If you want to have this debate that's fine, go ahead make my day.

Let's put aside the fact that you think HP should only be about physical damage (because that's a stupid thing to think because 100s of conversations have shown why it would make no sense in D&D).  Let's focus instead on that's the way the game is written.  Who gives a flying fuck if you disagree with it?  It's a clear example that shows why you are wrong, and now you want to change the rules to fit your (incorrect) assumption?  You made an assumption, and I pointed out why it was wrong.  That's objective fact.  Grow a pair and own up to your mistakes for once in your entitled little life.

[Sacrosanct]

See my larger post.

Magic items are a method provided by the rules to decrease disparity between classes.
They are not of them selves part of the class - unless you are suggesting some trade XP for a magic sword or a x level fighter needs a sword that is x/2 by default as an entitlement - which I doubt.
So the fighter + balancing factor A (a magic sword) is able to beat the golem.

The fighter sword combo can realistically not be considered 'mundane' any longer. He has a sword that can cut through a giant iron man.

Does it matter if that sword was
a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)

The argument is that the fighter can't do any of this and remain a normal human.  Getting a tool that helps does not suddenly make the fighter superhuman.  It's the fighter's skill and experience that allows him to make maximum effective use of his tools.  A 1st level fighter with a +2 sword won't be able to kill the golem.  But a 15th level fighter probably could.  Because he's using his mundane experience, skill, and training to maximize the tool to beat the golem.