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

[Bedrockbrendan]

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)

I agree part of the function of the magic sword is to power up the fighter. But All of these do matter to me. B tends to irk me if it is obvious. C tends to irk me because it doesnt account for what happens in the game. D just bothers me unless it is just light enough that the fighter still feels mundane (being able to strike with a regular weapon as if it is magical is still within the realm of believabillity, but if the fighter is launching bolts of electrici out of his sword or something like that, that kind of skinning changes the internal logic of the setting. I can brush off a plus one bonus that overcomes the "must have a magic weapon requirement" as he is just really, really good at sword play. It is still larger than life but not outrageous ImO.

For me I think what happens in the setting should matter and I prefer magic items placement to feel natural. Just a preference, but it works well for me.

[jibbajibba]

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.

+2 won't do shit cos you need +3 or better to hit it

So your arguement for fixing the power disparity is to give the mundane fighter magic kit.

That is fine its a possible resolution mechanism.

the more interesting question is does it matter how he gets that sword? And I guess what you want to do about say the Barbarian who is also mundane but can hit the golem unaided.

I might still argue that to beat a golem a 15th level figther woudl need a magic shield and magic armour.

I might argue that there is a point at which the level of the fighter driving the armour and shield and sword becomes moot.

I suspect a 7th level figther with a +5 sword +5 Plate and Sheild would be more effective against the golem than a 15th level one with a chain vest and a +3 sword... but i can't be arsed to do the maths

So does it matter where the sword comes from?

[Lord Mistborn]

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

What gears it's not powered by clockwork it's powerd by an earth elemental.

You're aproching this from the worng perspctive. I'm not saying that the fighter can't kill the iron golem. I'm aruing that he can without magic items even (ok he need weapon +3 to hit it I tend to forget how dumb 2e DR is). This proves my point about Fighters already being above and beyond what a human is capable of.

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.

Listen HP is a dumb mechanic in many ways. The fact that high HP let you swim in acid fall from orbit and get punched in the face by Iron golems is somthing the doesn't bother me a bit, I am after all arguing that high level maritals should be surpassing human limitations.

So you have one last chance to back off your absurd claim about HP.

[jibbajibba]

What gears it's not power by clockwork it's powerd by an earth elemental.

You're aproching this from the worng perspctive. I'm not saying that the fighter can't kill the iron golem. I'm aruing that he can without magic items even. This proves my point about Fighters already being above and beyond what a human is capable of.


Listen HP is a dumb mechanic in many ways. The fact that high HP let you swim in acid fall from orbit and get punched in the face by Iron golems is somthing the doesn't bother me a bit, I am after all arguing that high level maritals should be surpassing human limitations.

So you have one last chance to back of your absurd claim about HP.

You are right about gears its a golem nota warforged dodad.

You are wrong about HP. They make no sense they are an awkward mechanic the healing methods in 2e and earlier make shten even worse but its not a fight worth having. Just accept that the fact that the fighter can take a 20 point hit fromt he golem means that it's mighty blow just grazed him and he's not daunted by it. Don't thing Rocky versus Clubber Lang think Jacky Chan vs Benny the Jet.

[Sacrosanct]

You can't make assumptions about the game and then later try to change the rules of the game to fit your assumptions.


Well, you can, but people will treat you like an idiot.  


"There is no way you can have a score of 5 for a team in the game of American Football."

"Yes you can.  A safety and a field goal."

"Well, safeties are a stupid rule and should be eliminated."

"That's all fine and good, but you can have a score of 5, so you're objectively wrong."

[Bedrockbrendan]

HP are a vast simplificiation of what happens in combat, but they are a simpification that makes D&D work. The problem is no one is on the same page when it comes ot what HP loss means. People havent been for decades. That is why healing surges created such a stir, but why people who accepted them couldn't understand why others found them so tough to swallow. I think once you accept that everyone is walking around with a different idea of what HP mean, then these conversations start to make sense.

[jibbajibba]

You can't make assumptions about the game and then later try to change the rules of the game to fit your assumptions.


Well, you can, but people will treat you like an idiot.  


"There is no way you can have a score of 5 for a team in the game of American Football."

"Yes you can.  A safety and a field goal."

"Well, safeties are a stupid rule and should be eliminated."

"That's all fine and good, but you can have a score of 5, so you're objectively wrong."

Look its no big deal you just made a mistake with what + you needed to hit a golem I was only kidding when I brought it up don't get upset.

[Lord Mistborn]

You are right about gears its a golem nota warforged dodad.

Warforged aren't clockwork either they're living wood, stone and metal if you want constructs with gears you're wanting Inevitables.

[jibbajibba]

Warforged aren't clockwork either they living wood, stone and metal if you want constructs with gears you're wanting Inevitables.

Fair enough.

[StormBringer]

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.

No, I saw that part, as well as the part where you quoted something I said wildly out of context.  Are you sure you want to be flinging around something like 'disingenuous' when your own house is made of such fragile, fragile glass?

I didn't ignore your post, I just discounted it;  you haven't actually shown any of the premises to be false:

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.

Gnomes don't get the spell speak with animals for free.  They get an ability that mimics speak with animals for free.  If you are trying to demonstrate that spells are not the ultimate determinant of power, you would be best advised to stick with actual spells.  The gnome's innate spell-like ability is irrelevant.  Rearranging a sentence is also not a refutation.  In other words, you don't get to just toss out a few sentences then claim a premise is false.  You actually have to demonstrate why it is false.  Watch:
Premise #1: If the Green Bay Packers wear their red uniforms, they will win the Super Bowl
Premise #2: The Green Bay Packers are wearing their red uniforms
Conclusion:  They will win the Super Bowl.

The Green Bay Packers don't have a red uniform, therefore both premises are wrong.

See how that works?

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.

So, with a fairly narrow and specific selection of spells, this could be true.  With a different selection of spells, it might not be true.  Again, not a refutation.  This isn't a court of law, you don't get 'reasonable doubt' as a shield.

Also, it doesn't matter how a Beguiler, a Summoner, an Illusionist, or a Lollipop Shaman compares to a Wizard, we are talking about casters v non-casters, so that is irrelevant.

'Access to a resource is a net gain in power' is not a first cause.  If access to any resource is a net gain, then the Fighter's access to the resource of any weapon and any armour is a 'net gain'.  We can count 'access to resources' all day long, it hardly proves anything, let alone refutes anything.

Demonstrate how spells scale more quickly than feats before you claim victory, also.  And if we are assuming a 'sensible selection of spells', there must be a selection that isn't sensible, hence, a Wizard is not absolutely more powerful.  Note that I said nothing about a 'sensible selection of spells', so adding qualifiers isn't exactly a resounding proof.  Perhaps, after the I-don't-know-how-many-billionth time, you could provide this absolutely unbeatable spell load-out.

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'.

With enough ranks, a Fighter or Rogue can read scrolls, which is not 'casting a spell', and there are a pile of restrictions besides.   Drinking a potion is absolutely not 'using a spell', let alone casting it.  You damn well know both of those things.

In any case, 'casting a spell' is not a class ability for either of those classes, so one or two edge cases where they can do something like casting a spell doesn't make them 'spell using classes'.  Are you sure you know what 'disingenuous' means?

While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally  speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues.

So, this is the point where you get to demonstrate your conclusion now.  If my premises are false (and you haven't actually shown that they are or how), that doesn't automatically mean your argument is correct.  And this is where you always fail miserably.

We have your conclusion, "Spell casters are more powerful than non-spell casters".  Now you get to prove it.  Or concede the argument.  Your choice.

[StormBringer]

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)

I agree part of the function of the magic sword is to power up the fighter. But All of these do matter to me. B tends to irk me if it is obvious. C tends to irk me because it doesnt account for what happens in the game. D just bothers me unless it is just light enough that the fighter still feels mundane (being able to strike with a regular weapon as if it is magical is still within the realm of believabillity, but if the fighter is launching bolts of electrici out of his sword or something like that, that kind of skinning changes the internal logic of the setting. I can brush off a plus one bonus that overcomes the "must have a magic weapon requirement" as he is just really, really good at sword play. It is still larger than life but not outrageous ImO.

I agree with you on C&D, but I don't see a problem with B.  How many quests are simply for the weapon or item that will defeat the Ogre harassing the kingdom, or banish the Demon back to the Abyss?  If the DM just dropped it in the player's lap, that would be bullshit.  But searching for Golem Bane, Bulwark against Constructs, before seeking the lair of the powerful Machine Mage Cognitor the Unyielding would be entirely sensible.  

And how many times has the Evil Overlord kept the key item in relatively close proximity to the creature it is made to defeat?  

[RandallS]

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

The discussion was about a HIGH Level fighter. i simply pointed out that I had seen even a mid-level fighter beat an iron golem. Yes, he happened to have a magic item that made it possible, but magic items are part of fantasy literatuire and the game.

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

Unlikely, but not impossible assuming said fighter isn't stupid enough to try to beat the iron golem is a stand-up fight.

[Lord Mistborn]

So I decided to run some numbers. 2e Fighter 13 vs Iron Golem

The fighter has a +3 one-handed sword no other magic items and he's wearing full plate and carrying a sheild, his stats are Str 17 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10 His thac0 is 3 he can do 5/2 attacks per round for 1d12+6 damage and he has AC 0 and 80 hp.

As he and the Iron Golem hack away at each other it takes him about 2.7 rounds to kill the golem, the golem takes about 4 rounds to kill him so this match is clearly in the fighters favor. It's not even a close fight.

No tactics, no items beyond the one need to hit the danm thing and the fighter hacks to death a 12ft tall 5'000 lbs. piece of magically animated Iron. I think that counts a superhuman feat.

[StormBringer]

I think that counts a superhuman feat.

Except for the way hit points work.  The Fighter disrupted the magical field that animated the golem, weakening it each round until it was no longer able to move.  Nothing 'superhuman' about it.

[Lord Mistborn]

Except for the way hit points work.  The Fighter disrupted the magical field that animated the golem, weakening it each round until it was no longer able to move.  Nothing 'superhuman' about it.

HP are still HP no matter how hard you handwave. not only can this hypothetical fighter hack an iron golem to death with his sword, he is exactly as hard to stab to death as said 12ft tall 5,000 lbs. being of solid iron.