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

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

Sigh, I can't be helped, if this is really the argument you guys want to make a stand on that's fine.
 
HP is totally a 1 to 1 reflection of a characters ability to get punched in the face. The game handwaves really hard about it and tries to pretend it's not because like I said the model train enthusiasts hate the idea of the fighter having even the smallest of superhuman abilities.
 
HP as anything other than a raw measure of toughness breaks down logically even under the lightest scrutiny.
 
-Magic Missiles automatically hit and do not target a location on the body. fighter 13 can take 20 of the things and still be standing when a 1st level smuck goes down to 2 of them.
 
-Poisoned Crossbow bolts have to hit to deliver their poison, the fighter can get shot 20 or more times with those Drow hand crossbows while some 1st level shmuck goes down to 2-3 of them.
 
-Falling damage. No amount of skill or luck will let an ordinary human survive a 200+ ft. fall on to solid stone but someone with 70 or more hp can totally just keep on walking after that. Once again for some low level shmuck that's guaranteed death. Heck if falling damage caps at 20d6 in 2e the way it does in 3e then that fighter can fall from any height on to any surface and walk it off.
 
-The Fighter 13 takes a swim in "deadly" acid, well not really. When I said "deadly" acid the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes. He could take a bath in the stuff, put it on cereal, rub it right into his eyes it's not deadly at all to him. Once again some low level shmuck is going to dissolve in 1-3 rounds.
 
-The Fighter 13 and two 1st level fighters light themselves on fire. The Fighter 13 is still burning like some kind of demented human candle long after the other 2 are charred corpses.
 
-The fighter is under the effect of hold person, is unable to move or dodge, and the Iron Golem punches him right in the face. In 2e in fact it takes that Iron Golem the same amount of time to beat a held fighter to death as it does to beat him to death when he isn't magically paralyzed.
 
These are just the exaples I have off the top of my head. If you really want I can find even more by pageing through my 2e books.

The way hit points normally are visualized as working aren't as being purely physical or wholly dodge-based. Most GMs I think will look at the PCs hit points and describe a wound differently depending. The 1st-level guardsman is probably "run through" by a 5 HP sword thrust, while the 50 HP mini-Conan just takes a nasty scratch and is bleeding slightly. Players will I think look at a GM very strangely if they describe the 5 HP as being stab through the aorta, or say "OK...you duck aside from the orc's blow at the last second with a powerful acrobatic manuever...oh, and take off five hit points."
Stuff like the drow crossbows isn't an issue since the bolts would be 'hits', just in somewhere more painful for the low-level character. Same with the magic missiles; they hit automatically but that doesn't mean a higher-level character can't roll with the blow somehow (angling himself so they need to punch through armour, or putting out an arm so they home in on that instead of hitting them in the chest, moving sideways at the last second so the missiles have to curve around and lose forward momentum - its magic, so you'll need to use your imagination here).
 
The hit point system falls apart a bit when it gets to situations where a character couldn't reasonably do anything to minimize the damage. The 2E PHB does have a lengthy diatribe on how falling damage depends on dumb luck, elasticity, shock waves and etc. (pg. 104).
In the case of being wholly immersed in acid, the phb. lists this specifically as an instance of something that will kill a character regardless of hit points - and the golem attacking the Held fighter could well come under this rule as well (Inescapable Death, pg. 106), although 2E doesn't have defined coup de grace rules as 3E does.
The really tricky thing that is genuinely inconsistent with the system IMHO is the healing rates i.e. how a cure light wounds spell doesn't help a high-level fighter heal as much. 3E at least increases natural healing to [level/day] although doesn't fix the CLW issue. (3E also has Con damage for stuff like poison, blood loss and so on, which since each 2 points does =level damage, is good for representing inescapable damage, which can't be rolled with).
 
Sorry pet peeves, go on with whatever the thread was actually about.

[Bedrockbrendan]

But we do all agree that they need something. Its just the description of that something.

So a figther who can fly by default is a no no. But a fighter who can fly because he found winged boots is fine
A fighter who can empower his soul bound sword to make it +3/+3 with his Chi power is a no no. But a figther who found a +3/+3 sword is fine.
A fighter who can dodge a mighty blow and turn 25 points of damage into a scratch is fine but one that can take a 25 point blow full in the face and grin it off isn't

I dont think they need or are entitled to have these things. Most will have some kind of magic item that levels the field or even makes them stand above the other characters...but it should not be a certainty in my opinion. Rather it should be an outgrowth of in game events. At least when it cimes to magic items that is how I feel.

[Lord Mistborn]

words

Handwave harder I'm enjoying the breeze.

[Exploderwizard]

The reason the fighter class (and to a lesser extent the rogue) fails to keep up in so many games is that any suggestion that if a fighter of Xth level is capable of anything that is impossible for a normal human the model train enthusiasts come out and scream their denial.

So I want everyone to think long and hard on this one. If you keep asking the designers "I want to kill a city bus sized armored firebreathing death-lizard with my sword while still being totally within the realistic capabilities of an ordinary human" your never going to get that, ever.

Listen I have no interest in a game where some classes are capable of whatever because they have the (Su) tag while others can't have anything that the model train enthusiasts wont swallow.

I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.

Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.

Perhaps you don't understand the scope of the original game and what 'normal human capability' actually means in the context of D&D.

A Hero (4th level fighter) in D&D is an individual that fights with the power of 4 ordinary men. Relative to the normal trained man-at-arms this is fairly fantastic as is. A Superhero (8th level fighter), fights with the power of 8 ordinary men. This borders on the supernaturally awesome.

So when you toss around terms like 'ordinary human capability' remember that the OD&D fighter already supercedes that by a mile without needing to give him rainbow colored bolts of power springing from his asshole.

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....

It is the nature of that particular creature to require an enchanted weapon to destroy it. Hand that +3 longsword to the magic user and see how well he would fare.

But Conan he is a bit superhuman wouldn't you say... typically?

Absolutely. Conan is a Superhero and then some by OD&D standards. It doesn't mean that he has magical powers though.

[deadDMwalking]

Stormbringer,

Everyone else has you on ignore.  I'm just a glutton for punishment.  But here we go.  One more time.

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

You have not provided any support for this position, and as phrased, it is incorrect.  Magic Missile is a spell.  It is incapable of taking any action in the game independently.  Therefore, it has no 'power' on its own.  Any power contained within the spell comes from the ability of some creature to use the spell in an effective way.  Spells are like bullets or nuclear bombs - they're powerful 'elements' of national power if they can be delivered.  But they're also just tools.  Its not a missile that's Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  

In order to make this premise meaningful, you have to recognize that access to spells - the ability to utilize spells is what contributes to an individual character's power.  

Because increased ACCESS equates to increased POWER, your premise needs to address it.  

Further, your premise appears to set up a false-equivalency.  Not every spell is more powerful than every ability.  The Feat Iron Will provides a +2 bonus to every Will Save.  The spell resistance provides a +1 bonus to saves for 1 minute.  Which one is 'more powerful'?  The spell is more flexible - it applies to all saves made during the 1 minute duration.  It also 'stacks' with Iron Will, so someone who access to both is more 'powerful' than someone with access to only one.  However, in general terms, I'd probably agree that 'Iron Will is more powerful than resistance'.  That is, the feat is better than a 0th level spell.  But compare Iron Will to protection from evil.  In my opinion, the spell is significantly more 'powerful' than Iron Will.  Even if you fail a save, it protects you from enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects.  

So while Iron Will makes you more resistant to hold person, protection from evil makes you immune.  

You need to recognize that spells are a resource, as are hit points, as are attack bonus, as are magical items, as are feats, etc.  If you believe spells are a more powerful resource, that should be the basis of your argument.  

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

Spells as a resource are in competition with every other resource for 'most powerful'.  A class that has a powerful ability that is not 'a spell' might be more powerful than a class that has spells.  A druid uses wildshape (not a spell) to turn into an animal.  It is possible that such an ability is more powerful than most spells, or even ALL spells.  That said, if spells are a resource and each additional spell you have access to increases your power (the way each additional feat increases your power), the more spells you can cast, the more powerful you are.  This is definitionally true.  If you take something and start adding abilities (even if the abilities are very minor) the character is more powerful than if they did not have those abilities.  This would only be false if using those abilities included a 'downside'.  

Adding access to 3rd level spells carries no downside.  So a character with 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells is more powerful than the exact same character with access to only 1st and 2nd level spells.  A+B>A.  It doesn't matter what B is (as long as it is more than 0).  

Your premise, if one were to accept it, fails to address access to different sources of power.  Blindly accepting it would lead us to presume a 1st level wizard is more powerful than a 20th level fighter.  That is false.  While a 20th level fighter does not have better access to magic than a 1st level wizard, he has other sources of power.  He may even have a magic sword that shoots a scorching ray, or something, so he might have access to some limited number of spells that are more powerful than those the Wizard has, but even without that, he has far more hit points, feats, attributes, weapons etc.  

To say that there are multiple soures of power does not mean that the relative power each offers can't be measured or compared.  It's easy to compare apples and apples.  It's harder to compare apples and oranges, but it can be done.  You can analyze the sugar-content of each fruit and the presence or absence of various vitamins.  Considering all of that, you might even be able to determine one is 'more nutritious' than the other - but that doesn't mean that they don't both have advantages and disadvantages.  But as you increase the number of spells, it's like adding side-items or vitamin supplements.  An apple might be nutritious, but an orange with a multi-vitamin and a tall glass of low-fat milk is far and away the more nutritious option.  

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

This one is true with limited situational exceptions.  However, since it is not true all the time, we can't use it to build a logical arguement without modifying it to exclude those situations.  

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

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.

Use Magic Device
Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.  

You don't know the rules of the game.  Quit pretending you do.  You sound like an idiot.  

'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.

Access to any resource is a net gain.  Fighter's access to weapon and armor is a net gain.  These ones are actually easy to compare.  Access to armor can be measured by how often a particular enemy is able to hit and how much damage they do.  A weapon's damage can be compared against another attack's damage.  Having a sword is better than having a dagger.  How much better?  If the sword does 1d6 and the dagger does 1d4, the difference is 1 point on average, per successful attack.  That's easy.  

Comparing spells to armor or weapons is tricky because we don't know exactly what spells a particular character will have.  So we can point out a whole bunch of possible spells and some combination of them may be superior to a particular armor or weapon.  For example, chain mail is +5 AC.  Mage Armor is +4 AC.  The armor is 'better' protection.  Greater Mage Armor is +6 AC.  That spell is 'better' protection.  Greater Displacement causes attacks to miss 50% of the time; that's pretty good, too.  It provides a different type of effect than armor, but it does reduce the likelihood of being hit, so it can be compared to armor on those lines.  

Demonstrate how spells scale more quickly than feats before you claim victory, also.  

Wow.  That's easy.  Weapon Focus provides a +1 to attack with a particular weapon.  Divine Power provides a +1 to attack and damage with a particular weapon, and that bonus increases based on the caster level.  Done.  Flawless Victory!

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.

You're right.  A wizard isn't absolutely more powerful - but he absolutely could choose to be more powerful.  If a wizard is entitled to two free selections of any spell that he can cast (as in 3.5) each time he gains a level, unless he chooses poorly, he will have a 'sensible selection of spells'.  But a wizard could prepare speak with animals in every spell slot (even 9th level slots).  At that point, I'd say he's more powerful than a 1st level fighter (becuase a 20th level wizard with a quarterstaff is actually a better combatant than a 1st level Fighter), but he's not comprable to a 20th level Fighter.  

But recognize that the Wizard's choices made that happen, not the Fighter's.  It's not hard to be more powerful than the Fighter, but it's also not hard to make yourself 'weaker'.  If that's the contest, though, we have to ask which character can kill themselves more easily?  Personally, I think the Wizard will be able to commit suicide more quickly because of his lower hit point total.  

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.

And you're dense and I have to keep explaining things to you like an idiot.  First off, a 'sensible selection of spells' may not be what you said, but it is what you should have said.  Otherwise you're strawmanning.  There are so many good spells (most of them) that it doesn't necessarily matter which specific ones you have.  Greater Displacement or Invisibility?  Doesn't matter which one - if you have ONE, you have a pretty good spell.  Fireball or Scorching Ray?  Doesn't really matter - if you have one, you have a pretty good fire-damage spell.  

In 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.

Your premises are supposed to support your conclusion.  I've pointed out that your premises are false.  That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong.  It just means you're guilty of arguing from false premises.  But in this thread I'm not arguing that casters are the most powerful class.  I already did that for over 4000+ posts, and my arguments there haven't been refuted.  But I know how to change gears when I need to.  Don't be so butt-hurt that you lost and people now freely admit that high level casters are more powerful than high level 'mundanes' in 3.5.  It's not that big a deal.  

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.

That is not my conclusion.  It's close, but you need to add some qualifiers.  But how about this -

My conclusion is that: "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful."

[Sacrosanct]

Their is a diffrence between (Su) and (Ex) I suggest you go learn it.
.

I suggest you learn what hit points are.  I mean, you said you "have.the.fucking.books."  Go read it, because you're coming off like a complete idiot.  This is what the book actually says:

Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do.
These hit points represent how much damage (actual 01: potential) the
character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit
points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.
The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands
for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take
about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th
level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his
constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit
dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It
is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much
punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and
the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints aresymbolic of combat
skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

It specifically addresses your assumptions as wrong in black and white.  You said something objectively wrong, and were called on it.  Hit points in D&D are not what you think they are.  You're response is, "You're just handwaving."?  Seriously?  Are you that big of a douche that you still react like that?

On the second point, you still haven't shown exactly what the fighter is doing that is superhuman.  And I doubt you can.  You're making yet another assumption based on your very narrow viewpoint of the world.  In the context of D&D, a 15th level fighter is about the biggest bad ass you'll ever find.  You want real world examples?  Here.  Read it.  No, seriously.  And then read this one. And then this one. And then read the PHB before posting again.

[jibbajibba]

I dont think they need or are entitled to have these things. Most will have some kind of magic item that levels the field or even makes them stand above the other characters...but it should not be a certainty in my opinion. Rather it should be an outgrowth of in game events. At least when it cimes to magic items that is how I feel.

I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...

But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.

the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.

[MGuy]

I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...

But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.

the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.

Getting to that point? People all but lose their marbles if you suggest that he should be able to function without it. I completely understand necessitating that the fighter get magic in order to compete at higher levels. I don't understand the resistance the idea of "baking it in" to the fighter class. It seems completely backwards to basically have a "You must have a magic sword and magic pants to continue adventuring" tag on a class but not have any way of guaranteeing those things or any way of actually keeping them from being stolen.

[RandallS]

But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.

If they don't have the magic sword, they can't beat the iron golem in a stand-up fight. So what? Not every monster ever encountered has to be beatable in a stand-up fight with special equipment -- at least not in any game I want to play.

[Lord Mistborn]

Perhaps you don't understand the scope of the original game and what 'normal human capability' actually means in the context of D&D.

A Hero (4th level fighter) in D&D is an individual that fights with the power of 4 ordinary men. Relative to the normal trained man-at-arms this is fairly fantastic as is. A Superhero (8th level fighter), fights with the power of 8 ordinary men. This borders on the supernaturally awesome.

This is exactly my point, the fighter borders on the supernaturally awesome that's what (Ex) means you're only agreeing with me here, welcome to weeaboo land my friend.

Now how do the fighters superhuman abilities translate into lateral advancement.

[jibbajibba]

If they don't have the magic sword, they can't beat the iron golem in a stand-up fight. So what? Not every monster ever encountered has to be beatable in a stand-up fight with special equipment -- at least not in any game I want to play.

Quite I agree. But then we get to the naked figther discussion we have been down before.

A 15th level figther without their magic items is not very impressive and finds it hard to participate fully in a game of that level.

You can argue that the wizard with no spells is similarly disadvantaged but getting spells is as MGuy would say 'baked' into the class.

the arguement seems to have followed this path

i) Mundane classes at high level are no match for magic
ii) No they can participate fully becuase of their magic items
iii) But if we take away their items?
iv) They are assumed as part of play a figthers magic armour and sword as as much part of the character as a wizard's spells
v) So they have entitlement to items as part of their class?
vi) No they can operate fine without items
For x = 1 to i
let x = x+1
goto (v)
....

[MGuy]

Mage Hand object to push open door. Yes, you can do that. Not exactly something complicated. I have cats that can nudge open free swinging doors in my house. Not a big deal. If you want to add "the door is stuck, heavy, barred, iron, etc" to the mix then that's fine I have can handle all of those with, you know, a team of people with hands or a single spell if I'm inclined to waste one on the task. So the fuck what? The idea is still stupid and I have no idea why anyone would want to defend it.

What's more is I don't know why there are people who don't think the fact that a man with a sword can put enough force behind swinging a 2ton metal thing to damage straight up iron isn't a superhuman feat. I also don't know why the fuck people are arguing about HP since HP is wonky anyway and leads to sudden critical existence failure when it runs out. I don't know why people would want to rationalize HP as some kind of defense of fighter's super human actions but that's just stupid since the very fat that HP exists is unrealistic.

[Lord Mistborn]

I suggest you learn what hit points are.  I mean, you said you "have.the.fucking.books."  Go read it, because you're coming off like a complete idiot.  This is what the book actually says:

It specifically addresses your assumptions as wrong in black and white.  You said something objectively wrong, and were called on it.  Hit points in D&D are not what you think they are.  You're response is, "You're just handwaving."?  Seriously?  Are you that big of a douche that you still react like that?

You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.

[Sacrosanct]

I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...

But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.

the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.

Don't you think putting a 15th level fighter against a magical construct with immunity to most magic items while not giving him a weapon able to damage the creature a bit of a disingenuous matchup?  By the time a character reaches 15th level, it's not a leap of logic to assume they will have an item that could damage the creature.

So it seems from my position that by saying the fighter can't have a magic weapon, you're arguing for a scenario that never happens with any statistical significance and therefore is a moot argument.

[Sacrosanct]

You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.

You're a fucking idiot.  Sorry, that's all there is to it.  You can say I'm making a personal attack towards you, but there's no other proper term.  When a guy keeps arguing that the sun is blue despite being show that the sun is yellow/orange, "idiot" is about the only thing left.  

They didn't "handwave" the term away.  They clearly defined it as a rule in the context of the game.  You clearly have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about.  And you obviously didn't read any of those links because a lot of these "superhuman" things you mention happened in real life.


Grow up, learn some history, and read how the rules work before you keep making stupid claims that are easily disproved.