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

[Exploderwizard]

What the fuck is the fighter suposed to be able to do against that.

His job. Face the bad guy as part of a team.

[Lord Mistborn]

His job. Face the bad guy as part of a team.

What is he contributing to the team at this point other the carrying everyone else's stuff. The Balor is going to fly above the party cast Fire Storm, Quickened Telekinesis and Insanity, then when the party has been whittled down he's going to start stunlocking people with his at-will Power Word Stun. The his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack as he finishes off the party. How does the fighter prevent any of this from happening.

[Sacrosanct]

A equal level fighter has to fight the following.  How can he ever succeed without using superhuman feats or powers!!!!











Oh wait....I guess that argument only holds water if the fighter is up against an epic level opponent with magical powers and protections, and even then only if you take away all of his tools and ignore some of the rules...

[Sacrosanct]

REMEMBER FOLKS!  3rd edition is the only edition of D&D that existed!

[Bedrockbrendan]

We have played magic light games for years and aside from changing HP wounds and recovery its worked really well but we had a mundane party. When that balance was upset with the addition of a wizard ally things became less easy to manage.
Similarly the DM was running a game for mundanes. His magic was high magic and inexplicable.Thw whole thing very S&S.

then we more recently played a more standard D&D game. The need to upgrade equipment each level was palpable.
I didn't do so enjoying the character with the stuff he had and not wanting to Xmas tree him. He dies as a result at 8th level.  

So I am looking to see if a minor change in the narrative of D&D which no real change to the rules or the way it plays might fill my need for less bling whilst making  mundane characters still able to compete past 8th level.

i think the change would work fine for what you want. My only point is if we are talking design principles (as lordmistborn is) then making that the default "good design goal" of D&D is going to be a problem for lots of players (as an optional rule it wont be). Especially when people have vastly different experiences regaridng the level of actual disparity.

[deadDMwalking]

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

So, the scroll allows a Fighter or Thief to memorize the spell contained thereon and cast it later whenever they want?

No.  You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do.  You sound like an idiot.  

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.

Since you have the attention span of a gnat and the reading comprehension ability of a cocker spaniel, let me translate.  

Use the skill, turn the scroll into a spell.  The scroll disappears.  You do not prepare spells from a scroll.  They do not count toward your normal total of spells per day.

Originally Posted by deadDMwalking    
Your premises are supposed to support your conclusion. I've pointed out that your premises are false.

And with a very few examples, you have managed to show there might be some minor problems with these premises.

In logic, if there if there is an exception to your premise, it is false.  I won't bill you for the tutoring fees, but I'll happily refer you to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

'Pointing out' they are false is not the same as demonstrating they are false.

Actually, pointing out a scenario in which they are false demonstrates that they are false.  Since I can't trust you're smart enough to click on a link and read any of the page, I'll quote some of it here:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This is a false premise, even if the only time the streets have been wet is after rain.  Even if there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, there are plenty of possible explanations that COULD happen.  Even if they don't, the premise is still false.  

If there is a single exception to any of your premises, the premise is false.  This is logic, not 'being right'.  

The best you have managed is that they are not absolutely true, but I think that is what people have been telling you all along.

If you think those are premises, then you are an idiot.  You have the reading comprehension of a cocker spaniel.  I repeat myself a lot when I respond to your posts because you are really dense.  I hope that if I repeat myself enough, you might understand what I'm saying.  But you're a dumb ass, so small hope of that.  But let me go back to my premise at the end of my response, when I point out that you're being an idiot again.

And we still haven't seen this awesome spell-load out that puts Wizards way ahead of Fighters.  Sorry, I meant 'sensible' load out.

You understand that this is a thread about 'class balance' in general, not specifically about Fighter versus Caster inequities?  No?  Of course not.  You're a dumb ass.  But in any case, your 'request' for an 'awesome' spell-load is pointless.  I don't care how you generate your spells.  Assume a non-specialist wizard.  Open up the 3.5 DMG.  Count how many spells are available at each level.  Divide those spells up so there is an equal chance of any single spell being prepared.  Do that for the 1st level spells three times, the 2nd level spells three times, etc, until you've filled out the spell list of a 15th level Wizard with a 24 Intelligence (don't forget bonus spells).  I'll choose one of those three lists for each level and show you an 'awesome spell-load that puts Wizards ahead of fighters'.  The reason that happens is that there are a ton of good spells.  If a spell isn't good, it isn't likely to keep getting printed.  So, a random selection of spells is good enough to prove that Wizards have more options than a Fighter in any number of different situations.  You could even start a new thread for it.  You have to deliberately choose sub-optimal spells in order to not have more options than a Fighter.  Because Lord Mistborn is right - spells provide lateral advancement (you can do different things with spells).  Further, a cleric has access to 'every spell' when they do their preparation.  So the 'lack of availability of scrolls' doesn't apply to their spell selection.  What part of that is difficult for you to grasp?  

If you choose effective spells, you will have effective options.  

Fighters may get very few 'choices' in the game.  While they have possibly more bad choices available to them than the Wizard, a Wizard does need to make good choices.  The game makes it hard for a Wizard to make bad choices, but if a player tries hard enough, it can happen.  

Ok.  Where are the premises?  You are quite clever at nit-picking semantic details out (ie, use of a scroll is 'casting a spell' because of the skill description, so Fighters can 'cast spells' sometimes.), but so far you have utterly failed to demonstrate any reason why your conclusion should be even be treated as a conclusion, let alone considered seriously.

Thank you for this.  I'm quoting you here because I'm about to make you look like an idiot again.  

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

All else being equal could be represented as A=A.  This is definitionally true.

Access to spells means adding something to A.  A+B cannot equal A unless B is zero.  It cannot be less than A unless B is a negative number.  Since I'm adding an ability, A+B > A

Now, if B is a single casting of magic missile, that's a very minor increase in power.  If B is the ability to cast any spell in any published source at will, that's a very major increase in power.  But at that point, we're just talking about how much extra power B is.  

Further, If B > C, then A+B > A+C.  This is also definitionally true.

So, if we start with identical characters and we add abilities to them both, we can compare what gets added and then determine which one is 'greater'.  I posit that spells in aggregate are greater than other 'resources' for the most part, because when a Fighter picks the 'best resource available', I can find a spell that is better.  

Of course, some of this will vary based on situation.  Which is better?  A bonus of +10 3/day or a +2 bonus all the time?  Clearly if it comes up less than 3/day, the first bonus is better.  If 6 days it comes up 1/day, and 1 day it comes up 10/day, which is better?  Those are the areas we could debate the quality or efficacy of a spell.  
 

Show us how these few spells you mention in your post can be used by the Wizard day in and day out, with no impact on their regular activities.

Stop being an idiot.  I never made this claim.  It doesn't have to be true for the Wizard to have more options than a Fighter.  

And by 'regular activities', I mean 'contributing to the adventure', not 'showing up the Fighter, Thief, and anyone else once or twice a day just because it might be possible'.

I know what your problem is.  Besides being functionally illiterate and a dumb ass.  You think that I want the Wizard to be superior.  You think that I like 'awesome kickass wizards' that can do everything.  You think that I want the wizard to show how awesome he can be all the time.  

You're an idiot.

I like Fighters.  I want Fighters to be fun and interesting to play.  I want them to be able to contribute at high levels.  I like playing a Fighter and doing Fighter things.  

I object that the game defines Fighters as being 'comprable' to an equal level wizard at all levels of play when that is not true.  I object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits.  If you don't like the ruling of charm monster to convince a monster to help you do things, you can consider dominate monster.  As a 9th level spell, the minimum duration is 17 days!  

It's nice that D&D is a team game.  As a team player, I value my ability to contribute to the team.  If I recognize that my contribution is negligible, I would be doing a service to the team to retire that character and make a more effective character.  I don't like the fact that the game fails to provide options for a high level Fighter to contribute in a non-negligible fashion, which happens more quickly and often then you'd care to realize.  

Further, if the Fighter has dozens of men-at-arms and siege engines, that's fine if the problems come to him, but it doesn't help him address problems around the multi-verse.  

While Wizards are just starting to do 'epic' things like saving worlds, the Fighters are forced to content themselves with a fief.  

I think it's clear that at high level, the Fighter is playing a 'different game' than the Wizard.  Since I think it's a more exciting game, I want that type of game for my Fighters.  

I wouldn't care if I didn't care about Fighters.  

So let me bring this back to the thread.  Class Balance is important, because without it, people don't feel like they can play the class that would be the most fun for them because it doesn't contribute well to group play.  I don't wan the Druid to 'hold back' because he's afraid of 'showing me up'.  I want him to play his character in a fun and rewarding way.  It's not his fault that his character actually gets abilties and can do 'cool things' at high level, while I'm still making the same kind of attacks I did at level 1 (even if I get to roll them more often).  

D&D has reasonable class balance at low-levels (and I agree, that matters most), but it is LAUGHABLE at high levels.  And that's a shame, because high level play could be fun if they had managed to achieve 'reasonable' balance.  

And for my purposes, reasonable balance means the ability to make a 'meaningful contribution' to a level-appropriate challenge.  If the outcome is not affected by your presence or absence, you're not 'contributing'.

[Sacrosanct]

No.  You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do.  You sound like an idiot.  .

I'm not defending Stormbringer at all on this, but maybe you want to direct that comment to your own buddies there.

[Lord Mistborn]

And for my purposes, reasonable balance means the ability to make a 'meaningful contribution' to a level-appropriate challenge.  If the outcome is not affected by your presence or absence, you're not 'contributing'.

So deadDMwalking, in this scenario

The Balor is going to fly above the party cast Fire Storm, Quickened Telekinesis and Insanity, then when the party has been whittled down he's going to start stunlocking people with his at-will Power Word Stun. The his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack as he finishes off the party. How does the fighter prevent any of this from happening.

How should the fighter be contributing meaningfully, for bonus points spell out some lateral advancement that would help him in this encounter you would like to see added to the fighter class.

[Bedrockbrendan]

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

I dont know what you two are trying to prove in this argument, but I just want to step in and comment on this because the growing trend of invoking logic 101 to prove something is badwrongfun in D&D is mind-splittingly pathetic. I minored in philosophy as an undergrad and it makes me cringe to see people pull this stuff to intimidate the other side into agreeing with them.

In this case, it would be bad decuctive reasoning, but it is a fair form of adbuction to identify what is likely to be the case (though it needs to be worded differently and with more care). The streets could be wet fron all other kinds of things and pointing one or two of those out, makes the first premise invalid. But that doesn't mean you ought not assume it has rained when the streets are wet. In fact when the streets are wet the most likely cause is rain.

Interesting to see people use the standard text book examples. It indicates a lot of googling and wikipedia surfing. Has anyone tried done "all men are mortal" yet?

[Bedrockbrendan]

Sorry to get a bit negative there, but do you guys have any idea how terrible you sound when you pull out the logic 101 to prove how smart you are on the internet? Particularly when the subject is "are fighters underpowered". I mean this is exactly the sort of thing that gives gamers a bad name.

[Lord Mistborn]

REMEMBER FOLKS!  3rd edition is the only edition of D&D that existed!

See the grognards do learn. As soon as they're confronted with a 3e monster they run away with their tails between their legs, because they've learned the hard way that when 3E made it's monsters it didn't fuck around.

[Sacrosanct]

For those curious, in 2e, how does a 13th level fighter do against a 13 HD Pit Fiend?

Here's what the core rules 2.0 spit out:

Pit fiend: AT 6/1, Dmg: 1d4/1d4/1d6/1d6/1d12/1d8, AC: -5, THAC0: 7, HP: 65, Special: +3 or better weapons to hit, +3 hp regen, poison attacks, +6 damage with each attack

Dwarf fighter: AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+14, AC: -7, THAC0: 0, HP: 96
armed with battle axe +3, full plate+4, shield+4, girdle of frost giant strength.  Saving Throw vs Poison: 1

Pit fiend hits 35% of the time, the dwarf hits 75% of the time.  Average damage in odd rounds: 20.65 for pit fiend, 27.75 for dwarf.  In round 2, 20.65 for pit fiend, 41.6 for dwarf.

Since the dwarf will make his save versus poison every round, that attack is moot.  The pit fiend will die in 3 rounds, even with its regeneration.  2 rounds without it.  The fiend also has 50% magic resistance, so that is also moot since the fighter isn't casting spells.

And before people say the items should be taken away, remember the context of this is balance.  The game balance, and the fighter's balance, was under the assumption that a high level fighter like that would have some serious items (all of those items are pretty typical for level 8-12 adventure modules. Just open up Against the Giants if you don't believe me).

[Lord Mistborn]

For those curious, in 2e, how does a 13th level fighter do against a 13 HD Pit Fiend?

Here's what the core rules 2.0 spit out:

Pit fiend: AT 6/1, Dmg: 1d4/1d4/1d6/1d6/1d12/1d8, AC: -5, THAC0: 7, HP: 65, Special: +3 or better weapons to hit, +3 hp regen, poison attacks, +6 damage with each attack

Dwarf fighter: AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+14, AC: -7, THAC0: 0, HP: 96
armed with battle axe +3, full plate+4, shield+4, girdle of frost giant strength.  Saving Throw vs Poison: 1

Pit fiend hits 35% of the time, the dwarf hits 75% of the time.  Average damage in odd rounds: 20.65 for pit fiend, 27.75 for dwarf.  In round 2, 20.65 for pit fiend, 41.6 for dwarf.

Since the dwarf will make his save versus poison every round, that attack is moot.  The pit fiend will die in 3 rounds, even with its regeneration.  2 rounds without it.  The fiend also has 50% magic resistance, so that is also moot since the fighter isn't casting spells.

And before people say the items should be taken away, remember the context of this is balance.  The game balance, and the fighter's balance, was under the assumption that a high level fighter like that would have some serious items (all of those items are pretty typical for level 8-12 adventure modules. Just open up Against the Giants if you don't believe me).

Ha ha ha wrong. Your fighter dies like a bitch to Fireballs while the Pit Fiend is flying and Improved Invisible.

[Sacrosanct]

Ha ha ha wrong. Your fighter dies like a bitch to Fireballs while the Pit Fiend is flying and Improved Invisible.

II only gives a -4 penalty to hit, which means the fighter still hits more than 50% of the time, and he'd just use his hammer of thunderbolts (which did 1d8+15 points of damage, and yes, it was on the character sheet).

You still fail.  And that's assuming an encounter with the pit fiend would be way out in the open.

I would think that at this point you'd stop talking about editions that you don't know about.

[Bedrockbrendan]

In 2E it wouldn't be a problem if a pit fiend was deadly to a 13th level fighter. It ought to be. Using HD to measure challenge is a rough guideline (and I am frankly not even sure if it was an official guideline or one we came up with on our own) but they are meant to be nasty foes. I would be a lot more worried about the wish spell once a year than invisibility actually. Pit fiend are nasty. They are also tough on wizards given their spell resistance.