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

[Lord Mistborn]

Fighter takes his treasure and leaves.  How is the pit fiend going to find him?

Well he can only go so far in 10 rounds with his flight and teleporation I assume finding the fighter again wont be to hard, and why does the Devil care about the fighter taking his stuff if he can take it back from his charred corpse.

Also

If the Pit Fiend can't teleport to a safe spot he can also spam the Battlefeild with Advanced Illusions of Pit Fiends casting Fireball good luck finding the real one.

That's a thing too.

[Sacrosanct]

Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell.  When is the fiend going to do that?  While he's getting killed in 3 rounds?  Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells?  The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.

[Lord Mistborn]

Oh please use 3rd.

Well in 3e if you know an Illusion is not real you can disbelive it and then it's transparent so If you know your surrounded by Illusions you can will disbelive them all. See invis is on your spell list. After that Any optimized Orb blaster can 1 round somthing with the less.

Full round action: Occular Split Maximized Orb of Electricity is 360 damage that's enough to kill almost everything.

Once an Incantrix blaster hits his 15th level the monsters he can not kill in one round are next to none. There is a reason Incantrixes are banned in my games.

[Lord Mistborn]

Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell.  When is the fiend going to do that?  While he's getting killed in 3 rounds?  Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells?  The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.

If the Pit Fiend has his spells at will then there is no reason not to keep stuff like invis. up all day. Then while he's invisible he can set up the illusion hall of mirrors, the fighter doen't know what's up untill it's too late

[Sacrosanct]

I can burp at will, but I don't do it all day long just because I can.


Really, all these conversations (like this and the FvW thread) have shown is that when WoTC took over, they created the shittiest version of D&D ever in 3e, because all of these problems didn't really exist in previous editions.  And if you guys are an example of how a 3e adventure is run, it also has the shittiest DMs in history as well.

[Lord Mistborn]

I can burp at will, but I don't do it all day long just because I can.


Really, all these conversations (like this and the FvW thread) have shown is that when WoTC took over, they created the shittiest version of D&D ever in 3e, because all of these problems didn't really exist in previous editions.  And if you guys are an example of how a 3e adventure is run, it also has the shittiest DMs in history as well.

So you would prefer that the Pit Fiend just stand around like a MOB all day next to it's pile of treasure untill you enter the room and stab it in the face.

Also lolwut at-will teleports and illusions have been around since at least 2e, I doubt the Den is the first place to realize that DM's could leverage them into unbeatable monsters.

[Sacrosanct]

Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell.  When is the fiend going to do that?  While he's getting killed in 3 rounds?  Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells?  The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.

I feel the need to quote myself, because obviously you haven't read it.

[StormBringer]

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

In other words, 'reading a scroll' is not the same as 'spell-casting class'.

Actually, pointing out a scenario in which they are false demonstrates that they are false.

Uh huh.  But the scenario has to be 'true', or at least reasonable.  Watch:

It could be the case that Fighters are made of solid adamantium and can shoot infinite damage rays from their eyes, so obviously the claim that spell casting classes are superior is false.

See how that works now?  A Thief with a scroll is not and never will be a 'spell-casting class'.  That they can occasionally - but not reliably - use scrolls does not change the definition of 'spell-casting'.  It doesn't even make them 'spell-using', it makes them 'occasionally scroll-using'.  There are differences between 'spell' and 'scroll' beyond the different letters.

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.  

Ummm...  If there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, then you pretty much removed all the instances that would make that premise false.  But you still claim it's false.  Good one.

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

Interesting.  So, if there is a single exception to a statement like "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful", then the statement is false? (Protip:  That's a premise, not a conclusion; If all else is equal, then access to spells is more powerful)

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

That's about the dumbest thing I have read in a while.

So, not going to provide this 'sensible' spell list, then?  Because you keep saying retarded shit like this:

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.

Hence, without providing a demonstration of that, ie a spell list, then you keep stating something that is demonstrably false.  Most people call that 'lying'.

[StormBringer]

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?

I am totally with you.  I knew exactly where this was going when these folks started yelling about 'cohesive arguments' and 'logic'.

What I am trying to 'prove' is that their opponents are held to the absolute strictest definitions for 'logic', while they get to lazily slop nonsense like "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", when challenged demanding people prove them wrong, and then get quite upset at the notion that the burden of proof does not sit with other people.  I suspect it's because they know their 'arguments' will fall to pieces when scrutinized with the least amount of rigor.

[Rum Cove]

Thank you, One Horse Town.

[One Horse Town]

Thank you, One Horse Town.

My pleasure.

[RandallS]

Also lolwut at-will teleports and illusions have been around since at least 2e, I doubt the Den is the first place to realize that DM's could leverage them into unbeatable monsters.

Why would the DM want to do that? Leveraging weird rules or ability combos into over-powered or unbeatable monsters is just as dickish as players doing it in character design. This type of min-maxing is bad for most play-styles whether the players or the GM is doing it. (Yes, I realize that for ultra-competitive play-styles, it may be common and not dickish behavior.)

[Doom]

The DM always could leverage any monster into unbeatability, though.

I seem to remember more than a few "killer kobolds" adventures; basically that's what Dragon Mountain was.

[Sacrosanct]

I know that for some people, the arms race between characters and monsters is what's the most important thing, where acquiring the most powerful traits/spells/feats is the priority.  I guess for me, it just misses the spirit of the game.  For me, TTRPGs are a social event, where interacting with your fellow friends and going on the adventure itself are the most important.  We talk about the three pillars, which means to me each is as important as the other.  Not 80% combat or combat prep, 10% interaction, 10% exploration.  If all I wanted was to see what kind of build I could do, I can do that on my PC at home.

Now I feel old.

[deadDMwalking]

In other words, 'reading a scroll' is not the same as 'spell-casting class'.

No.  Reading a scroll isn't the same as 'casting a spell'.  Casting a spell from a scroll is 'casting a spell'.  If a particular character has access to a large number of scrolls, has the ability to cast use a large number of scrolls (such as through Use Magic Device) and is able to do so reliably, then he would definitionally have access to spells and spellcasting.  He wouldn't be a 'spellcaster', because those specifically refer to characters who get spell casting as a class feature.  

It could be the case that Fighters are made of solid adamantium and can shoot infinite damage rays from their eyes, so obviously the claim that spell casting classes are superior is false.

Since you keep bringing logic into it that isn't necessarily the case.  When you argue from false premises, as you insist on doing, your conclusion MAY be correct.  But it wouldn't necessarily follow.  

Example:

Premise: Stormbringer spends most of his time covering his penis with peanut butter and having a dog lick it.

Conclusion: Stormbringer is a dumb ass.  

The premise is false.  You don't spend most of your time so engaged.  

The conclusion is still true.  You are a dumb ass.  

See how that works now?  A Thief with a scroll is not and never will be a 'spell-casting class'.  That they can occasionally - but not reliably - use scrolls does not change the definition of 'spell-casting'.  It doesn't even make them 'spell-using', it makes them 'occasionally scroll-using'.  There are differences between 'spell' and 'scroll' beyond the different letters.

Yes.  There are.  Nobody said otherwise.  But it is not 'being a spellcaster' that makes spellcasters powerful.  Is that what you think?  What a dumb ass!  

It is reliable access to a powerful resource (which spells are) that make spell casting classes so powerful compared to mundanes.  It doesn't matter how a class accesses this resource - the better their access to it, the more powerful they will tend to be.  Are you dense?  What part of this paragraph do you disagree with?  Or are you just disagreeing because you like to show the world you're a dumb ass?  

Ummm...  If there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, then you pretty much removed all the instances that would make that premise false.  But you still claim it's false.  Good one.

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.

My point is that you are arguing from false premises.  That doesn't mean your conclusion is false (it happens to be true), but you're trying to tout logic and then not using it.  Let me interject here to respond to BedrockBrendan's other point.

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.

Stormbringer seems to be upset that I profess the Fighter is weaker than the Wizard and Cleric in high level 3.5 play.  It has been demonstrated numerous ways, and been explained numerous times.  Because the Fighter Versus Wizard thread was closed, he seems to think that he can build a bad argument, couch it as logical, get me to agree that is my argument, and then demolish the premises.  He keeps trying to bring logic into the argument, and he keeps doing it badly.  I'd rather he not try, because he's embarrassing himself (or at least, he would be if he were smart enough to realize what an idiot he is showing himself to be).  But since he keeps insisting on bringing it up, I don't mind taking the time to explain why he's being a dumb ass.  I'm sorry if it's interrupted your enjoyment of this thread.  

Interesting.  So, if there is a single exception to a statement like "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful", then the statement is false?

It would be false under that circumstance, yes.  It could still be true under other circumstances.  However, since I believe it is true in all circumstances (at least as far as D&D is concerned) I would accept a situation where it is not true as a refutation.  Since spells don't cause sanity loss or other ill effects to the caster, having them available is always a net increase in power in D&D.  Please provide a scenario where it is not true.  

Just to be fair, I'm laughing at you now because you've painted yourself into a corner.  This is where I expect you to run off and hide in some dark corner of the internet.  No, who am I kidding.  You'll ignore this part of the post, assert that the burden of proof is not on you and then refuse to accept that the premise is true.  

So, not going to provide this 'sensible' spell list, then?  Because you keep saying retarded shit like this:

Originally posted by deadDMwalking
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.

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.

Just thought I'd throw that in there before I show you were I provided that response (that you failed to comprehend).  

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!  

I wonder why you didn't include that part of my quote?  Is it because it made you feel like a dumb ass?  Because it sure makes you look like one.  

Hence, without providing a demonstration of that, ie a spell list, then you keep stating something that is demonstrably false.  Most people call that 'lying'.

I fail to see how a specific spell list is relevant.  Perhaps you should try to explain that to me.  I've explained that a randomly generated list you provide is sufficient example of a 'net increase in power'.  But you tell me why you want it, and I'l be happy to provide it.  

Also, please tell me what is 'demonstrably false'.  I know you don't like having the burden of proof, but I think I've shown that the 3.5 Fighter is useless compared to at least one specific 9th level spell  

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.

At high levels, I can't see a way for the 3.5 Fighter to contribute in what I'd consider a 'meaningful fashion'.  Killing the creature with hit point damage is inefficient.  Banishment or other 'instant kill' is better.  Since hit point loss doesn't render an opponent more vulnerable to those kinds of spells, it really means that if the Fighter 'fights' the creature, whether he hits or misses will tend to be irrelevant - it's just a question of if he can distract it long enough for a 'lucky spell' to take it out.  Thus, the Fighter is best off 'absorbing blows' and using the full defense and combat expertise.  But ideally, the Fighter would have ways of 'taking out' a high level opponent and hit point damage would render the creature more vulnerable to spells and other negative effects.  Thus, if the wizard can't banish him at full strength, but the Fighter can reduce him to half hit points, allowing the Wizard to succeed, I'd consider that a pretty fair contribution.  That's involve some major reworking of the hit point system, at the least.