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

[MGuy]

Translation? "LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

So, in order to makes your respective arguments, Lord Mistborn ignores the rules for hit points and you ignore the rules for opening doors, and you wonder why so many here - other than jj, who doesn't know shit about the rules, either - think you guys are less-than-serious.

It's one thing to say, 'I don't care for that rule, and here's how and why I would change it.' It's another thing altogether to say, 'That rule sucks, so I ignore it since it doesn't fit my argument.'

Vulmea, please go back, look at the quotes I placed. I need you to then look REALLY HARD at the place where I asked Rum Cove to clarify his statement. Look really long and hard at where I asked him to do that and his response was essentially you use fighters to open doors. After you do that you can come back and tell me exactly where I started ignoring the rules because thus far it looks like you believe that Fighters being able to open doors is a reason to have them on your team as if nobody can ever open a god damn door without a fighter. A stuck door,an iron door, etc can be opened through means other than having a fighter in your party especially when I can teleport past, go through, use an applicable spell (like warp wood) or any number of other options and that is all ignoring the fact that there is no guarantee I can't do it my self with my hands, some tools, or the rest of the party.

Seriously this door thing is really stupid and I have no idea why you're trying to push it like it is a legitimate argument.

[jibbajibba]

The whole constant upgrade thing was never an issue for us in B/X or 1E. Some campaigns had a lot more magic items than others but I don't remember need X amount just to survive.

It must be a 3E thing because of all the WBL assumptions baked into the math.

Never played 3e so ...

My PC had a +1 longsowed with a cool power when it killed someone it generated a fear effect. and a +1 suit of chain that he had taken from an officer at a battle.

When we reached 8th level my AC was simply not sufficient to avoid being hit each round. I should have done what everyone woudl do and bought field plate or used some +2 split mail we found. But those things didn't suit my character ormy image of him so I didn't.

The standard response is but why wouldn;t you use the best equipment you can get access to but its a role play choice. Split and plate are hot and sweaty and uncomfortable. The chain came from a really cool battle that had happened when the PC was 2nd level and I wanted to maintain that thread and tie back to it.

[StormBringer]

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.  

So, when I was talking about 'spell using classes' and 'non-spell using classes', you only brought up some extreme edge case because...?

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

And yet, you can't come up with even the simplest of premises for your conclusions.

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?  

Reliable access to spells (the powerful resource) is the definition of a 'spell caster', but being a spell caster isn't what makes them powerful, it's access to a powerful resource (spells).  So, spell casters aren't powerful because they can cast spells, they are powerful because they can cast spells.  I guess...?

What were you saying about being a dumbass?  Did you want to go over tautologies again real quick?  Because you seem to be having some troubles with them.

Also, which non-spell casters have reliable access to the powerful resource of casting spells?  Since being a spell caster doesn't seem to be the requirement for casting spells, according to you.  Or are you hanging your entire argument on 'reliable'?  I am going to borrow the argument from Mguy or Kaelik or whatever: there is an infinite plane of scrolls, so now mundanes have access to a reliable source of spells, too.  Is that reliable enough?

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.

And for the last several pages, you seem to have forgotten that what I presented isn't even my own argument.  It's roughly your argument.  Your whole argument is that spellcasters are automatically more powerful than non-spell casters in pretty much any measurable degree because spells.  But now you are saying these premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true.

I guess we can conclude that the only way you can address 'logic' is by nitpicking a few examples apart and claiming victory.  You are awesome.

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.

No, it's been claimed numerous times.  And almost as many times, I have provided you with the one golden opportunity to shut down any and all arguments against it:  list the spells needed to obviate the Fighter.  Actually, I gave you an easier one to start with, the Thief, but you passed on that as well.  Indignation at having to actually demonstrate a point does not count as either proof or refutation.

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.

I would actually prefer if you agree to anything and present an argument.  Your only activity seems to be delaying tactics and unsupported positive assertions.  Example:

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.

For which your entire support is a single spell, which you think that is the game winning point:

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!  

One spell.  One ninth level spell.  That a Wizard would have to be at least 17th level to obtain. And would be the only one they could cast that day.

Also, quelle surprise, it doesn't work the way you think it does:

Dominate Monster
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level:     Sor/Wiz 9
Target:     One creature

This spell functions like dominate person, except that the spell is not restricted by creature type.

Dominate Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level:     Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components:     V, S
Casting Time:     1 round
Range:     Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target:     One humanoid
Duration:     One day/level
Saving Throw:     Will negates
Spell Resistance:     Yes

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

There seem to be more than a couple of limitations to the spell.  Limitations are always something you seem to forget or ignore when it comes to claiming the ultimate superiority of spell-casters.

What is that you keep saying about not knowing how the rules work?

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.  

Of course you don't see why it is relevant.  If you provide one, your paper-thin argument will be instantly shredded.  And I am pretty sure you fully understand why it has been requested several dozen times.  If the Wizard so easily overshadows the Fighter, you should easily be able to provide the spell load out that demonstrates that.

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

Actually, I've shown why that spell doesn't work like you think it does (no surprise there).  More to the point, do you really think a single spell of any level actually removes the need for a whole class?  Seriously?  If the Fighter had that spell as a scroll, does that mean the Wizard is no longer needed, because the Wizard is now useless because the Fighter has one specific 9th level spell?

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.

Wow, an unsubstantiated claim presented as objective fact.  I never expected that.

Congratulations, then, you have managed to defeat the parody of your own argument I have constructed.  Access to spells is what makes spell casters so much better (except that isn't what makes them better, somehow), and yet you insist that Fighters and Thieves have access to those same resources by way of scrolls, except that undoubtedly isn't 'reliable' enough when it contradicts the 'scrolls equals spells' argument.  I guess with all the goal post shifting and backpedalling up there, I got rather lost in what exactly you were trying to say.

Are you ready to present your own argument now?  Do you have even a single premise as to why anyone should agree that a Wizard is always more powerful than a Fighter under any circumstances?

Who am I kidding?  That's not going to happen.

[StormBringer]

Seriously this door thing is really stupid and I have no idea why you're trying to push it like it is a legitimate argument.

Because your claim that mage hand can open a door is not only false, it's really fucking stupid.  Which clearly demonstrates the fact that most of you Denners simply don't know how the spells work while you claim they are able to do pretty much anything you think they should.

You said mage hand could open a door unless (essentially) the DM was being a dick.  Except, there is nothing in the description for mage hand that indicates anything like opening doors.  It's as though you overheard someone say the cantrip can move things, assumed it was an actual hand, and made the rest of it up whole cloth.  Which is fine.  But then you somehow thought that is what the spell really really did, and everyone else is just an asshole for not agreeing.

Is it becoming a bit clearer why people don't take the Denners claims that 'magic can do anything' seriously?  It's like you have a list of spell names, but no spell descriptions, so you guess at it and insist your guess is correct.

[Lord Mistborn]

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.)

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.

As far as I know DMs in every edition tend to shy away from repeated teleport ambushes, even if the monster can do it by default with its statblock. If you only think of at-will SLAs being used in the 3 rounds you're stabbing the Pit Fiend to death then they don't seem like a problem, I'd say it's more out of character for the Pit Fiend with it's genius (17-18) Int to not try to stet up an illusion ambush or teleport away at low health and try for another go later.

What Greater Teleport at-will means is that the monster is mobile in away the PCs have 0 hope of matching. As long as the designers aren't very careful what SLAs get the at-will designation some monsters will kill the party if they are played intelligently and some of those are supposed to be smart enough to realize it.

[RandallS]

As far as I know DMs in every edition tend to shy away from repeated teleport ambushes, even if the monster can do it by default with its statblock.

In TSR editions, teleport does not work as well as it apparently does in WOTC editions. To teleport you needed a very clear image of your destination in your mind to reduce your chance of dying by teleporting partially or fully into the ground or other solid object. (In 1e because I don't have the 2e player's handbook handy) Very familiar with the area (an area one know intimately like one's bedroom) was only on target on a roll of 03-99 on a D100. Visited and studied carefully was safe only on a roll of 05-98. Seen casually was safe on 09-96. Viewed once was safe only on 17-92. And never seen was safe only on 33-84. The higher and lower numbers meet you arrived too low or  too high.  Given that, teleport was only used by intelligent beings when they were desperate or when they were very familiar with an area.

If you only think of at-will SLAs being used in the 3 rounds you're stabbing the Pit Fiend to death then they don't seem like a problem, I'd say it's more out of character for the Pit Fiend with it's genius (17-18) Int to not try to stet up an illusion ambush or teleport away at low health and try for another go later.

How illusions were handled in TSR D&D was mostly up to the GM. Many (if not most) GMs gave targets a save vs spell (rolled privately by the GM so the players would not have a hint to try to disbelieve) and then allowed them a disbelieve check if the player thought it was an illusion and spent time disbelieving. If they made the save or disbelieved, the illusion was obviously an illusion. Our 13th level Dwarf Fighter would not be fooled by many illusions.

What Greater Teleport at-will means is that the monster is mobile in away the PCs have 0 hope of matching. As long as the designers aren't very careful what SLAs get the at-will designation some monsters will kill the party if they are played intelligently and some of those are supposed to be smart enough to realize it.

There is no "Greater Teleport" in 2e -- at least not in core 2e.  Also, there aren't really "at-will" powers. Pit fiends many be able to teleport as often as they want, but each teleport takes as much time as the spell -- at least the way most people played it.

However, you are avoiding my question: Why would the DM min-max his monsters given that min-maxing was generally considered sign of a bad player or GM in TSR D&D?

[Bedrockbrendan]

However, you are avoiding my question: Why would the DM min-max his monsters given that min-maxing was generally considered sign of a bad player or GM in TSR D&D?

this is a very important difference between wotc and tsr era D&D. Min maxing was explicitly discouraged as was rules laywering. These were regarded as problem playstyles that the GM was supposed to curtail. With 3E these styles almost felt officially endorsed.

[Lord Mistborn]

There is no "Greater Teleport" in 2e -- at least not in core 2e.

WRONNNGG.

Sorry for using the 3.5 name and offending your delacate grognanrd sensibilities. Read it and weep

Teleport Without Error (Alteration)
Range: Touch
Componets: V
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect Special
Saving Throw: None
This spell is similar to the telepot spell. The  caster is able to transport himself along with the material weight noted for a teleport spell to any known location in his home plane with no chance for error.

heck it's better than 3E grater teleport if you read the full description it let's you hop to a diferent plane, you can't do that with Greater Teleport that's a diffrent Sorc/Wiz spell. Devils can cast this spell when ever they want.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Teleport without error is indeed a powerful seventh level spell. I do not have my PHB on me at the moment but there is an important caveat to the "without error", you can teleport without error anywhere in your home plane. If you teleport to  a plane other than your own you are still subject to the error chart (and the best category you can get is studied carefully, provided you have studied the area carefully). Pit fiends are from the nine hells so if this battle is taking place in the PCs homeworld, its teleport without error will be more limited. They are still highly formidable opponents though,

[Lord Mistborn]

this is a very important difference between wotc and tsr era D&D. Min maxing was explicitly discouraged as was rules laywering. These were regarded as problem playstyles that the GM was supposed to curtail. With 3E these styles almost felt officially endorsed.

What the fuck this isn't the DM min-making his monster. Minmaxing wold involve reworking monsters feat/skill/spell selection if they have spells. The DM is playing the monster using the best tactics he can think of and having the monster take full advantage of it's natural powers. I've never played 2e before but the second I started picking tactics for the Pit Fiend you guys immediately stop arguing the fighter could beat it and started complained that a DM who used such tactics would be unfair.

The Pit Fiend is not just some MOB guarding a pile of treasure. Pit Fiends are the top enforcers and generals of Hell itself. Their Summon has no chance of failure becuse when the boss calls the other Devils knows not to fuck around. They're also crazy smart, probably smarter than me or you with their Genius (17-18) Intellect.

They also know a bunch of spells all usable when ever the want to, that's what SLA=at-will means. They can cast their spells all they want and never run out of slots. When I see a monster with a shit-ton of SLAs I can recognize it for exactly what it is a giant scaly wizard. Why exactly pray tell should the giant scaly genius wizard general fight you in face-stabbing range when he can burn you to death from afar.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I am not commenting on a pitfiends tactics, just a key difference between TSR D&D and wotc D&D, which matters on the topic of game balance.

Regarding how to play mpnsters in combat: the GM doesn't simply play the best tactics he can think of, he pkays the monster the way he thinks it would act given what it wants and knows. I the case of a pit fiend, this means a very powerful and deadly foe that is highly intelligent. But context matters also matters. Being intelligent means you dont always attack until the other side is killed. Intelligent creatures dont ake needless risks and engaging a powerful dwarven fighter (even if the pit fiendhas a significant chance of winning) is a needless ridk unless the creature has a good reason to engage and or kill the fighter. The GM needs to consider: the context, the pitfiend's description of its culture, the needs and desires of the individual pitfiend and it's resources. It isnt always about making the most optimimal choice in terms if killing the PC. In the case of the pitfiend, i think they would be pretty relentless, but the point is these are not mere pieces on a chess board.

[Bedrockbrendan]

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.  
.

Keep banging the drum of "mature debate" guys.

[RandallS]

WRONNNGG.

Sorry, I did not have the any Monster Manuals handy this morning (and was not going to risk waking my wife just to get one). However, Teleport without Error does not work for the pit fiend unless the battle is taking on his home plane (that is, the without error part does not work, the PF can still teleport with the normal chances of error). If it is on the Prime Material Plane (which is far more likely given a lone 13th Level Dwarf Fighter), the teleport is still subject to the normal error chances as the PF is not teleporting between two points on his home plane.

[Lord Mistborn]

I am not commenting on a pitfiends tactics, just a key difference between TSR D&D and wotc D&D, which matters on the topic of game balance.

Regarding how to play mpnsters in combat: the GM doesn't simply play the best tactics he can think of, he pkays the monster the way he thinks it would act given what it wants and knows. I the case of a pit fiend, this means a very powerful and deadly foe that is highly intelligent. But context matters also matters. Being intelligent means you dont always attack until the other side is killed. Intelligent creatures dont ake needless risks and engaging a powerful dwarven fighter (even if the pit fiendhas a significant chance of winning) is a needless ridk unless the creature has a good reason to engage and or kill the fighter. The GM needs to consider: the context, the pitfiend's description of its culture, the needs and desires of the individual pitfiend and it's resources. It isnt always about making the most optimimal choice in terms if killing the PC. In the case of the pitfiend, i think they would be pretty relentless, but the point is these are not mere pieces on a chess board.

If the the Pit Fiend doesn't want to fight the the dwarf he dosen't have to he can just leave via teleport, heck in 2e he can take all his stuf with him when he does. I was assuming the in this case the Pit Fiend realy wants this dwarf dead. If the Pit Fiend can kill the fighter he's probly going to want to so he can get his claws on the pile of magic items the fighter is carrying around with him. Even if he cant use them him self I'm betting that some lower level figher is willing to sell his soul for them. Pit Fiends are dicks like that they're literaly made of evil.

[Lord Mistborn]

Sorry, I did not have the any Monster Manuals handy this morning (and was not going to risk waking my wife just to get one). However, Teleport without Error does not work for the pit fiend unless the battle is taking on his home plane (that is, the without error part does not work, the PF can still teleport with the normal chances of error). If it is on the Prime Material Plane (which is far more likely given a lone 13th Level Dwarf Fighter), the teleport is still subject to the normal error chances as the PF is not teleporting between two points on his home plane.

He only needs to jump between two points anyway. The place where the fighter is which he's been to and some place the fighter can't reach maybe Hell or the elemental plane of sauerkraut or realy any other place the Devil is familiar with. That's assuming the fill the room whith illusions doesn't work and the Pit Fiend is confident enough not to summon another Pit Fiend because he can do that too.