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

[RandallS]

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.

Min-maxing to many people -- especially those who don't play WOTC D&D -- also means not using ultra-powerful ability/power combos just because you can. In gaming styles, where combat is not a competition between ruthless players using every rules trick in the book to beat a ruthless GM using every rules trick in the book, neither monsters nor player chatracters are likely to be played the way they are in games where this the game is a competition between the players and the GM.

In non-competitive games, BedrockBrendan pegs it, monsters are played the way the GM thinks they would be act based on their goals, personality, orders, etc.  Also, in non-competitive play-styles, it's likely that neither the GM nor the players are the tactical experts that they become in competitive-oriented combat-centric campaigns -- nor are either interested in becoming such an expert.

[Lord Mistborn]

Min-maxing to many people -- especially those who don't play WOTC D&D -- also means not using ultra-powerful ability/power combos just because you can. In gaming styles, where combat is not a competition between ruthless players using every rules trick in the book to beat a ruthless GM using every rules trick in the book, neither monsters nor player chatracters are likely to be played the way they are in games where this the game is a competition between the players and the GM.

So you want a gentelmans agrement from you GM that he'll let you stab the monsters in the face rather than die in flames never having laid eyes on the moster that has killed you. The Pit Fiend has a bunch of spells that he can cast at-will but in your view the DM is obligated to not let him.

In non-competitive games, BedrockBrendan pegs it, monsters are played the way the GM thinks they would be act based on their goals, personality, orders, etc.  Also, in non-competitive play-styles, it's likely that neither the GM nor the players are the tactical experts that they become in competitive-oriented combat-centric campaigns -- nor are either interested in becoming such an expert.

The Pit Fiend has every reason to kill the Dwarf. Like I said unless the Dwarf has already pledged allegiance to Asmodeus his bosses are going to be thrilled that he murdered a champion of good and acquired a pile of powerful magic items for the Baatezu.

[beejazz]

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.

I'm just going to note that you're basically saying that stunlocking monsters are good design and that the fighter is bad because they don't have "answers" to powers like that.

Stuns have or should have a save.
Same goes for illusions.

Neither of these things requires lateral advancement of any kind so they don't support your point.

Now, let's say I give you the better invisibility and teleport without error as things a fighter can't deal with. What? Every class needs an answer to these things? Is that what you're arguing? Why not just build an answer into the spell? For example by using baseline invisibility. I'm sorry, but beefing up all classes to deal with one monster is functionally identical to nerfing the monster slightly. And the nerf takes less text to do it.

The solution to your problem is neither a flying/teleporting/see invisibling fighter. The solution is to reduce the teleportation range and give conditions to end the invisibility (such as whenever the thing hits or is hit).

If the monster doesn't pose a challenge in a stand up fight against one character, doesn't have the means to separate them or prevent escape, and all it has left is the ability to flee and heal forever? Those ambush tactics aren't scary. They're tedious.

[Lord Mistborn]

I'm just going to note that you're basically saying that stunlocking monsters are good design and that the fighter is bad because they don't have "answers" to powers like that.

Stuns have or should have a save.
Same goes for illusions.

Neither of these things requires lateral advancement of any kind so they don't support your point.

Now, let's say I give you the better invisibility and teleport without error as things a fighter can't deal with. What? Every class needs an answer to these things? Is that what you're arguing? Why not just build an answer into the spell? For example by using baseline invisibility. I'm sorry, but beefing up all classes to deal with one monster is functionally identical to nerfing the monster slightly. And the nerf takes less text to do it.

The solution to your problem is neither a flying/teleporting/see invisibling fighter. The solution is to reduce the teleportation range and give conditions to end the invisibility (such as whenever the thing hits or is hit).

If the monster doesn't pose a challenge in a stand up fight against one character, doesn't have the means to separate them or prevent escape, and all it has left is the ability to flee and heal forever? Those ambush tactics aren't scary. They're tedious.

So your solution is to never write any abiltiy that can't be overcome by some ordinary shmuck with a sword.

That makes it really hard to have stuff like 24 ton mosters of living rock, or huge flaming bodied spellcasting demon generals, or even giant flying armored firebreathing death-lizards as regular opponents at highlevels. I don't know about you but I've always considered those thing a big part of Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe that's just me.

[RandallS]

So you want a gentelmans agrement form you GM that he'll let you stab the monsters in the face rather than die in flames never having laid eyes on the moster that has killed you. The Pit Fiend has a bunch of spell that he can cast at-will but in your view the DM is obligated to not let him.

There are different styles of play. Not everyone plays using your preferred style of play. Nor do they want to use your style of play any more that you would likely want to use theirs. Nor did I ever say the DM is obligated not to do anything, likewise he isn't obligated to do what you would do if you were DM. Deal.

The Pit Fiend has every reason to kill the Dwarf.

Perhaps in your campaign, but that isn't necessarily true in other campaigns. Things like this are very setting and situation dependent. For example, in one of my settings, devils are FAR more interested in converting people or in tormenting them and leaving them alive to tell others of the horrible power of devils than they are in killing every good-aligned person they meet. This is especially true of higher level devils who have many responsibilities in the hierarchy of hell and get power from those they have defeated or forced to serve them. Killing them just send their soul on, even if it goes to hell, they don't get the power -- the lords of hell do. (setting dependence). Even if this setting, however, a pit fiend might try to instant kill the dwarf if they dwarf had harmed his plans in a major way or was about to (situation dependence)

Like I said unless the Dwarf has already pledged allegiance to Asmodeus his bosses are going to be thrilled that he murdered a champion of good and acquired a pile of powerful magic items for the Baatezu.

As I said above this depend on the setting.

[Sacrosanct]

For the third time:


Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e.  The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn.  And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]


This whole list of spells that you're saying the pit fiend is casting before fighter can even act is wrong.  And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon?  Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well?  You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well.

For one, if I was that fighter, I'd be wearing glasses of true seeing.  At 15th level, I'm sure I'd have the resources to find/buy/ or borrow one.

[RandallS]

Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e.  The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn.  And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]

Thank you for saying that there are no at-wills in 2e far better than I've done it.

[beejazz]

So your solution is to never write any abiltiy that can't be overcome by some ordinary shmuck with a sword.

That makes it really hard to have stuff like 24 ton mosters of living rock, or huge flaming bodied spellcasting demon generals, or even giant flying armored firebreathing death-lizards as regular opponents at highlevels. I don't know about you but I've always considered those thing a big part of Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe that's just me.

Bullshit. Nobody said anything about an ordinary shmuck.

Stat wise, high damage, sufficient range, and sane magical abilities on the part of foes is fine.

Would giving fighters decent saves and downgrading the invisibility and jumping really make this demon general less like a demon general? No.

Is giving everyone an answer to these spells and nerfing them functionally identical? Not strictly now that I think on it. Downgrading improved invis to invis actually lets the damn thing be invisible for a while. Giving everybody see invisibility actually makes the monster weaker and less scary than the nerf would. Letting the fighter teleport without error at will still wouldn't help because he couldn't trace the teleport, while letting him trace or stop the teleport would neutralize that ability. Short jumps would leave the teleporting stronger relative to the party than giving the party a straight up answer would.

[Lord Mistborn]

For the third time:


Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e.  The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn.  And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]


This whole list of spells that you're saying the pit fiend is casting before fighter can even act is wrong.  And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon?  Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well?  You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well.

For one, if I was that fighter, I'd be wearing glasses of true seeing.  At 15th level, I'm sure I'd have the resources to find/buy/ or borrow one.

The Pit Fiend gets to ambush you becaues it's invisible and you are not and while you can't see him he sets up his illusions.

and wait the Wizard is so limited by what spells he can find but then the fighter just gets whatever magic items he wants.

At long last you've buckled down and admited it it's not the fighter's class that's keeping him in the game at this point. He's just a platform for the Hammer of Thunderbolts. One that also apparently needs Glasses of True Seeing to hit anything.

[deadDMwalking]

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...?

A 1st level wizard is a 'spell caster'.  A 9th level wizard is a 'spell caster'.  It is not the fact that they are 'spell casters' that make them powerful.  It is the degree of access to spells that make them powerful.  A 1st level wizard is not a 'powerful' character.  A 1st level wizard is approximately as powerful as a 1st level Fighter.  Usually, you'd expect characters at the same level to have approximately the same level of power.  

It is hardly surprising that a character of higher level than another would be more powerful.  Your parody of my argument asserts that a 1st level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter because you assert that power comes from being a 'spellcaster'.  

I assert that access to spells is what contributes to a spellcasters power.  Thus, the more spells you are capable of casting in a given time frame (say per day), the more powerful you are.  The more powerful those spells are, the more powerful you are.  

It just happens that a 15th level wizard has access to some high level spells, and they have lots of lower level spells.  Thus, 'power' comes not from being a 'spell caster' but from the spells themselves.  

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?

While there are an infinite number of scrolls in the game, access to them requires resources (such as gold) or the ability to take them from other people (combat) or to find where they're hidden (exploration).  That doesn't sound like 'reliable' access.  Further, Fighters don't get Use Magic Device as a class skill, so access to scrolls usually won't help them.  But if Fighters (or Rogues) have access to spells, they are more powerful than if they don't have access to spells.  All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful.

And for the last several pages, you seem to have forgotten that what I presented isn't even my own argument.

Then why do you keep bringing it up and defending it.  It's stupid and you're stupid.  You are strawmanning.  You're trying to present a stupid argument that is simply refuted so you can point out that my argument is stupid.  But you're not presenting my argument.  You're just being a dumb ass and wasting the time of the people who aren't smart enough to ignore you.  

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.

No.  No.  No.  Dumb ass.  Dumb ass.  Dumb ass.  

Let's see if I can lay it out for you using small words.  

Spells are a resource that are primarily limited by a character's imagination.  Even if a given spell doesn't exist in the game, there are rules for how a wizard can research unique spells.  Thus, anything that you could imagine accomplishing with magic is possible with the right spell.  

Because there are so many possible spells, including those already included in the core game, there is a wealth of possibilities available to anyone that has broad access, particularly to high level spells (more powerful effects).  

A wizard (or other spellcaster) has potential access to a large number of useful effects.  Individual specific effects don't matter as much as you seem to think - a wizard with a particular spell list might use a particular spell while someone with a different spell list will accomplish the same thing using a different spell.  For example, if you need to sneak past a guard check point you could use invisibility to walk past unseen, or you could use dimension door to instantly 'skip' the guard post.  To use spells effectively, you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish and what spells can help you do that.  

A large number of spells in the game are known as 'save or suck' or 'save or die' or 'I win'.  If a monster has 200 hit points and the Fighter hits it for 7 or 8 rounds, reducing it to 2 hit points and the Wizard succeeds at finger of death, it doesn't really matter that the Fighter almost killed it on his own. If he hadn't been there, the creature would still be dead.  

If the Fighter's only meaningful contribution were soaking up damage, there are other more effective ways to do that without risking the life of a valued friend.  Summoned or Called monsters, for instance, can perform the same function, and since they won't be around for long, their death is hardly tragic.  

At high level play, Wizards and other characters with broad access to a large number of useful spells come to dominate the battlefield without even trying.   This has been my experience in a large number of games with a large number of playing groups, even though nobody wanted to make anyone look bad.  

But now you are saying these premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true.

Yes.  I am saying your stupid premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true.  But you can look at what my argument above is and tell me where you disagree and why.  But basically, I point out that spells let you do things that you couldn't do without spells, thus, as you get more spells, you get to do more things that you couldn't do before.  That seems pretty simple to me.  

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

You could conclude that - if you're a dumb ass.  You keep trying to make this an exercise in logic 101, despite apparently being out of your depth.  Nobody has refuted my positions given above, and a number of people have agreed with them. If I recall, RPGPundit admitted that 'everyone knows casters break the game at high level' or something to that effect.  Since he said that, just about everyone here has agreed that casters are more powerful than Fighters in high level play - except you, Stormbringer.  You're the lone bastion defending a demonstrably false position.  You actually think that Wizards and Fighters are BALANCED in high level 3.5 play?  You are a dumb ass.  

You are awesome.

Thank you.  It's kind of you to say.  You're still a dumb ass and I still don't respect your opinions.  

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.

And I have given you a way of generating a spell list that will provide you the information you need.  Why do I need to do it.  You're the one that wants to see it.  

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.

Since you have a tendency to read only portions of my post, or because you have the reading comprehension of a cocker spaniel, I will point out that I did present my argument above.  In this very post.  The one that explains why people with access to spells are more powerful than people without.  

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

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.

No.  That is one example.  How many do you need?  And again, the spell could be cast on a Sunday (a day of rest) and spending 1 round/day concentrating on the spell is easy.  So, again, that is something a wizard could easily do, but then wait until the following Sunday to make use of the spell.  The fact that it can be resisted is not an argument against it working - it just means it can't be trusted 100% of the time.  But if a creature will fail their save 50% of the time (and it could be much higher) than you need to cast the spell once or twice before it works.  You can come back every day of the week to make the spell 'stick' if you want to.  If you don't need the particular creature for seven days, you could get lots of opportunities.  

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

I don't think we talked about how it does or doesn't work.  But I assure you, it works the way I think it does.  This is the problem here.  If I provide a specific example, then it needs to be seen in play.  If I present it in play, then even if the rules are followed, the DM is bad/wrong/stupid.  Or the players are.  Well, I assure you, this spell can be used to make a dominated creature fight for you.  

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

That you're a dumb ass and you don't know how the rules work.  As evinced by pointing out the spell description of a spell that I mentioned and trying to tell me it doesn't work the way I think it does when 1) it does, and 2) I didn't talk about how it works in the example - just pointed out that it could work.  But this deserves special attention because you're such a dumb ass.

If a spell doesn't work at all, then there is no point in having it.  So if you're saying dominate monster doesn't let you have a dominated monster do stuff for you in the game - stuff like fighting for you, then you're a dumb ass.  What do you think it is supposed to do?  

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.

But my point is that any 'reasonable' spell load will do that.  So if I prove one specific spell load, then you'll ask me to prove a different spell load.  Since there are an infinite number of possible combinations (or at least, really close to that depending on sources allowed) this would take the rest of my natural life.  Just pick a randomly generated spell list.  That will work.

Congratulations, then, you have managed to defeat the parody of your own argument I have constructed.

Good.  Maybe you can stop bringing it up as if it were my argument.  

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.

Must be because you're a dumb ass.  Access to spells is what makes casters powerful.  Generally speaking, Fighters and Rogues don't have access to spells, or if they do, it is very limited.  For example, a rogue might be able cast a scroll, but he probably doesn't have many of them.  A Fighter might be able to cast scorching ray from his Flaming Sword of Flambe once per day.  That would prove they have access to spells, but the access is fairly limited.  A 1st level Wizard is a 'spell caster' but they don't really have access to more spells than the Fighter - therefore his access to spells doesn't make him more powerful.  But high level wizards get access to lots of known spells and are able to prepare a large number of spells.  They are able to have wands and scrolls to further extend their use of spells, and they are able to use those items much more easily and reliably.  Therefore, high level casters, because they have reliable access to a wide variety of spells, have a great source of power.  More powerful, in fact, than any other non-spell source of power.

[Lord Mistborn]

For the love of god deadDM just put StormBringer on your ignore list. I'm not sure if he's trolling or really that much of an idiot, it's probably both. Just stop, stop before you both get my thread locked.

[Sacrosanct]

And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon?  Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well?  You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well..

If you're going to quote me, at least fucking read what I said, because your response to this was yet again, "the fiend gets to do all these things before hand before the fighter even gets to go."


Jesus....

[Lord Mistborn]

If you're going to quote me, at least fucking read what I said, because your response to this was yet again, "the fiend gets to do all these things before hand before the fighter even gets to go."


Jesus....

How do you stop the invisble Pit Fiend from seeding the battle field with illusions again.

You also didn't answer my other point re: your fighter only being a platform for his phat loot.

[Sacrosanct]

Serious question.  Are you functionally retarded?  Because if you are, then I know it's cool, you can't help yourself.  I'm pretty sure I already explained how spells work in 2e.  Yeah, I did.  The only explanation why you are still under this assumption that a pit fiend will cast invisibility and spam illusions instantly is that something is mentally deficient with you.

[MGuy]

For the love of god deadDM just put StormBringer on your ignore list. I'm not sure if he's trolling or really that much of an idiot, it's probably both. Just stop, stop before you both get my thread locked.

You might as well put Sacro on ignore so you can stop responding to the same shit over and over. He is being almost exactly like Storm. Seriously think about the responses you've gotten since you started having the Pit Fiend use basic hit and run tactics.Think about how some of these people whined that Kaelik didn't immediately start face humping the party that entered his cave. Think about how spike whined that I had the nerve to use "Solid Fog" and how jeff complained that I didn't have fucking "fireball" on my spell list. Seriously when you are facing people who on the inside just want to kick wizards AND monsters in the nuts so their fighters can still matter then there is seriously nothing you can say to that. You can acknowledge that they hate when people with magic use their magic in any way that doesn't allow the fighter the chance to swing or sword or make use of his thumbs and move on.

I mean look just a few pages back when you've got people rolling their eyes over the fact that anybody can use a door. There comes a point in an argument where you have to ask yourself "What exactly am I fighting against?". I am going to assume that you made this thread NOT to argue about fighters but to share ideas about good game design. Could you please steer the conversation back in that direction?