Quote from: Narf the Mouse;393349No, but most of the time, they don't need to.

Also, take a look at what you wrote. Why should the Wizard need to be able to, say, *totally* remove the need for any other class, for it to be broken? Significantly is enough - And the Wizard is at that point with the PHB.

From a gameplay perspective, its quite desirable that the party wizard can do away with a rogue - you may not have a rogue in the party.

If the NPCs are expecting wizards to be annoying, having 3 padlocks on your door will keep them out ("each spell will negate 2 means of preventing egress"), something that a high level rogue will probably cut through like butter by taking-10. The wizard also can't disable any alarms or traps on the door either which may be a major problem (though the spell does have Medium range).  The cleric *can* detect traps (with their own second level spell), which is kind of cool (the rest of the party joining forces can almost replace the rogue).
Of course, the best way through doors in 3.5 is still using Adamantine weapons, at least if you're not trying to sneak.

Likewise, Invisibility is usually thought of as a replacement for Hide, but again its limited use, wizards aren't usually terribly quiet, and commoners can negate it by throwing bags of flour at you.

D&D 3.0 was created in the post-mmog world, that's where the problem lies.  Ultima Online and Everquest couldn't implement, to the extent needed, thieving abilities, so they made them ninja assassins instead of thieves.  Now that they could put out lots of damage, the fighter had to do less damage or else why have a thief, thus the tank was born etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  

All this "niche protection" crap aka "special snowflakism" came about as the result of the sole balancing axis being combat, combat, combat, and only combat.  

"Utility spells?  WTF is that?  Thieving abilities?  Yeah I can open a door, who cares, I can BBQPWNSTABBITY!!1!!!! Downtime?  Fuck that, we just go rest then roll in blazin'.

Roleplaying a character?  What the hell is that, I'm just trying to get the best killer build for my toon."

"Conversation" like that you didn't hear in D&D pre-mmog.

Quote from: BenoistGame balance happens because of interactions between the characters and their environment, the players with the GM, the GM with the players, the players with each other, the players with the rules and the GM with the rules. Rules are only one of the components here.

No. The foundation of a game's balance is in it's rules. Saying that it's up to the group's application (or lack thereof) of said rules is a cop-out.

Quote from: Koltar;393176If its a GOOD adventuring group - those two characters are drinking buddies not adversaries or even adversarial.
- Ed C.

You're totally missing the point. Yes, the fighter and the wizard are partners. However, they ought to be be equal contributors to the overall effectiveness of the party. Otherwise, the wizard should dump the fighter for cheaper (and easily replaced) muscle.

Quote from: Peregrin;393178But from what I've observed in older rulesets, that doesn't really happen.  There are just too many restrictions on a caster and not enough ways around the really tough shit (no feats, no wide-open multiclassing) to make up for the shortcomings you have to deal with.  Couple that with the fact that most AD&D characters retire or more onto stronghold building around 10-14th level and it doesn't ever really become much of a factor.  The fighter is busy leading his armies.

Except there are ways around the restrictions. Also stating that the game wraps up at 10th to 14th level does nothing to help people who play beyond that range. Nor does the fact that a fighter PC has to PAY his men-at-arms and PAY to maintain his stronghold to hold his army help to correct the disparity when a cleric doesn't have to and a magic-user can just buy himself an army when he needs it.

Quote from: SpinachatIn my OD&D / S&W:WB games, Fighting Men gain a damage bonus equal to their BAB. They do lots and lots of chop-chop. A 10th level lord is dropping D6+8 damage versus the cleric who is still doing 1D6.

That's my thought on how to "balance" them.

I gave a damage bonus instead of multi-attacks simply because I rather less dice rolls. It also has the effect of making their blows very stunning in their damage. Keep in mind that S&W uses D6 for Monster HD so a 5HD monster has 18 HP and a 8th level Fighting Man can cut one down in 2 blows with my house rule.

A damage bonus won't correct the disparity. The fighter's weaknesses are lack of mobility, lack of appropriate defenses, and lack of perceptive abilities.

@CRKrueger: Really? The problem with 3E spellcasters isn't their combat prowess but that they are too effective in every sphere and the origin of that broad level of competence lies in the proliferation of spells in prior editions.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414No. The foundation of a game's balance is in it's rules. Saying that it's up to the group's application (or lack thereof) of said rules is a cop-out.

Nope. Pretending that the rules are the game, the game is the rules IS the cop-out.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414Except there are ways around the restrictions. Also stating that the game wraps up at 10th to 14th level does nothing to help people who play beyond that range. Nor does the fact that a fighter PC has to PAY his men-at-arms and PAY to maintain his stronghold to hold his army help to correct the disparity when a cleric doesn't have to and a magic-user can just buy himself an army when he needs it.

That's not what I meant.  The type of adventuring done at higher levels involves different types of adventuring and exploits that don't necessarily involve pitting the fighter and the wizard at eachother's backs and putting them in situations where one will be outshining the other in a small group affair like dungeon-crawling.

As for higher than 10-14th level, that's an exception to the norm.  It's sort of like overclocking your processor -- you can do it, but there are plenty of warnings about the weird shit that could happen if you're not careful.  It's there for the sake of flexibility.

Also, if you could demonstrate these amazing ways at getting around being ridiculously weak for quite a few levels, I'd be more than glad to hear them.  I'm sure with older editions being so front-loaded, there are plenty of ways for someone to consistently take a MU to 10th level without ever rolling another character.  :rolleyes:

@Cranewings: Are we discussing older editions or 3E here? I'm going to assume 3E for the most part.

Ambushes work. I am not arguing against that. They worked in 1E, they are insanely good in 3E given how easily the appropriate resources can be obtained and accumulated. I am arguing that they are a waste in 1E because you're preparing spells that MIGHT be useful ONCE as opposed to spells that are always useful. Numbers work better in both editions barring player stupidity.

Now, in prior editions, you could get away with dump stats. In 3E, you can't. A fighter in that edition is dependent on having multiple high scores. A wizard can get by with a high CON and a high INT. Saying that a fighter should remedy it by spending feats when a wizard gets new spells every level and can buy more with money is insulting. Also, 10+ damage on average at first level is retardedly easy for a fighter to achieve (it's as easy as having a 16 str and a greatsword). Saying that a fighter shouldn't do when he isn't sacrificing any much is annoying. Advising that fighters should play the stealth game when that's an actual waste of precious resources (2 skill points, they're cross-class skills by default, etc.) and an average rogue can do it better is also annoying.

Having addressed that, the problem isn't mind-affecting spells, direct damage, or any single contigency spell that a spellcaster might have. The problem is a wizard has a lot of contigencies to choose from and god help the fighter who is not prepared against any one of them. Ambushes can work if the wizard hasn't prepared a contingency for said ambush but he really doesn't need to. The fact is that a wizard has a high Int by default and therefore more than enough skill points to spend on both Listen or Spot (while a fighter typically doesn't have enough skill points to spend on both Hide and Move Silently). Ranged weapons can work if the wizard hasn't already cast protection from arrows or a higher level equivalent. Etc. Etc. Yes, a fighter can spend money to get the same odd crap a wizard can but a wizard doesn't need to spend out of the same pool to get both level-appropriate capabilities and level appropriate bonuses. It is also annoying that a fighter needs to rely on his equipment when a wizard doesn't.

Also, yes, nova-ing is super effective when the opportunity arises. However, a wizard can simply overcome obstacles by either casting the right spell he either prepared or he made the right item for. At this point, you pretty much admitted that the fighter needs wizard-like powers. Still insisting that he waste his much more limited resources when the wizard doesn't should be inexcusable at this point.

Quote from: Benoist;393418Nope. Pretending that the rules are the game, the game is the rules IS the cop-out.

Ah, no. The game's basis is in its rules. They form the basis of the consensus amongst the participants. If you don't believe this then there's no point in discussing anything with you since you're pretty much admitting that the game is whatever you want it to be at any given time and it would be insane to discuss anything with you.

Quote from: Peregrin;393429That's not what I meant.  The type of adventuring done at higher levels involves different types of adventuring and exploits that don't necessarily involve pitting the fighter and the wizard at eachother's backs and putting them in situations where one will be outshining the other in a small group affair like dungeon-crawling.

Name one kind of high-level adventure that doesn't involve purposely gimping the magic-user that a fighter can do that better.

QuoteAs for higher than 10-14th level, that's an exception to the norm.  It's sort of like overclocking your processor -- you can do it, but there are plenty of warnings about the weird shit that could happen if you're not careful.  It's there for the sake of flexibility.

That still doesn't excuse the disparity at all. If anything, it tells non-spellcasters to dual class into wizard or cleric past Xth level.

QuoteAlso, if you could demonstrate these amazing ways at getting around being ridiculously weak for quite a few levels, I'd be more than glad to hear them.  I'm sure with older editions being so front-loaded, there are plenty of ways for someone to consistently take a MU to 10th level without ever rolling another character.  :rolleyes:

Ah, given your attitude towards anything I say, no. Enjoy your Final Fantasy-like fights.

How familiar are you with older rulesets?  Even Mike Mearls admitted that power disparity between MUs and martial classes in pre-3e editions was much less of an issue, at least the last time they had this same discussion on RPGnet (hint: it wasn't that long ago).

As for the FF fights -- I actively play 4e and started with 3e.  But just because you don't "get" older editions doesn't mean I can't enjoy a little variety.  Your obsessive focus on a completely gamist-style system as "God" completely undermines other goals of play.  Not every social contract at the table necessarily has to involve balancing classes against each other 1:1.

And your attitude is the problem, dipshit.  You started slinging the jabs and insults long before I did in other discussions I've had with you.  Your holier-than-thou bullshit doesn't really make for good discussions, so why the fuck do you start threads anyway?  Are you just here to troll the fucking place?

You started the thread.  The burden of proof lies with you.  If you aren't willing to defend your whole reason for starting this, why the hell even bother posting?  Show me just how magic-users are just as bad in AD&D as 3rd and how a player can get around those problems.

In OD&D if you use the Smash, Multiple Attacks, and Weapon Mastery rules, the fighter is pretty freaking incredible. Even if you just use the first two, a fighter certainly would keep up his usefulness compared to the mage, both being spectacular in their own ways.

RPGpundit

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393434Ah, no. The game's basis is in its rules. They form the basis of the consensus amongst the participants. If you don't believe this then there's no point in discussing anything with you since you're pretty much admitting that the game is whatever you want it to be at any given time and it would be insane to discuss anything with you.

The problem with you is that you just like acting like an idiot, and you feel forced to be an asshole about it.

Yes, the rules provide a basis for a consensus amongst the participants. But that's ALL it is. A basis. It isn't a consensus itself, and it certainly is not the only component of game balance itself, which doesn't happen in theoretical la-la-land on the rulebook's page, but during the game itself, while it is being played, with a game world, a flesh and blood GM, flesh and blood players, and all that supposes of compromises, imagination, and social interactions.

Get your head out of your ass, try to *think* for a moment, and then maybe you'll have an epiphany. Otherwise well... have fun with yourself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;393443In OD&D if you use the Smash, Multiple Attacks, and Weapon Mastery rules, the fighter is pretty freaking incredible. Even if you just use the first two, a fighter certainly would keep up his usefulness compared to the mage, both being spectacular in their own ways.

RPGpundit

OD&D? You mean Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia, right?

Quote from: Benoist;393446OD&D? You mean Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia, right?

Yes, that's what I meant.

RPGPundit

Dead, fair enough. Personally, I never run games past 7-8 levels because the basic structure of the game falls apart then, so you could be right and I wouldn't see it. I'd strongly stick to my point at low and mid levels < 9.