Quote from: DeadUematsu;393414You'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.

I guess in some strict "gamist" or "wargaming" views, that might be so. However, there are other styles of play where things like the friendship of the characters might make them want to adventure together even if they don't equally contribute to the party. Just like in real life my friends don't all contribute equally to everything we do as a group.

BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?

Some players LIKE playing characters that are less effective than others at some things. For example, I find combat boring, so I tend to play characters where combat skills are secondary. This means they are less effective in combat than some other characters. This does not bother me as it means that I don't have to concentrate heavily on a part of the game I find less interesting. I can just roll to hit and be done with it.

In my current Microlite75 campaign one of the players finds social situations boring to play out, so he had a character who is socially dull and inept -- thus given him an excuse to take a backseat role when the game becomes more about social interaction.

Quote from: RandallS;393512I guess in some strict "gamist" or "wargaming" views, that might be so. However, there are other styles of play where things like the friendship of the characters might make them want to adventure together even if they don't equally contribute to the party. Just like in real life my friends don't all contribute equally to everything we do as a group.

BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?

Some players LIKE playing characters that are less effective than others at some things. For example, I find combat boring, so I tend to play characters where combat skills are secondary. This means they are less effective in combat than some other characters. This does not bother me as it means that I don't have to concentrate heavily on a part of the game I find less interesting. I can just roll to hit and be done with it.

More to this...equal contributors when?  At different times in their career, yes.  Even at different times in an adventure, also.  Does the fighter allow the mage to conserve magic at any level?  yes.  Does the fighter allow the mage to stay alive after the mage has blown all his offensive spells?  yes.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393416@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.

To tell you the truth, most of the 3e bitching I saw was due to combat effectiveness, not utility.  However, I tuned out of d20 a few years in, only coming back because of Conan.  I'll grant that in that time, the proliferation of spells from 3e sourcebooks could have turned a swiss army knife utility mage into Deus Ex Machina.

However, even that problem I think has its roots in the post-mmog era.  In earlier versions of D&D yeah there were tons of spells, from Greyhawk, Krynn, Forgotten Realms books, Dungeon and Dragon magazines, modules etc...  The big difference was, it wasn't assumed that everyone had 100% access to them.  The "if the item exists in a book, it is therefore available in my GM's campaign" is something relatively new to D&D.  A mage could theoretically have access to spells that could make him always the go-to guy, but how many spells can he cast in a day?  Does he have all those various components with him?  Is the party going to take a day out, having already alerted the enemy, so the mage can memorize his utility spells?

All these things in prior editions were balanced not by the rules, but by the GM.  Any D&D game in any edition can become Monty Haul or otherwise unbalanced if the GM doesn't discriminate as to what options and rules he wants in his campaign.  That was ok though, because that was how you learned.  You saw one campaign go right down the shitter and then you didn't do that a second time.  3e and 4e followed a different design philosophy - let the rules dictate what players have access to.  The 3e and 4e rules are woefully generic, it takes a good GM to really dig in there, rewrite some of those crazyass classes and have the whole thing make sense for his campaign.  If you don't do that, well yeah, of course it's gonna get totally fucked up, that goes for any RPG.

You make it sound like a GM who does not care for the characters is in some how bad. That might be for some reasons, but there are some good things, as well.

It's surely less work for the GM. He does not need to know the rules the players use. He doesn't have to evaluate the rules. He can enjoy being surprised by the rules the players invoke.

Quote from: Benoist;393444Yes, 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.

Actually, I think he's right in this regard.

If I'm flipping through games at the friendly local game store, I'm not looking at group A's playstyle, or group B's houserules. All that I have to go on when I'm deciding to buy it or not is the rules. If I decide not to buy it, then I'm probably going to decide not to play it in another group unless a good friend is extending the invitation.

Like it or not, rules count. It's why you enjoy some games and not others. Bad rules are bad rules...social contract or DM hand waving might mitigate them, but that doesn't negate the fact that for many people who come across a game, these things are bad rules.

For the record though, I think that the disparity between Fighters and Wizards wasn't nearly as bad in TSR-era D&D as in 3rd Edition.

Quote from: CRKrueger;393539A mage could theoretically have access to spells that could make him always the go-to guy, but how many spells can he cast in a day?  Does he have all those various components with him?  Is the party going to take a day out, having already alerted the enemy, so the mage can memorize his utility spells?

All these things in prior editions were balanced not by the rules, but by the GM.

This is exactly correct.  There are a million and one ways to keep this alleged 'disparity' from rearing up, and pretty much any one of them will do the trick.  This kind of problem only crops up with exceptionally bad DMing.

Well for components...in a game where it explicitly states in the rulebooks that a material components bag always has the required material components the wizard needs for any spell.  

Quote from: Peregrin;393650Well for components...in a game where it explicitly states in the rulebooks that a material components bag always has the required material components the wizard needs for any spell.  

Which rulebook states that?

Quote from: StormBringer;393651Which rulebook states that?

3e D&D PHB.  A component pouch is a one-time purchase which guarantees a spellcaster has all necessary components for their spells.  You can steal the pouch (pretty obvious DM fiat move), but as long as they have it on them, a player will never find themselves wanting for any components unless they're casting some really weird ritual (which they couldn't be doing in combat, anyway).

Quote from: Peregrin;3936573e D&D PHB.  A component pouch is a one-time purchase which guarantees a spellcaster has all necessary components for their spells.  You can steal the pouch (pretty obvious DM fiat move), but as long as they have it on them, a player will never find themselves wanting for any components unless they're casting some really weird ritual (which they couldn't be doing in combat, anyway).

I think that only refers to components that have a value of up to 1gp if I'm remembering correctly.

I don't believe this refers to 1000gp diamond dust for Stoneskin, or anything similar.

Quote from: Shazbot79;393577For the record though, I think that the disparity between Fighters and Wizards wasn't nearly as bad in TSR-era D&D as in 3rd Edition.

The two main factors I blame it on are:

1) Magic item creation and scroll writing is out of hand in Third Edition.

2) In the old days, you could disrupt a spell caster by hitting them at any point during a round. In 3e, you can only (possibly) do so by hitting them the instant they are casting their spell.

Quote from: Shazbot79;393660I think that only refers to components that have a value of up to 1gp if I'm remembering correctly.

I don't believe this refers to 1000gp diamond dust for Stoneskin, or anything similar.

Ah, right.  I forgot about that.

Does that ever really factor into balancing spellcasters over the long-term, or is money plentiful enough by that point (I think Stoneskins is 4th level or around thereabouts)?

Quote from: Peregrin;393441How familiar are you with older rulesets?

Pretty damn familiar.

I've played and have ran OD&D, B/X, BECMI/RC, 1E, and 2E campaigns both with and without houserules. I've played with gamers, roleplayers, simulationists, and screwballs. In my experience, the only ones who ever recognized the disparity were actually the gamers and simulationists who recognized that most campaigns were either dominated by spellcasters, were engineered into thier current status quo by conspiracies of spellcasters, or you had to assume a vast (as in universe-scale vast) playing ground where the right combination of factors that you wanted to explore could exist despite the game's natural inclinations.

Everyone else pretty much handwaved it away with various bullshit (dead magic zones, cultural restrictions, the PCs are the only magic-users, etc.). Most of which was dissatisfying (since most of the time it could be summed up as "Thank you for choosing ultimate power, here's your congralutory crotch kick").

Having said that, you're looking to berate me and waste my time. Not going to bother continuing this conversation.

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.

In Rules Cyclopedia D&D, those rules did make a fighter more offensively (and in some aspects, defensively) capable in combat. However, by those options became available or appreciable, a lot of a fighter's utility out of combat came from him being a partial spellcaster or having a spellcaster as a retainer.

Quote from: Benoist;393444The problem with you is that you just like acting like an idiot, and you feel forced to be an asshole about it.

Ah no. The problem is you essentially want me to accept "Yes, but in my game or in my experience..." or any variation of the sort as a valid and equal rebuttal and that's not going to happen.

Quote from: RandallS;393512BTW, I've never understood why "equal" contribution to effectiveness is so important -- so long as the players of the characters involved are having fun, what difference does it make?

You know, this doesn't rebuff anything I just said. Yes, you care less but this doesn't resolve anything for someone whose fun comes from being an equal participant in all aspects of the game.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;393683Having said that, you're looking to berate me and waste my time. Not going to bother continuing this conversation.

I'm not looking to berate you -- as I said, your previous responses to me elsewhere and the attitude you displayed didn't really put you in a great light.

Starting a thread with "It's crap, Deal with it" also says that you're not looking for a conversation, you're making a declaration that you have no intention of changing, and only seek to use the thread as some sort of soapbox for your own views.

I give people the benefit of the doubt, but it entirely depends on how they present themselves.

Telling someone "Hurr durr, you're a retard, and the thing you like is bad" is going to evoke a totally different response than "Hey, I think you're wrong there, this is why:"

Quote from: Peregrin;393670Ah, right.  I forgot about that.

Does that ever really factor into balancing spellcasters over the long-term, or is money plentiful enough by that point (I think Stoneskins is 4th level or around thereabouts)?

Wealth was not hard for a 7th level magic user to create.

This is one of the reasons that AD&D was a lot more balanced, because spellcasters didn't have easy access to game economy breaking things like scribe scroll and create wand....so material components were a much bigger deal back in those days.