# A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?



## Jon_Dahl (Aug 4, 2011)

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but how about this house rule:



> *Every level that you have in a PC-class that has a good base attack bonus progression (+1 per level ratio) increases your weapon and unarmed damage by 1.*



Reasoning: I feel that casters overshadow fighter (and other noncasters) after mid-levels. However if all 10th-level fighters with a longswords would hit for 1d8+level+other modifiers for damage, this would even things.

Of course this would raise questions, but in overall I feel that this would make sense and give some edge to higher level fighters. At least it would make a bit more sense for an epic level fighter to challenge an epic level wizard (I would still bet on the wizard).

Any thoughts? I know that this idea will not be well-received, but at least we can go over again the fundamental problems between noncasters and casters.


----------



## MadLuke (Aug 4, 2011)

I will not even consider it.

Bye, MadLuke.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 4, 2011)

Look, it's not that I don't want a balanced game - that's part of why I'm working on Legend - but giving melee characters more damage is not going to solve the imbalance because the issue is not damage, but the fact that melee has a painful lack of options at higher levels.

You have clerics who can Plane Shift to their god's domain for their daily prayers, wizards who can teleport between planets, druids who can turn into the Monster of the Week multiple times per day, and Sorcerers who can_ bend the fabric of reality to their whim through sheer willpower_... and fighters who hit things. Hard. With their muscles.

That is the problem here.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Aug 4, 2011)

The difference between casters and non-casters isn't damage.  It's the sheer power of spells that daunts most anyone who can't cast them.  Possibly the only Fighter-redo I have seen that effectively puts a Fighter at a similar level to a caster is My Spin on the Fighter (warning: quite long) - Giant in the Playground Forums.

It's insanely long, but the potential it has is nothing short of incredible.  There's a gambit at later levels that, if the fighter achieves in hitting with it, *automatically* kills its target, no save.  That's the kind of power a non-caster would need to dance with a caster.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 4, 2011)

This solves nothing and leave Monks, Rogues, and the like high and dry.  I would never use this house rule, I think it overall makes things worse.


----------



## Duke Arioch (Aug 4, 2011)

Why would I want fighters to be balanced with casters?! Maybe it is just me, but I always imagined those pesky dress-wearing gramps with long beards to be event changers and mountain movers in any game/fairy tale/movie. 
Every player knows (or should know) the part they are to play in a party. Fighters become meat shields. So what? I played a lot of melee characters who were overshadowed by casters. Still, I enjoyed it almost every time (a few times I didn't were not because the wiz guy blasted a dragon to smithereens, but because some players tend to play not for the sake of playing, but for the sake of beating the game and party members alike). It is not always the sheer damage that wins the day, though, and almost all overpowered casters choose spells that have utility over damaging ones.
Either way, if you are set in your decision to balance melee classes, allow them to have full initiator level (or even leave it at half) and allow them to pick up maneuvers at somewhat lower rate than martial adepts. It will at least give them more options towards the endgame.
Role>Roll.


----------



## nonsi256 (Aug 4, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> This solves nothing and leave Monks, Rogues, and the like high and dry.




Which is why I suggested these rules.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 4, 2011)

Jon_Dahl said:


> *A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters?*




No.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 4, 2011)

> Role>Roll.



If one can roleplay just as well with balanced classes (and I see no indication to the contrary from me and my brother's experiences with 4e) then why should one not have balanced classes?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 4, 2011)

Duke Arioch said:


> Why would I want fighters to be balanced with casters?!




Because, presumably, you have people playing both at your table and would like the players of the Fighter-types to have fun, too?  Rather than just being forced into acting as second-stringers and meatshields to the "real movers and shakers"?



> Role>Roll.




Yeah, you know, I've always felt that anyone who uses these terms unironically was not really worth talking with.  Essentially, they've got some divide in their head that, at the table, just doesn't ever really exist for me - like you can't be both an effective character and an interesting / realized one.

In fact, it's almost like there's some sort of rule about that ...


----------



## xigbar (Aug 4, 2011)

As stated above, increasing an already existing option potency is less preferrable to giving more options. Funnily enough, direct numerical damage is the only place a Fighter or Barbarian, and other full BAB classes can beat a caster, but, quite simply, there are are more effective ways to end an encounter than damage, which the casters have exponentially more than the brutes.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 4, 2011)

> Yeah, you know, I've always felt that anyone who uses these terms  unironically was not really worth talking with.  Essentially, they've  got some divide in their head that, at the table, just doesn't ever  really exist for me - like you can't be both an effective character and  an interesting / realized one.



Rather like saying one can either be good at art, humanities, or science, but not two at the same time and definitely not all three.


----------



## Greenfield (Aug 4, 2011)

You want to balance the classes?  That's easy.

Give all casters D10s for hit points, and grant them armor and weapon proficiencies as class features.

Then give all fighter classes a caster progression.

See?  Easy as pi.  (as in, trying to decipher all the digits of the ratio of a circle to it's diameter.)

I once played a game called Runequest.  Some of you might remember it.  Spells and weapons were all skill proficiencies, and everyone ended up being a fighter/mage/cleric/rogue.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 4, 2011)

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Balance should not be about making people the same, it should be about making everyone's contributions equally valuable.


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 4, 2011)

Ultimately, balance is not about all characters being equally useful in all situations, it is about everyone having their time in the sun, which is up to the GM to ensure, provided that the players have made characters that are a reasonable fit for the campaign.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 4, 2011)

Very true, and let me add that it is easier for the GM to do this if rules work with him instead of against him.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Aug 4, 2011)

I have heard of players who simply want to play a character to hit things really hard and really well.

I've not known any, but I've heard of them.

With that said, if someone wants to be a Fighter, and they know what they're getting into, than let them.  No need to make adjustments, no need to gimp anyone else down.  If you want to swing a sword, do hp damage, and that's what you do, than that's what you do.

But anyone who is about to start this sort of character needs to be filled in as to what is likely going to happen as players level.  The Cleric, the Wizard, the Rogue, they are going to want to have fun with their characters, and unless other players are willing to use their turns making the Fighter look better, he's going to fall to the side.

As long as he's told this in advance, and still agrees, then that's what it is.

I personally think if anyone wants to be a Fighter who happens to be interesting and has options, they should play a Psychic Warrior.


----------



## Sekhmet (Aug 4, 2011)

One of my regular gaming buddies thinks Fighters are an absolute necessity, claiming they have a great amount of options because they're only limited in daily use by their hitpoints.

It doesn't help that we've never had an intelligent person playing a caster in the same party as him.


----------



## Croesus (Aug 4, 2011)

I'm going to disagree with the majority and say this is worth considering. In fact, my group used a similar house rule the last couple years we played 3.x - of course, we combined the rule with a rule that eliminated iterative attacks, which we found to be a pain for some players.

I would argue that damage output is a real problem in 3.x, given the huge boost to hit points that many monsters received due to Con bonuses. Just look at the number of hit points giants have vs. their 1E and 2E counterparts. I once saw a 10th level fighter take on a single hill giant one on one. One round later, the fighter was running for this life.

While spellcasters can deal damage to multiple opponents, e.g., fireball, their overall damage output tends to fall behind the potential output of the fighters at higher levels (depending on the AC of the opponents, of course). Boosting fighters damage output even more can help make fighters more useful in combat. 

This doesn't address the issue of options, but I've played with many players who don't want to have a dozen different options every round, who just want to have fun pounding the stuffing out of things. I say, if it works for your game, go for it.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Aug 4, 2011)

I think each group needs to determine for themselves what is (or is not) fun. If a rule (or class, feat, spell, etc.) inhibits the player's (and the group's) enjoyment then that group ought to determine whether they should fix, replace, or eliminate said rule.

If the OP finds that this change to the rules makes for a more enjoyable experience for his player and his group, then, by all means, implement the change. If not, then don't. I am not sure increasing the fighter's damage capacity would be of any real benefit in the campaigns that I run, however. My campaigns tend to feature more lower-CR creatures to make up the EL rather than one or two, higher-CR creatures. As such, I think that the fighter's increase in damage would often result in the fighter doing excess damage, thereby negating any actual benefit to the increased damage capacity.

Re: Balance and 3.5 - I have found that I most enjoy the game when all characters are Tier 2, 3, or 4. For me, balancing the fighter with the wizard is not what I am interested in. Rather, I would prefer to balance the fighter against the rest of Tier 4 and the wizard against the rest of Tier 2. That brings their power level more in line with my -- and my group's -- comfort zone.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 4, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> I once played a game called Runequest. Some of you might remember it. Spells and weapons were all skill proficiencies, and everyone ended up being a fighter/mage/cleric/rogue.




I'm very curious how this affected the enjoyment of the game for those involved.  Was the campaign easier to DM and more fun for the players compared to RPG's where people played more traditional roles?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 5, 2011)

Sekhmet said:


> One of my regular gaming buddies thinks Fighters are an absolute necessity, claiming they have a great amount of options because they're only limited in daily use by their hitpoints.
> 
> It doesn't help that we've never had an intelligent person playing a caster in the same party as him.



May you be the first.


----------



## Sekhmet (Aug 5, 2011)

Dandu said:


> May you be the first.




It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience. 

 On one hand, I can prepare my spells normally, which gives me a great advantage over everyone else, but my players would call me out and say that I'm using outside knowledge of the encounters to come to pick the perfect spells for each of them. (Seriously, though, when is having a Dimensional Door or Gaseous Form on hand at all times something a Wizard wouldn't just do?)

 On the other, if I chose poorly to give them the illusion that I wasn't preparing for encounters that I knew were coming up, I'd be a grossly ineffective caster - just the same as the ones he's been in a party with prior.

 With the first option, I'm preparing general spells that will come in handy during any situation. With the second, I'm intentionally choosing bad spells so that my players aren't dissatisfied with my character stealing the spotlight every encounter. It's a lose-lose situation.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 5, 2011)

> It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same  time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience.



Ah, so you are the DM of the group.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Aug 5, 2011)

Sekhmet said:


> It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience.
> 
> On one hand, I can prepare my spells normally, which gives me a great advantage over everyone else, but my players would call me out and say that I'm using outside knowledge of the encounters to come to pick the perfect spells for each of them. (Seriously, though, when is having a Dimensional Door or Gaseous Form on hand at all times something a Wizard wouldn't just do?)
> 
> ...



Educate the players on how to be a good wizard.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Aug 5, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> This solves nothing and leave Monks, Rogues, and the like high and dry.  I would never use this house rule, I think it overall makes things worse.




I hear you, but I've always thought that Monks should have full BAB. No? And Roques have other areas of expertise, they don't need to worry about fighters and such getting stronger, they already have lots of uses especially outside combat (traps and such).

But of course I do understand that elevating some classes just means that some other class(es) are going to be left behind. In other words, *someone always has to be last one*.

I know that there are plenty of complicated fixes for full-BABers, but sometimes it's worth considering a simple and nice solution instead of complicated and perfect one.

But anyway, summa summarum:
Melee-characters improve in their ability to hit, but not their ability to cause damage. Lack of options or not, this is something that needs to considered for one minute. Hopefully with an open mind.


----------



## Axel (Aug 5, 2011)

It's pretty hard to come up with something for a melee character (or archer-fighter: they always get forgotten) that is equivalent to the wizard eliminating 1 enemy/std action with Force Cage (no save), or casting Win the Battle (aka Radiant Assault or Time Stop) and the like, also with a Standard action.

To be effective, a fighter needs ALL their iterative attacks.  That means Full Round action, so no running away from the exploding volcano at the same time.  A full-caster only needs a Standard action to be effective...an entire move action remains to get the  outta Dodge.

In short:  they can't be balanced.  Characters are in the party to do different things.  The "best" solution I've seen so far?  Start every campaign at Level 1 (with death-replacement characters 1 level below lowest party member level).  It seems to encourage more multi-classing and makes the wizard's player sit through the tedious levels 1-4 before getting any really powerful stuff.


----------



## Visigani (Aug 5, 2011)

As I mentioned in another one of my posts.... the desire for fighters shouldn't be to increase their damage but to REDUCE the damage of the caster classes.

If you have one guy that can bend the fabric of the universe at the table you don't necessarily need two.

Consider it a toolbox of options... On one hand you have the Multi-Tool Wizard... that can be a screw driver, a mini saw, a pliers, and a host of other things. On the other hand, you have the Hammer fighter. A hammer does one thing, it does it well and it's one thing the Multi Tool cannot duplicate easily.

That should be the desire with melee combatants. Make the sphere of hitpoint damage their own.

Although a wizard can point his finger at something and say 'die" he can only do so so many times per day, and not every wizard at that. A fighter can dish out the hp damage constantly. That should be their sphere. The current implementation of the game has the wizard stepping all over the fighters toes in that regard.

Cleric - Healing, Wizard - Macro Tools, Fighter - Damage, Rogue - Micro Tools. With each providing a secondary aspect... Cleric has a secondary aspect in macro tools and then damage, rogues have a secondary aspect in damage and then macro tools (UMD), fighter has a secondary in healing (by being able to shrug off punishment and therefore not requiring healing) and microtools (i.e. trip, intimidate, disarm, etc etc), and the wizard has a secondary in microtools and damage.


If you decrease the Wizards ability to deal damage and then INCREASE the Fighters microtool abilities you'll find Fighters become a much much more appealing member of the group.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 5, 2011)

It hasn't been too long since the last thread that covered this, to which my response was as follows.

You can make fighters more powerful by adding tactical options or by fiddling with the numbers to increase their raw power. You can make mages less powerful too. But as long as there are haves and have-nots (with regards to the ability to teleport, read minds, and imprison people's souls) "balance" is going to be hard. At best, you get the fighters feeling useful (truthfully, this has always been the case for most people's games anyway).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 5, 2011)

Visigani said:


> As I mentioned in another one of my posts.... the desire for fighters shouldn't be to increase their damage but to REDUCE the damage of the caster classes.




Damage from wizard-types is not the problem, though.

Reducing damage done by wizards is just making the already-weakest aspect of being a wizard weaker, forcing them ever more into the waiting arms of battlefield control - which is where the wizard really, truly shines to begin with!



> then INCREASE the Fighters microtool abilities you'll find Fighters become a much much more appealing member of the group.




This, I think, is really the only viable way to make the Fighter more interesting / useful.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 5, 2011)

Wizards are _more_ balanced when they are casting damage spells. It's when they start tearing apart the fabric of reality that the Fighters start feeling left behind because then the wizards are _playing an entirely different game_. Kind of like what Matter-Muncher Lad feels when he's in a team with Dr. Strange, Thanatos, and the God-damn Batman.


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 7, 2011)

Probably the easiest fix for making non casters on par with casters is to skew treasure tables in favor of non casters. 
I would challenge any one here to find a literary or mythological example of warrior hero who, through skill of arms alone, stands with high level caster types. Usually the non casters need some kind of "edge" to be useful in books and what not. This usually comes in the form of some kind of uber background/heritage or the fact that they are the bearer of some mythic artifact.

One just has to look at the Drizzt series. Those guy roll with a party of only warrior types yet still manage to get stuff done. But all of them are totally rocking heavy magic items. Jar Laxl (sp?) is a master of this and shows up casters who underestimate him quite often.

So really the easiest fix is to make sure non casters get the gear they need to do the job. When Xzrkeyrix the Fire Master shows up the Fighter damn well better have something that protects him from fire....


----------



## Dandu (Aug 7, 2011)

I would be interested in participating in a playtest where fighters get full WBL and spellcasters get 25-50% WBL.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 7, 2011)

Dandu said:


> I would be interested in participating in a playtest where fighters get full WBL and spellcasters get 25-50% WBL.




I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me.

I still think the best thing to do is have longer casting times allowing for interruption by other than readied actions, and nerf concentration.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2011)

Rather than increasing the damage martial classes do, which is already significant compared to the casters, I think a better balancing mechanism would be to increase the unreliability of the encounter-ending/controlling spells. In 1e/2e, save difficulty wasn't based on the level of the spell nor ability modifier of the caster. It was inherent to the power of the target. I wouldn't want to go completely back there, but improving the defenses of targets may be of use.

Instead of the weak save being based on 1/3 level (or HD), make all saves based on 1/2 level like the strong save, just give the strong save the +2 bonus.

Cap PC stat and monster HD bonuses to save DCs. 1e/2e didn't have any stats over 25. I'd consider going to 26 for PCs to get to the next even number. I'd also keep HD from contributing more than +10 to a monster's special ability DC.

For controlling spells, build in 2 saves - maybe the first failure dazes for a round, the second failure brings on the whole effect. All controlling enchantment spells in which the save is failed thus generate at least some effect, but perhaps not the whole enchilada. And there's an inherent delay in charm/dominate effects being able to swing the target's impact on the fight.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 7, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me.
> 
> I still think the best thing to do is have longer casting times allowing for interruption by other than readied actions, and nerf concentration.




First, to the OP...balance is an illusion. Balance suggests a empircal comparison which is nigh impossible in a PnP RPG. The best you can talk about is "fairness" and that is subjective. D&D 1e was never meant to be "balanced." The DM was supposed to make balance irrelevant. As D&D has evolved, it has moved towards this concept of balance...which is ultimately going to be an albatross arounnd its neck. You can't balance things that do not all conform to some unit of measurement. What exactly would that be in a PnP game? Damage?  Only about 1/3 of my campaigns require actual killing to earn experience.

So what happens is D&D is forced to a balance powers and feats and actions so that no choice is any more or less "powerful" than any other. You see this with MMORPG's. Take a game like City of Heroes. All 1st tier attacks are balanced along the same scale: Recharge, Damage, Endurance. This means that power can _feel _different, but all be equally effective. In other words, the mathmatical DPS is nearly identical. You can't do this with D&D...without fundamental changes: enter 4e.

However, I do agree that when class ability/power is too out of whack, it can make it difficult for characters to operate in the same campaign. That having been said, I think kittyitch's idea is a very very good one. By forcing a caster to take 4 rounds to cast Fireball, you basically require that caster to rely on the burly types to protect her. It also means that in a 1v1 fight, a caster is not going to be able to pull out the heavy artillary and simply blast the fighter into oblivion. Similarly, you allow defensive spells and utility spells a shorter time so that survival is easy, victory is not. 

I think this is really the best way and the least game breaking way to mitigate the imbalance. Too bad WotC didn't adopt it, play test it, and give us a strong guidelines for setting those casting times.


----------



## Visigani (Aug 7, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Damage from wizard-types is not the problem, though.
> 
> Reducing damage done by wizards is just making the already-weakest aspect of being a wizard weaker, forcing them ever more into the waiting arms of battlefield control - which is where the wizard really, truly shines to begin with!
> 
> ...






You're misunderstanding.


You can't have a Fighter-Wizard... you already have a Wizard so the Wizard's sphere of influence... macro-tools is already handily covered. Giving the Wizard the ability to do all kinds of crazy things is fine and dandy. However, it's Damage that tends to kill the overwhelming vast number of opponents. Reducing their HP until they fall over dead.

See, it's difference spheres of influence... Damage achieves one thing... Macro Tools achieve another. If you completely removed the Wizards ability to cause damage he may still be able to kill things and handily, but he would have to be much more judicious on the whole with what he did because spells and abilities that deal HP damage wholesale tend to come much cheaper than say... a mass insta death spell.


Leave the Wizard with his primary focus on the macro tools... if the Fighter has damage and is the primary damager he'll have a significant place at the table because his ability to kill will be much more efficient than the wizards and less costly to the group overall.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 8, 2011)

> Leave the Wizard with his primary focus on the macro tools... if the  Fighter has damage and is the primary damager he'll have a significant  place at the table because his ability to kill will be much more  efficient than the wizards and less costly to the group overall.



He will be indispensable in the same way that a company cannot do without janitors.


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 8, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me...



Well I just went back to the source material on that one. Namely books and mythology. Warrior type heroes always need something to go up against  world shaking magic in the stories. Often this comes in the form of uber items when it doesn't come from such items it seems to come from the form of a unique heritage, like demi-god, chosen one, or child of prophecy. Unless you can convince your DM to make the warrior character one of those things listed above a few bad ass items are the easiest fix. Heck what's Perseus without his shield, Aragorn without Narsil, Huma sans Dragonlance, Arthur without Excalibur. High level guys need high level stuff.


----------



## Ashtagon (Aug 8, 2011)

One thing I noticed in an examination of 1e/2e save tables is that fighters start with the worst saves in all areas, but end with the best saves in all areas. There's no way to replicate this exactly in 3e using the usual templates, but I would be strongly tempted to allow the fighter a number of daily save re-rolls equal to his class level. That way, by 20th level he will probably choose to routinely roll twice.

Re-roll for this purpose means any/all (as the player desires) of the following:

* When asked to roll a save, simultaneously roll two dice and pick the best one.
* One round after a failed save, re-roll one die, as long as the character is not actually dead (some GM adjudication may be needed here regarding 'permanent' effects).
* If you attempted a re-roll in a previous round and failed, as long as you have attempted a re-roll each and every previous round consecutively (and failed, presumably), you may spend another re-roll to attempt the save again.

Other classes that in 1e/2e used the fighter save table could also have this feature, but perhaps with 1/2 or 1/3 as many daily uses.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 12, 2011)

A question I have for the DM's regarding Wizard/Sorc power at high levels.  I am not seeing anything in d20 SRD that says Wizards get to choose which new spells they get..or what spells are available.  Quoting SRD



> At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.




I've read Jkaron's Tier system and in all the examples, he acts as if Wizards always have access to any spell they want and any material components.   Do most DM's just allow Wizards to go buy _Dimensional Anchor _and _Contact Other Plane _willy nilly? Clearly if you let a Wizard/Sorc have access to any spell they want, I can see how it gets out of control...but isn't Spell availability meant to be the exact way a DM control's the power of  an arcane spell caster?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 12, 2011)

*Spells Gained at a New Level*

Wizards  perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each  time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her  choice to add to her spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell  levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of  magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 12, 2011)

Dandu said:


> *Spells Gained at a New Level*
> 
> Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.




That still leaves plenty of room to say "her choice" is limited to spells that are available to her...which the DM controls. There is nothing in the RAW that says she gets to actually choose from the _list_ of spells in the all the books there are containing spells.  Yes, you could read it that the wizard gets to choose from every spell in existence....and this would include spells in Maztica for which she has never heard of, seen cast, or knew existed.  How much sense would that make?

It seems this is the crux of the problem for Wizards/Sorcs.  Interpreting "her choice" as still being limited to whats available seems to be the simpliest solution to prevent spells like Scrying and Greater Teleportation from ruining the campaign.

Likewise with Divine casters, since the higher level spells are granted by a Deity, there's no reason why the DM can't say...your DM does not grant you that spell at this time.   Anybody here claim to know how God works?  Well, Deity's have their own motivations and they are beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.  Problem solved.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 12, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> That still leaves plenty of room to say "her choice" is limited to spells that are available to her...which the DM controls.




Yes, you can houserule things.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 12, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Yes, you can houserule things.




Where does the RAW say the Wizard chooses from any spell published by WotC?

Here's what I found...

PHB p 57

​
At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that​she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.​I don't see anything that says the choice is based on every source book available. Let's look back at what Dandu quoted...

PHB p. 179
​
Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. *These spells represent the results of her research.*​
Dandu leaves out the most pertinant part of the text "These spells represent the resuls of her research." Just as a DM can say there is no information available on any number of things players may want to research, the DM has the right to determine the accessibility of any researchable knowlege for any given spell. 

How is it a house ruling to say X town doesn't have a Wizard's Guild or the Guild is not accepting new members or nobody seems to know the spell you are trying to research or you simply aren't given access to these spells. Just as the book says not all campaigns have access to all magic items...the same is true for spells.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I am still not seenig any RAW that requires a DM to let a Wizard access any spell in any book published by WotC. In the absense of such a requirement, I fail to see how denying access to certain spells would be a house rule. Ergo, the power of Wizards to change the fabric of the game is entirely dependent on the availability of such reality altering spells....something entirely under the control of the DM per the RAW.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 12, 2011)

_What piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties, in form and moving,
how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension,
how like a god!_


----------



## kitcik (Aug 12, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Where does the RAW say the Wizard chooses from any spell published by WotC?
> 
> Here's what I found...
> 
> ...




Under RAW, every sourcebook is created equally. There is no preference to core over WOTC splats. Therefore, "choice" under RAW implies a choice from everything available, unless RAW says otherwise (like a spell that says "this spell's only available to halfllings who were born in the ding dong region" or whatever).




Arrowhawk said:


> Dandu leaves out the most pertinant part of the text "These spells represent the resuls of her research." Just as a DM can say there is no information available on any number of things players may want to research, the DM has the right to determine the accessibility of any researchable knowlege for any given spell.




Absolutely, that is a house rule.



Arrowhawk said:


> How is it a house ruling to say X town doesn't have a Wizard's Guild or the Guild is not accepting new members or nobody seems to know the spell you are trying to research or you simply aren't given access to these spells. Just as the book says not all campaigns have access to all magic items...the same is true for spells.




RAW does not specify the type of research that must be done. Maybe the wiz can figure out the spells on their own as they experiment? In any case, the bottom line is that restrictions based on a non-RAW campaign setting are, by definition, house rules.

For some reason, you seem to take offense at "house rules." I am not sure why. House rules are the backbone of D&D and no campaign can be run without them. 



Arrowhawk said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but I am still not seenig any RAW that requires a DM to let a Wizard access any spell in any book published by WotC. In the absense of such a requirement, I fail to see how denying access to certain spells would be a house rule.




See above.



Arrowhawk said:


> Ergo, the power of Wizards to change the fabric of the game is entirely dependent on the availability of such reality altering spells....something entirely under the control of the DM per the RAW.




Well, yes, RAW does state that the DM can make any ruling. I guess under this interpretation, ANY house rule is actually RAW. However, that kind of kills the basis for discussion.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 12, 2011)

In addition to kitcik's comments, if a book's available, it's available.  If you're playing with the PHB and Spell Compendium, then those books are available, and the spells listed within them are available.  If the DM wants to specifically limit certain spells, then he needs to make a house rule about the availability of those certain spells.

The spells a wizard gets for leveling being the result of their research is no different than the feats a fighter gets for leveling being the result of his practice.  Sure, you can limit the availability of certain feats, too, but that is also a house rule.

"House Rule" isn't a dirty word.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Under RAW, every sourcebook is created equally. There is no preference to core over WOTC splats. Therefore, "choice" under RAW implies a choice from everything available




You'll need to show me that in Raw. I did find this on page 6 of the DMG:

​
Choose the rule that you like the best, then stick with it for the​rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules​adjudication.
​That suggests that choosing the "rule" the DM like best allows the DM to disallow splat books or even spells as the DM sees fit. Splat books are "supplemental" to core books. 





> Absolutely, that is a house rule.




A "house rule" is a deviation from the official rules. Making decisions about what _is available in your campaign_ is required by the official rules. It is not a deviation from the rules. There is no official rule that says everything that exists in any book is always available to any player. In fact the rules state and encourage the opposite to achieve balance.

There is a categorical difference between saying a spell doesn't exist versus deciding the player doesn't have access to a certain spell due to the campaign setting. 



> RAW does not specify the type of research that must be done.



 yeah, I don't think RAW needs to spell out that if you're researching rubber duckies, you're not going to invent an airplane. Or that you can't research an airplane if no one in your campaign knows what it is or has ever seen one in action. 




> RAW does not specify the type of research that must be done. Maybe the wiz can figure out the spells on their own as they experiment?



 Except that the PHB specifically says the Wizard's dable in "minor magic." I don't think Greater Teleportation constitutes "minor magic"



> In any case, the bottom line is that restrictions based on a non-RAW campaign setting are, by definition, house rules.




What exactly is a Non-Raw campaign setting? Here's what DMG says on Page 6

​
Every Dungeon Master is the *creator of his or her own campaign*​
world. Whether you use the G
​
REYHAWK® setting (the standard
D&D campaign setting) or another published setting for the D&D
game, such as the ​​
_FORGOTTEN REALMS® Campaign Setting_, it’s still
your world.
The setting is more than just a backdrop for adventures, although
it’s that too. The setting is *everything *in the fictional world​except for the PCs and the adventure plot
​Emphasis added.

Even if you interpret that to mean you _have to_ use a published campaign setting, none of the ones I've read tell you what spells are and are not available.

I did find this little tidbit in the PHB p 179.

*With the DM’s permission*, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells theygain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of (see Spells in the sorcerer description, page 54).​
​Emphasis Added.

Even if we concede the Sorc/Bard gets any spell in the PHB, this rule explicitly seems to give the DM discretion over any other source for spells.



> For some reason, you seem to take offense at "house rules."



 Offense? No. But the label is incorrect and seems to be thrown around to undermine the fact that the balance issue ...really isn't there in terms of how the game is supposed to be run. If people say there is a way to deal with X problem and the response is "oh that's house ruling," that's tantamount to saying, no, you haven't solved the problem.


It is a core principal in D&D that the DM's take actions to balance the game. If DM's shirk that responsibility, it is invalid to say things are unbalanced while ignoring the most crucial instrument designed to enforce balance.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 12, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> In addition to kitcik's comments, if a book's available, it's available.



 And is there somwhere in the RAW that says you have to play with the Spell Compendium?



> The spells a wizard gets for leveling being the result of their research



  As stated, consider the DM creates the entire fictional world, I see no deviation from RAW to tell a player, "you are not able to find any information on how to cast X spell."

i







> is no different than the feats a fighter gets for leveling being the result of his practice.



 Speaking of which, what do the rule say about leveling up?  Does it happen instantenously along the learning of new feats or do characters have to train? I've found conflicting information on the topic.



> Sure, you can limit the availability of certain feats, too, but that is also a house rule.



  Except were' not eliminating the feat and the rules don't expicitly say that a fighter has to do "research" to learn a feat.   And I seriously disagree that it would be houseruling to say a character who lives in the desert and who has never seen a body of water larger than a mudhole isn't going to be able to take ranks in Swim or take the Swim feat.   

Essentially you're mixing apples and oranges.  Research and training are completely different.  Researching requries that information exists.  Training implies you already know how to do the activity, you're just not good at it.



> "House Rule" isn't a dirty word.



 Never said it was, just that you're using it inaccruately.   You have to show a explicit rule that is being deviated from for it to be a house rule.  Deciding on the availability of certain items or things based on campaign setting is not a deviation of the rules and is in fact, encouraged by them.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Well, yes, RAW does state that the DM can make any ruling. I guess under this interpretation, ANY house rule is actually RAW. However, that kind of kills the basis for discussion.




Your entire argument is based on this - that any house rule is RAW because the rules say the DM can do whatever they want.

As I stated, this kills the basis for discussion.

You clearly know this and are trolling.

Therefore, you may blithely respond as frequently as you wish. The point is made. If you choose to ignore reality in your vain attempt to "win," that is your choice. Have at it!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 13, 2011)

Some DM's also think a Fighter needs to spend weeks of downtime training to learn his feats.  Or that a Rogue who just spent 5 weeks in a desert and leveled up, and wishes to put ranks in swim for their upcoming naval adventure canot because he was "unable to practice swimming" over the last level.

Hurray for DM fiat, the cause of, and solution to, all of gaming's problems!

[sblock]In case you can't tell, I think that's a horrible idea.  A DM arbitrarily limiting the wizard in his spell research, not because a spell is deemed overpowered, but merely to give him a hard time in some stupid attempt to "balance" him with the Fighter is awful.  I would leave the game.  Even if I was the Fighter he was trying to "help."[/sblock]


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 13, 2011)

*Semantics*

One could argue that the entire purpose of this thread is to discuss houserule suggestions, but anyhoo...

I would definately suggest that any GM who feels they need to restrict spell acquisition make it clear up front what those restrictions are, since being told on a case by case basis that you can't have something can feel rather arbitrary.  Additionally, if you have not approached the problem in a systematic way prior to a player asking for the spell, it is unlikely that you are doing something balancing.  Few things feel less fair then an on the fly 'you can't have that' that doesn't have a well thought out explaination.  Another problem is that some builds rely on the availability of specific spells or at least don't work well without them, and if you have been building toward something and are told at the last minute that you can't have it, it would be understandably frustrating.

I am currently in a game that heavily restricts what spells a wizard or sorcerer can cast, roughly, all wizards are restricted one of 6 six 'wizard schools', each of is restricted to (roughly) 3 schools of spells plus some universal ones.  Sorcerers can only get spells from the PHB except by spending a feat per spell from another source but suffer no school restrictions.  

Additionally, Cleric spellcasting is a full round action for all spells that are not healing or domain spells.

The GM has stated that he is doing this to reduce that power of spell casters in the game. 

No one at the complains since we know what the rules are ahead of time.  No one is playing a arcane spellcaster either. 

I was in another game where access to teleportation magic longer range then dimension door was heavily restricted, and acquiring it carried certain risks due to the likely attention of a very power NPC.

He specifically wanted it to take time to travel from place to place as part of the campaign.  Never have I gotten so much use out of phantom steed.

Again, this was all fine with the players because it was known ahead of time.

The gist of all of this is that the GM sets the restrictions and the players will respond by playing what they feel will be fun within that framework.  That said, there will still be people who play characters that are more powerful then others, it will just change what that is.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

> Sorcerers can only get spells from the PHB except by spending a feat  per spell from another source but suffer no school restrictions.



You know, I can't help but feel there's going to be a _slight_ problem with that rule.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 13, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Your entire argument is based on this - that any house rule is RAW because the rules say the DM can do whatever they want.



No, it doesn't.  But if that's your way to "win" the argument, more power to you.


A house rule, by definition, is one that deviates from RAW.  If RAW does not expressely forbid something, then doing it is not house ruling. Show me a single sentence anywhere in any of the books that require every single spell or magic item be available..in every splatbook.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 13, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Some DM's also think a Fighter needs to spend weeks of downtime training to learn his feats. Or that a Rogue who just spent 5 weeks in a desert and leveled up, and wishes to put ranks in swim for their upcoming naval adventure canot because he was "unable to practice swimming" over the last level.
> 
> Hurray for DM fiat, the cause of, and solution to, all of gaming's problems!




And you think it makes sense that character who has never put a rank in Swim...has never swam in any adventure, has spent his whole life in the desert, by his own discription...is going to spontaneously learn how to swim?   

Hurray for player fiat.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

> A house rule, by definition, is one that deviates from RAW.  If RAW does not expressely forbid something, then doing it is not house ruling.



1. *Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.* 
A  human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the  rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue  running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly  list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every  single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core  rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would  likely cost as much as a Ferrari.
2. *"The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.* 
The  second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that  the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly  say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back  to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say  your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton  and cybernetic weaponry.

This is because the rules are structured  in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An  underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which  anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a  given ability.
-Caelic, the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization



> And you think it makes sense that character who has never put a rank in  Swim...has never swam in any adventure, has spent his whole life in the  desert, by his own discription...is going to spontaneously learn how to  swim?



Perhaps he practiced in an oasis.


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 13, 2011)

Dandu said:


> You know, I can't help but feel there's going to be a _slight_ problem with that rule.




You noticed I said no one is playing an arcanist, but what specifically did you have in mind?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

TheEvil said:


> You noticed I said no one is playing an arcanist, but what specifically did you have in mind?



Allow me to demonstrate.


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 13, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Allow me to demonstrate.




Nice build to keep in mind, though the lack of a spell list hampers the analysis.  Was there something you were trying to point out besides that being restricted to PHB isn't that bad?  Not trying to be snarky, it has just been a long day and my brain is on a bit of auto-pilot.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

TheEvil said:


> Nice build to keep in mind, though the lack of a spell list hampers the analysis.  Was there something you were trying to point out besides that being restricted to PHB isn't that bad?  Not trying to be snarky, it has just been a long day and my brain is on a bit of auto-pilot.



In that case, I will forgive you for failing your spot check to notice that little box under the skills list that says "Reveal spell list".


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

Jon_Dahl said:


> I know I'm beating a dead horse, but how about this house rule:
> 
> Reasoning: I feel that casters overshadow fighter (and other noncasters) after mid-levels. However if all 10th-level fighters with a longswords would hit for 1d8+level+other modifiers for damage, this would even things.
> 
> ...




No 1 class is better than any other, yes spell casters require less thinking to deal massive damage, but fighters can deal massive damage as well, an epic level chavalierman with ranks in fighter could crit at as much as a x8! (lance charge x5, lance crt x3, and +1 great critical) mesh that with a +5 lance and whatever is on the receiving end of that +power attack is dead.(yeah, Skhimet, this was the end goal  )  In my opinion, the balance is shifted when casters reach max damage dice (usually 15D6), as you see, max on that spell is 90, however, melee combatants can keep growing stronger and finding new ways to improve their damage.

So my suggestion, is to slap your fighters and tell them to use their imaginations for once 

==hope I could help==


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

You may want to read over that bit where it was pointed out that the most powerful spells do not deal damage.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

yeah, they have auto kill spells, really easy to negate, I mean common what's 25K to gain a +8 fort save?  you can get that on your armor without even using a +anything, also numerous items prevent death effects, and their are easy ways to improve will as well, and well why not, I'll have boots of dimensional anchoring too   also SR is spendy to get, but at epic you gain it anyway, and it stacks with magical items.   and improved evasion dominates all damage spells, so that leaves... Power word stuff, and necromancy, can't do much for harm but it has a dice cap


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast, would you care to see a practical demonstration? Say, a level 20 match that is either a PVP or two PCs working together to fight a bunch of monsters? I feel that I can demonstrate to you what you fail to see.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

As the DM you could easily set me up against a combat that I would loose, likewise I could smoke an epic spell caster in 2 rounds if I were the DM, I don't think it would prove much


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

I would, of course, suggest a neutral third party or yourself, whom I trust to be fair and balanced.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

I don't know how to play online, I'm a pen and paper kind of guy, does it work the same way (I just tell you guys stats and such?)


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

There's a dice roller on the forum.

If you do not wish to do this online, I understand. It can be difficult.

Would you care to entertain a thought experiment?

Let's talk about power; there are two things when it comes to power. There is peak power, and there is breadth of power. A sorcerer build like this has, would you not say, quite a bit of breadth? You've got illusions, invisibility, teleportation, planar travel, summoning, buffing, and other useful spells. Basically, useful on and off the battlefield, correct?

What of the fighter you mentioned earlier? At level 20, what is his breadth of power?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

I am well aware of a spell casters numerous abilities (as I myself play an almost epic Lv Cleric) But as the fact stands that not all of them are useful at anytime, the end goal remains the same, to vanquish the enemy. (we're talking combat here)  You have buff magic, fighters have much more health, also and desired magical effect that I should find to be useful, I can purchase.  So to address your argument, yes it is true, that fighters are slightly less versatile when fighting unconventional enemies.  But fighters do not need to hide, or flee. 

As my DM once told me, there are 4 types of players in D and D

-- Those who say, I will hit you many times, and you can try to hit me once (dex fighters)

-- Those who say, hit me if you want, but I will hit you harder (Str fighters)

-- Those who say, try to hit me, my armor is to thick, and me DR is champ (tanks)

-- And then those who say, I'll hang back and attack from here/aid my allies (archers/spell casters)

They are wide categories but I felt that they would help solidify my point

(btw have you played a melee combatant before?)


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

sorry for the grammar mistakes it's 2:20 AM here, and I am to tired to proof read


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

So let us take as given that fighters are less versatile than spellcasters. Are they at least better at fighting? Clerics and Druids are better at melee combat than a Fighter is - this is pretty much given on the Charop forums and has been shown through many, many builds.

What about arcane spellcasters? I'd wager that my sorcerer could overcome any challenge your fighter could, and more besides since he has greater peak and breadth of power. Throw out some example challenges and monsters and we can continue the thought experiment.




> (btw have you played a melee combatant before?)



_Through the travail of ages, midst the pomp and toils of war, have I   fought and strove and perished countless times amidst the stars._


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

first off cleric and druid get 3/4 BAB, and if they should so choose to pressure melee combat, they loose spell casting abilities (mostly through feats)

And, we'll keep it simple a red dragon, very old, cr 21 (your 22 right?)


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast said:


> first off cleric and druid get 3/4 BAB, and if they should so choose to pressure melee combat, they loose spell casting abilities (mostly through feats)



Clerics get Divine Power, Druids get Wildshape and Shapechange.

Neither loses spellcasting should they choose to start beating people up. Alright, Druids have to take a feat (Natural Spell) but the point still stands.

But wait a moment and think about something; are you saying that the _entirety of the Character Optimization forums_ does not know what they are doing when they talk about the melee capabilities of the fighter class when it comes to CoDzilla?



> And, we'll keep it simple a red dragon, very old, cr 21 (your 22 right?)



Age wise? Yeah. Build wise? Level 20. 

First, tell me how your fighter overcomes the red dragon.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

The dragon casts as a 13th level sorcerer. Let's give it some spells. How fortunate that I have a level 13 sorcerer already built.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

very well, I will play that part of the mentioned knight (cavalier), But I will instead weild a +5 Blessed Impaling mercurial longsword 1D8 (19-20x4) (huge sized for me) so 3D6.  I would also activate Power critical (declare 1 crit. threat per day, fighter bonus feat) and impaling, I hit the touch AC of the dragon naturally (str mod is 6), it's only a 6 
Blessed auto confirms threat, and at full power attack +40 (two handed)

So...
40+5 enh +6 str+3(cavalier bonus charge damage)+2 charge +3D6=56 +3D6 x7+1(great crit) so x8 equals... 448 +9D6


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

so 477 dmg, it had 449 hit points, soooooo it dead


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

How are you getting the drop on it? In its den or out in the open? How are you avoiding an attack of opportunity from moving through threatened squares? What about the fact that a level 13 sorcerer has access to Contingency which can protect the dragon?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

they have no init bonus, and they are usually not hard to find considering their size, but for circumstantial sake, we were informed of it's location by our guild leader or whoever your boss is, it was an extermination mission, we needed its moneis!


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

and as for the druids and clerics, I was referring to the fact that if the wanted to become combat orientated, they would not have any room for meta magic feats


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast said:


> and as for the druids and clerics, I was referring to the fact that if the wanted to become combat orientated, they would not have any room for meta magic feats



Clerics become combat focused through the feats Extend Spell, Persist Spell, and Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell. I'm pretty sure these are metamagic feats.



> they have no init bonus



Too bad Contingency works regardless of Int bonus. What is your plan to defeat a contingent Dimension Door?



> and they are usually not hard to find  considering their size, but for circumstantial sake, we were informed of  it's location by our guild leader or whoever your boss is, it was an  extermination mission, we needed its moneis!



Was the dragon just sitting on the ground waiting to be impaled, or was it flying overhead, or what?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

guarding it's treasure in it's cave like many dragons tend to do


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Does the terrain prevent you from charging?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

no it's a smooth floor


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

What if it has a contingent Dimension Door to evade you?

Also, how are you evading its Blindsense 60 ft in such close quarters so as to surprise it?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

not surprising it, beating it's init, once it senses me, my movement speed on a mount is say 240, using a cavalier Ex ability. which would leave it 1.5 seconds to react, not even long enough to use a standard action


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Are you aware of how Contingency works?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

yes, and in this case it works out to my favor


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

So what you are saying is that even if the dragon had a Contingency set for a Dimension Door in the event that someone attacks him, you would hit the dragon anyways.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

why would a red dragon have a dimensional door prepared?!?!  They hardly ever scrutinize the intruder prior to attacking, due to the fact that they are proud beasts, therefore, it is highly unlikely that one would have such anti measures (btw heck yes I would hit it! I have dimensionally anchoring boots as previously mentioned)


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

1. Dimension Door is a good spell for tactical mobility.
2. A very old red dragon has Int 16. A basic defensive tactic in case people charge it is not out of character. A dragon does not get to be old by being _stupid_.
3. Given that dragons get involved in melee combat a lot, I fail to see why an experienced dragon would not have some sort of defense against surprise.
4. What book are dimensionally anchoring boots from and what do they do?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Now, this is how I am going to do it. There are many ways to kill a dragon, but James Solomon Ozymandias is going for the most outrageous.

I walk into his lair Shapechanged into a Minotaur, flip him off with both hands, insult his mother, conceding both initiative and the surprise round to him.

CrazyNinja, you have the stats for a dragon on the SRD here, and you have spells for a level 13 sorcerer. The next move is yours.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

magic item compendium, I though he was using the door to warp me, they anchor me to my current plane.

Regardless, using that spell consumes a whole turn, I could simply charge him next with the same bonuses


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast said:


> magic item compendium, I though he was using the door to warp me, they anchor me to my current plane.



... No, it's to distance himself from you.


> Regardless, using that spell consumes a whole turn, I could simply charge him next with the same bonuses



Despite the fact that he will a) be a long distance away and b) in another chamber if we're fighting in close quarters?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

if he runs, I'll loot and leave, if not, i'd chase and charge, lather rinse repeat, enough with the contingencies, yes he could do numerous things, but with ample planning i could avoid all of them to achieve the same result, a dead dragon


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Except - and here's the thing - if it becomes a protected battle, you now fighting an alert dragon in his own base. Want to give me the odds on that?


Also, you seemed to have missed this from earlier.


Dandu said:


> Now, this is how I am going to do it. There are many ways to kill a dragon, but James Solomon Ozymandias is going for the most outrageous.
> 
> I walk into his lair Shapechanged into a Minotaur, flip him off with  both hands, insult his mother, conceding both initiative and the  surprise round to him.
> 
> CrazyNinja, you have the stats for a dragon on the SRD here, and you have spells for a level 13 sorcerer. The next move is yours.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

sorry about about that I didn't notice the edit


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

the dragon shrinks you, then attempts to snatch you

D20 1 -- sr

D20 2 -- Grapple +56


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

lol xD


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

you have sr I assume?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Not at all.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

lol, then beat a 69 grapple check


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

You know you can't cast Shrink Item on a person, and furthermore, you can't actually attack in the same around as you cast a standard action spell, right?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

actually you can't, even if you nat 20


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

sorry I know nothing about spells, you gave me a link to a character sheet not a spell list, so I just assumed that since enlarge is 1st shrink would be in there to


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Look under the skill list, check the box to display spells.

Now, I must apologize for this deception; I am afraid that I have led you on.

The dragon's actions actually do not matter. Here's why.

You know the Feather Fall spell? It's an immediate action spell that can be cast at any time. Obviously, you can't cast this when you're flatfooted, such as before you act in combat, but there's a funny thing about minotaurs... they're never flat footed.

So I cast Feather Fall as the dragon moves to grapple me. Fair?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

hey it was right there, reduce person, level 1 spell


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Reduce Person allows a fort save and takes up the standard action you would normally use to, say, attack me - but as in the post right above yours, it really doesn't matter what the dragon chooses to do.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

both you and the dragon are on the ground I do not get the cleverness of the spell xD

Also roll fort then


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

If you look at the Contingency spell, you'll notice that the trigger can be any condition. This is very useful because "I cast Feather Fall" is a condition.

Fair?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

in addition grappling is a standard action, like the spell so I can do both


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

I still don't understand how falling slowly regardless of the occasion will help you at all, against being grabbed


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

1. You only get one standard action a round. _If you do not understand this you should not be posting about D&D rules.
_2. It's not the falling part... it's the part where you can trigger a Contingent spell to activate when you cast Feather Fall. I'm choosing Dimension Door set to teleport up 800 feet. Fair?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

besides you need to be in a state of free fall to cast that spell anyways so I still am confused


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

dandu said:


> 1. you only get one standard action a round. _if you do not understand this you should not be posting about d&d rules.
> _2. It's not the falling part... It's the part where you can trigger a contingent spell to activate when you cast feather fall. I'm choosing dimension door set to teleport up 800 feet. Fair?



you aren't falling!!!!!


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Irrelevant; you can cast it any time. It only has a benefit when you are falling.

But do you accept that I can cast it before the dragon lands a hit, trigger a Contingency, and teleport 800 feet upwards?


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

sure you can ^_^ although you fail your mission if you flee


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

nah actually lets be a jerk, anti magic field 1st level blocking capabilities


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

_I have not yet begun to fight._

The dragon's turn is now over and I am now 800 feet above... and probably falling. It is now my turn, correct?



> nah actually lets be a jerk, anti magic field 1st level blocking capabilities



That sentence doesn't actually mean anything.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

not so fast, my dragon had said anti magic item in it's treasure trove, the effect never happened, you are still there, roll fort please


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

When I said I trusted you to be fair and balanced, I assumed you would not pull out antimagic items that 1) do not exist in the books, 2) affect a space much larger than a 10 ft radius, 3) did not affect the fighter and 4) do not affect the rather large dragon in the room.

Let me be frank here; if your intent is to say "The DM can come up with any situation to nullify your abilities" then yes, you are correct. However, that is not what is being discussed here, is it? It is the ability of two classes to overcome a challenge designed to see if either class is overpowered.

Also, Shrink Item can be used to make shrunken cone hats that turn into large hats upon entering an AMF, which then envelope the wearer, which then cuts off line of Effect, which then allows for Teleportation. If you _really_ want to go this route.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

it was in the doorway that you so rudely entered in through, and it was a basic safety measure, after all dragons don't grow old by being stupid, now it's your move, and roll you fort


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Crazyninja, do you realize that 1) it is very poor form to retroactively change the situation to suit your needs, especially when it involves using items that do not exist in any book and 2) you can't cast a spell on someone in an AMF (with minor exceptions that Reduce Person does not qualify for).

Also, if we're really doing this, 3) Shrunken hat cuts off Line of Effect.


----------



## CrazyNinjabeast (Aug 13, 2011)

actually no, why do I care, pardon my language but your obviously a bigot,  and can't be reasoned with.  melee combatants can be just as resourceful as spell casters, and that is the last you will hear from me regarding the matter


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast said:


> actually no, why do I care, pardon my  language but your obviously a bigot,  and can't be reasoned with.  melee  combatants can be just as resourceful as spell casters, and that is the  last you will hear from me regarding the matter




If I have offended you, I apologize, but my intent was to show that a spellcaster could basically give up a huge tactical advantage and still come out ahead, something that I remain willing to do if you are interested in seeing the strategy I had in mind.

Spoiler: It involved Time Stop and Gate to summon a Dream Larvae.

Also, I urge you to edit your post in case a moderator infracts you for flaming, which would be most unfortunate.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Aug 13, 2011)

Dandu, that use for Gate to summon a Dream Larvae makes me nauseous.  Sure it requires a 20th level caster, but that only goes to show how insane high-level campaigns can get.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

If it makes you feel better, that was only intended as a demonstration of maximum power. Under normal circumstanced I'd just Summon Monster 7 something and maybe PAO it into something useful.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Aug 13, 2011)

dandu said:


> if it makes you feel better, that was only intended as a demonstration of maximum power. Under normal circumstanced i'd just summon monster 7 something and maybe pao it into something useful.



pao?

Grr, dumb thing won't let me edit probably: PAO?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 13, 2011)

Polymorph Any Object.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Aug 13, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Polymorph Any Object.



Darn, I was hoping it was Punt All Orphans or something.

Admittedly the spell could create very puntable orphans.  Moreso than the stereotypical ones already are.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 13, 2011)

CrazyNinjabeast said:


> actually no, why do I care, pardon my language but your obviously a bigot,  and can't be reasoned with.





CrazyNinjabeast, you're new to the boards, and perhaps you didn't read in detail when you signed up, so let me introduce you to the Rules of EN World.

*Rule #1: Keep it civil.*  That means no personal insults or name calling.  Specifically, calling someone a "bigot" (which has hefty racist overtones) overall disagreement about game classes is uncalled for.  Furthermore, failing to agree with you or find your points convincing does not equate to "can't be reasoned with".

Keep it cool.  There's very little being discussed on these boards that is more important than the people you're discussing with.  There's rarely going to be anything that justifies attacking the person behind the post.  I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 13, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> And is there somwhere in the RAW that says you have to play with the Spell Compendium?




Of course not.  But, presumably, you are playing with the PHB?

Then, line-item vetoing spells from the PHB is a house rule.

Similarly, including the SC is a house rule; line-item vetoing spells from the SC is another HR (or, depending on perspective, a modification of the HR to include it).



> As stated, consider the DM creates the entire fictional world, I see no deviation from RAW to tell a player, "you are not able to find any information on how to cast X spell."




Whereas I'm pretty certain that counts as a house rule.  You're taking away a spell from the PHB.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 14, 2011)

So you admittedly don't know anything about spells, think an intelligent flying creature amidst a treasure hoard leaves a smooth floor for a ground-based creature to charge across, don't understand how actions work, think that a dragon has an AMF in its entrance but no alarm or any defense set up against a knight on a horse charging into its lair, etc., etc., etc.

But you do think you are qualified to determine that "no one class is better than any other" in the face of every charop board in the known universe.

Dang it, you've got us. I'm playing a monk.


----------



## Ettin (Aug 14, 2011)

Is it me, or does the pro-fighter side of the "Wizards are/aren't overpowered" argument always boil down to "Well, if I get enough magic items to emulate a wizard..."


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Aug 14, 2011)

Ettin said:


> Is it me, or does the pro-fighter side of the "Wizards are/aren't overpowered" argument always boil down to "Well, if I get enough magic items to emulate a wizard..."




Oftentimes it does, which is probably indicative of a problem in the balance between magic-using and non-magic-using classes...


----------



## Visigani (Aug 14, 2011)

Problem is all these contests tend to be of the type that benefit the Wizard.

Who is going to win in a swimming contest, you or the dolphin?


Further, there is a TON of presumption in favor of the Wizard. The Wizard is assumed to be fully rested, have access to any and all spells at all times, any numbers of resources and a plethora of other non real game benefits.

Just because the game says you CAN find something doesn't mean you WILL find something.

This benefit is never granted the fighter.


These contests never read "Fighter, Wizard and Olidimarra Roll for Initiative. Olidimarra wins initiative and banishes both Fighter and Wizard to a plane where mortals have no access to arcane magic."

Who wins this contest? It's perfectly within reason in the D&D universe, this could actually happen. The deity did nothing to the Wizard that he did not also do to the fighter... and the Fighter promptly hacks the Wizard to death and eats his familiar.

That's how much of these Wizard v. Fighter contests play out. The Wizard is granted absolute fiat when it comes to anything pertaining to his class while INTENTIONALLY leaving out the intelligent stopgap that exists to prevent abuses.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 14, 2011)

> Further, there is a TON of presumption in favor of the Wizard. The  Wizard is assumed to be fully rested, have access to any and all spells  at all times, any numbers of resources and a plethora of other non real  game benefits.



Yes, for some reason these arguments assume each class can use class abilities and wealth when trying to determine what a class is capable of if all other things are equal. What a shocker.



> Just because the game says you CAN find something doesn't mean you WILL find something.
> 
> This benefit is never granted the fighter.



The fighter has free access to magical weapons, armor, and gear in all contests I have seen or participated in. I would say that being able to find anything is applied fairly. It just happens that what the fighter finds (equipment) sucks in comparison to what the wizard finds (spells).



> These contests never read "Fighter, Wizard and Olidimarra Roll for  Initiative. Olidimarra wins initiative and banishes both Fighter and  Wizard to a plane where mortals have no access to arcane magic."
> 
> Who wins this contest? It's perfectly within reason in the D&D  universe, this could actually happen. The deity did nothing to the  Wizard that he did not also do to the fighter... and the Fighter  promptly hacks the Wizard to death and eats his familiar.



One could contrive a contest that goes "Olidimarra banishes the Fighter and Wizard to a plane but steals their equipment."

Who wins this contest?  It's perfectly within reason in the D&D  universe, this could actually happen. The deity did nothing to the  Wizard that he did not also do to the Fighter... and the Wizard  promptly ensorcells the Fighter and makes him cry.

These contests never read that for the reason that - hold onto your hat   - they prove nothing other than "if you take away a class' abilities,  they suck."

Any class can be made to fail via fiat. That is why these sorts of scenarios generally assume that 
1. Classes get to use their abilities.
2. Anything that is in the allowed books can be found by the parties involved.
3. There is no favoritism towards one class or another - ie, no fighting in AMFs, everyone is well rested and at full HP, and so forth.

And probably a few more that I'm forgetting, but I trust you get the point. By allowing each class to perform at its maximum, you can see what they are capable of.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 14, 2011)

Visigani said:


> . . . there is a TON of presumption in favor of the Wizard.



Stating that when *both* classes start fully rested and have access to any equipment presumes favor _to the wizard_ kind of acknowledges the superiority of the wizard, no?

Having the DM invent reasons to never let the spellcasting classes start fully rested is rather hopeless for the players. Having to reach a point of system mastery to _know_ which spells to deny the PC spellcasters access to in any particular campaign because it might someday nerf the DM's plans is hopeless for prospective DMs. Who would want either?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 14, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Of course not. But, presumably, you are playing with the PHB?
> 
> Then, line-item vetoing spells from the PHB is a house rule.



 There is no "vetoing" of spells.  The spell exists, it may even be used against you.  But the people who know the spell have gone to great lengths to keep its information preserved to few select individuals...and you aren't one of them.  You might be able to do something to get access to the spell, but you might wish you hadn't.



> Similarly, including the SC is a house rule; line-item vetoing spells from the SC is another HR (or, depending on perspective, a modification of the HR to include it).



 Once gain, restricting the access of spells is not vetoing their existence.   Just because you own a fighter plane doesn't mean you can automatically fine nuclear weapons for it.




> You're taking away a spell from the PHB.



  I haven't taken anything away.  The spell exists.  

Nowhere in any book does it _mandate _I let a Wizard have any spell they want as soon as they level.   The game is replete with direct and indirect instructions on controlling the campaign and everything that's in it.  If you can't contemplate that without calling it a house rule...fine.  It's really irrelevant to the fact that DM's are responsible for maintaining balance and as soon as you throw your hands up in the air and say I'm powerless to stop any caster from getting any spell they want...well then yes, JKaron's Tier system is probably going to bear out.

Spells of the power that can change the fabric of the game are like nuclear weapons in our reality.  Every single govenment on this planet will attempt to control any nuclear weapons that it gets wind of.   You have casters running around with Greater Teleportation, people are going to notice and perceive you as a threat.  Governments are going to notice you and perceive you as a threat.   There are infinite plausible non-metagame reasons to for nations, individuals, and deities all more powerful than any PC in your campaign to control the accessibility of game breaking spells. 

What I will concede is that the game does not do a good job of explicitly identifying the problems of unfettered spell casters.  The RAW certainly _allow_ you to simply let the Sorc or even the Wizard pick any spell they want.   Even if Deities grant higher level spells to Clerics/Druids, the game doesn't really tell you to think about what spells a Deity will grant and when they are granted.  So I'm certainly not going to say DM's are doing it wrong with regards to RAW...but I would argue you are doing it wrong with regards to the spirit of the rules and the responsibilities imposed on DM's.  

But any game in wihch the DM doesn't maintain balance...will become unwieldy.  Look, it's absolutely ridiculous that 1st level characters always seem to find dungeons with low CR encounters.    Or that a 2nd Level part never seems to get into a bar fight with a couple of lvl 19 dudes looking to have some fun.   The DM _intentionallly_ crafts the world to fit the characters that are in it.  There's no reason to abandon this responsibility when it comes to magic, specifically spells.   Do you think the game intended for characters to _always _be able to buy any magic item once they have the money for it and find a major city that can have it?

My ultimate point is to tell any DM who reads the Tier system and says OMG911BBQ!!! Monks or Fighters are crap, to understand that the ranking system is invalid if the assumptions that it is based on are invalid i.e. casters with unfettered access to spells and components.   Whether you want to label that as a House Rule...is irrelevant.  DM's can control it with plausible in-game reasons.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 14, 2011)

> Or that a 2nd Level part never seems to get into a bar fight with a couple of lvl 19 dudes looking to have some fun.



Faerun.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 14, 2011)

Visigani said:


> Problem is all these contests tend to be of the type that benefit the Wizard.



Close, but slightly off.  A better description is that there are multiple Spell compinations that can deal with any situation.  So the argument is that we'll simply assume (no matter how irrational this assumption is) that the Wizard or Sorc in _your_ campaign will have access to those spell combinations at the exact moment they'll need them, and thus is superior to the Fighter or the Monk.



> Who is going to win in a swimming contest, you or the dolphin?



 Well, me if I have a submarine and can kill the dolphin with harpoons or sonic weapons.    So you see how to solve this problem?

The answer is to simply let a martial class have access to a weapon or usable item that is enchanted with the same spells that a Wizard/Cleric could use to solve the problem.   The response to this is that this works for any class and is not specific to the Fighter/Monk.  Well....yeah...that's exactly the point.  If I let everyone have access to everything they need to deal with any situation...then everyone is equal.  Ergo, the Tier system becomes invalid because now everyone is on equal footing: Unlimited access to any magic spell in the game.

I'm sure you'll get someone responding with the query about "Who makes those items?"  The response is who cares?  The point is I have access to them by the same fiat rules that allows a caster to have access to every spell in the game, and thus I'm equal to anyone else in the game.




> Further, there is a TON of presumption in favor of the Wizard. The Wizard is assumed to be fully rested, *have access to any and all spells at all times*



  That's exactly right.  And if we level the playing field and say my X class has access to any magic item...including those which can be custom made with the spell needed...then suddenly the Tier system comes crashing down.   Remember, I'm not breaking the rules...I'm simply using the right of fiat and the DM's ability to grant items to PC's to allow X class to have exactly the Shield or Amulet or Ring or Boots or Potion that they need to solve the problem.



> Just because the game says you CAN find something doesn't mean you WILL find something.



  I tried that rationale and it's automatically dismissed as house ruling..dispite the RAW allow you to restrict things and create the entire universe that your players exist in.   Essentially the "house rule" argument is a way for people to say you haven't solved the problem and continue to tout the Tier system as meaningful and valid.



> This benefit is never granted the fighter.



 It is...but its never properly employed.  Per RAW, you can have custom items made.  Well, make custom items with every spell in the game.  No reason to limit yourself to just those unique or standard items the game gives you.




> The Wizard is granted absolute fiat when it comes to anything pertaining to his class while INTENTIONALLY leaving out the intelligent stopgap that exists to prevent abuses.



  Well, as I said, people dismiss this by calling it a "house rule" to employ such measures.  The point that they cling to is that since by RAW, this _could_ happen it must be taken as being a valid way to compare the classes.  I believe someone tried to create a Tier ranking on _likelihood _of classes becoming more powerful...but I haven't seen it.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 14, 2011)

Visigani said:


> Who is going to win in a swimming contest, you or the dolphin?




The problem is, when you ask the question: "Who is going to win a melee contest, the caster or the non-caster?" the answer is, once you reach say 12th level, the caster. The caster is capable of doing every non-caster's job better than they are.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 14, 2011)

But only if the caster is allowed to have spells, which has been proven to be unfair.

Edit: Relax, Arrowhawk, that was referring to something Visigani said. No need for you to call upon the straw man today.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 14, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The point is I have access to them by the same *fiat* rules that allows a caster to have access to every spell in the game, and thus I'm *equal* to anyone else in the game.



I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 14, 2011)

Inconceivable!


----------



## kitcik (Aug 14, 2011)

OK, so let's have the 20th level caster and the 20th level melee class du jour face off with the following rules:

No spells may be cast within 48 hours of the combat or during the combat.

You can only use items you created yourself.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 14, 2011)

kitcik said:


> (T)he following rules:
> 
> No spells may be cast within 48 hours of the combat or during the combat.
> 
> You can only use items you created yourself.



watch out for the fiat! It can lay down the hurt.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 14, 2011)

There is a good point in this, many always assume that the caster is well rested and has all their spells.  How about a week of adventuring with no time to really get a good nights rest.  The caster probably has gone through most of their spells at that point, they both have penalties...and when attacked it's probable that the martial class would have the upper hand (as all those pretty spells to give the wizard that upper hand probably were burned off the by wizard already since they were trying to show up the martial class by using those spells in the first place rather than using party dynamics to cooperate and use that synergy to make the party a more powerful group as a whole).

Just a thought.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 14, 2011)

kitcik said:


> OK, so let's have the 20th level caster and the 20th level melee class du jour face off with the following rules:
> 
> No spells may be cast within 48 hours of the combat or during the combat.
> 
> You can only use items you created yourself.




If by "items" you include that to mean spells?  Deal.  Wizards don't create spells.  They simply learn them from someone else.  So let's limit Wizards to spell they actually created...and they are powerless.   The assumption for the duel is you get access to everything allowed by RAW.  For non casters, this means you can have custom items created with any and all spells that you want.  It's the same fiat (authorative order) Jkaron uses to say somehow the Wizard should be considered as having every single spell in the Wizard's spell book.  If you're going to make absurd assumptions, it goes both ways.

Now...you can always house rule that Wizards have access to all their spells but Fighters don't have access to custom magic items which use the existing spells (which the RAW specifically allows).

This debate is really pointless.  The real value of JKaron's tier system is not that it's valid, but that it exposes the problems DM's are faced with at higher level if they don't actively monitor the flow of magic spells/and items.  Except that people automatically know to limit access to magic items...yet they can't seem to get their heads around limiting _availability/access _to spells.  

Although unintended, Jkaron's tier system also exposes the problems with 3.5 with regards to min/maxing.  Let's ignore spells and just focus on Skills.  It's possible to create specialists whose ability to Disarm traps or Diplomacy officials far beyond what is healthy for the game.  3.5 puts DM's in the position of suddenly have to use DM by fiat to nerf any number of PC abilities to keep games from going off the tracks.  

The simple fact is that in any RPG's where characters have more powers as they level it becomes harder for the GM to account for everything.  The problem is magnified in games which encourage/faciliatate min/maxing-optimization.  Any game that introduces unfettered "magic" is going to have this problem.  Now as a DM, ask yourself if the game gives you tools to keep Spell use from getting out of control?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> There is a good point in this, many always assume that the caster is well rested and has all their spells. How about a week of adventuring with no time to really get a good nights rest. The caster probably has gone through most of their spells at that point, they both have penalties...and when attacked it's probable that the martial class would have the upper hand (as all those pretty spells to give the wizard that upper hand probably were burned off the by wizard already since they were trying to show up the martial class by using those spells in the first place rather than using party dynamics to cooperate and use that synergy to make the party a more powerful group as a whole).
> 
> Just a thought.



No, you're doing it wrong.   Any scenario where the spell caster doesn't have access to every and all spells at all times...is house ruling i.e. arbitrarily cheating to nerf the Wizard in his context.  You're specifically not allowed to introduce any situation or scenario where the Wizard isn't the most powerful character at all times.  Using logic or requiring any consistency in how you treat the characters is also strictly forbidden unless it favors the Wizard.  

Remember, Spells are "magic" which means that by definition they don't have to obey any internal conistency or logic.  Any author for WotC can write a spell to do anything anyone has ever thought of...it's "magic" afterall.  Wizards are automatically the most powerful classes because they have unfettered access to "magic" which is master of all possibilities.  Wizards have access to all spells...all the time (don't question it, just accept it).   But we won't say the spells are unbalanced...we'll just say the Wizard is.  Any attempt to limit the Wizards access to any and all spells is a "house rule" thereby giving your players grounds for complaining and walking out on you.

This is Internet Logic 101.  Resistence is futile.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk, are you familiar with the term "straw man"?



GreyLord said:


> There is a good point in this, many always  assume that the caster is well rested and has all their spells.  How  about a week of adventuring with no time to really get a good nights  rest.  The caster probably has gone through most of their spells at that  point, they both have penalties...and when attacked it's probable that  the martial class would have the upper hand (as all those pretty spells  to give the wizard that upper hand probably were burned off the by  wizard already since they were trying to show up the martial class by  using those spells in the first place rather than using party dynamics  to cooperate and use that synergy to make the party a more powerful  group as a whole).
> 
> Just a thought.



How much HP is a fighter who has been fighting for a week with no rest going to have?

Just a thought.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> It's the same fiat (authorative order) Jkaron uses to say somehow the Wizard should be considered as having every single spell in the Wizard's spell book.



The tier system is an informed opinion, not a fiat. If opinions are fiats to you, well, you must be living an oppressed life.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> There is no "vetoing" of spells.  The spell exists, it may even be used against you.  But the people who know the spell have gone to great lengths to keep its information preserved to few select individuals...and you aren't one of them.




... which is a house rule.

It's really as simple as that.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> There is a good point in this, many always assume that the caster is well rested and has all their spells.  How about a week of adventuring with no time to really get a good nights rest.  The caster probably has gone through most of their spells at that point, they both have penalties...and when attacked it's probable that the martial class would have the upper hand (as all those pretty spells to give the wizard that upper hand probably were burned off the by wizard already since they were trying to show up the martial class by using those spells in the first place rather than using party dynamics to cooperate and use that synergy to make the party a more powerful group as a whole).
> 
> Just a thought.





 Greylord, you do seem to have missed the point. It's not  about winning the game by not using party dynamics and being a one man  army, it's about what your class brings to the party. A fighter brings  the ability to hit things, hard. A wizard bring the ability to: deal  damage, cast buffs, inflict debuffs, shape the battlefield, create  secure shelter for rest, summon allies, teleport, plane shift, gather information, control minds, create illusions, time travel, and probably a  dozen other things I'm forgetting.

Just a thought.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Arrowhawk, are you familiar with the term "straw man"?
> 
> 
> How much HP is a fighter who has been fighting for a week with no rest going to have?
> ...




Good thought.  Depends.

If it's a spellcaster who's been memorizing spells and using them to be a better fighter then the fighter?  

Probably quite a bit more then the spellcaster who's out of spells.  It's the spellcaster who's been doing all that fighting instead of using the resources otherwise.

If it's been a fairshare...probably still more than the spellcaster on average, which would still probably be more than enough to take the spellcaster down.

However, IF the group actually played like a Roleplaying group and people teamed together and worked together as a team...The fighter has probably been taking the bruteload of the hits, and would be dead except for the healing he's recieved...while the casters stayed back and did other things like either buff the party or use spells that did other things then make them fighters...

In which case the fighter could very well have far less then the spellcasters and the spellcasters may even be near their max or at their full Hit Points.

In which case if for some bizarro reason they decided to hit each other (afterall in the last scenario they've been working together, why they'd start whacking at each other would be a mystery) the fighter would have to hope that his higher BAB and Attacks would be able to deal with the spellcaster who has a lower BAB, attacks, but full HP and perhaps one or two spells left...one of which could be lethal instantly to the fighter.



Dandu said:


> Greylord, you do seem to have missed the point. It's not  about winning the game by not using party dynamics and being a one man  army, it's about what your class brings to the party. A fighter brings  the ability to hit things, hard. A wizard bring the ability to: deal  damage, cast buffs, inflict debuffs, shape the battlefield, create  secure shelter for rest, summon allies, teleport, plane shift, gather information, control minds, create illusions, time travel, and probably a  dozen other things I'm forgetting.
> 
> Just a thought.





I'd say a Fighter brings a lot that most discount.  Most warriors do.  Though many despise the MMORPG idea, the Fighter is the Tank, they absorb the damage that most spellcasters cannot.  The one that could, the Cleric, actually can replicate the fighter's abilities for a few battles, but if they spend all their abilities to do that, they are useless overall in relation to the rest of the party.  A selfish cleric really helps no one.  However, due to their armor they can wear by class, as well as a nice HP (not as nice as the fighter, but nice), the Cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter for a few fights.  HOWEVER, after those few fights, the Cleric's out of spells, whilst the fighter still can keep on ticking.  That's the Fighter's strength, to be able to keep going...and going...and going naturally without the fear of running out of spells.

A druid can also be useful, but I'd put the Cleric over the Druid overall (many would disagree).  

It could be reasoned logically that a HELPFUL Cleric brings more to the party than anyone else, but 

a Cleric that focuses on being a fighter or trying to be a better fighter than the fighter, in an extended dungeon (where you don't have the wimpy...we fight one encounter and then are done for the day...aka...six minute day...) is absolutely useless to the party in general.  No one wants to really party with that Cleric since he tries to steal the limelight, runs out of spells whilst being selfish...and ends up really not helping anyone in the long run.  That type of Cleric probably brings the LEAST to the party...which is ironic considering what people are discussing.

D&D is a TEAM dynamic game.  If you want to know who brings the most to the party, then it's who ACTUALLY BRINGS something to the party.  This is part of where 4e (I know, many hate that game, but just listen) tries to help people understand.  Classes are supposed to help that party synergy.  So, Fighters aren't just there to fight, they are there to protect others, to try to enable those spellcasters to be able to cast their spells uninterrupted and to enable the casters to survive to be the killing machines they are.  The Spellcasters are supposed to learn spell resource management, so they don't blow their entire load trying to be a fighter, but use spells selectively so that they can last that week in the dungeon where they don't get that chance to recharge...and at the same time select spells useful enough so that they can use them in any situation...INCLUDING THOSE OUTSIDE OF COMBAT.

I'd take a spellcaster that is able to use their spells to figure out a puzzle and get us through it because they were smart enough to memorize the right spells anyday over some spellcaster that can buff themselves so that they can try to cut down a few goblins with their sword.  Any Fighter can mow down goblins...however no fighter can fly up and then go through a wall to pull the lever above in another room and let us continue onwards...at least not without the right equipment.

So, yes, maybe the discussion isn't about group dynamics, but I think if you want to discuss which ones are useful and what they bring to the party...you absolutely HAVE to include the group dynamic and what each one brings to the party in the first place...as well as what is the best way to have everyone work together.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> If by "items" you include that to mean spells?  Deal.  Wizards don't create spells.  They simply learn them from someone else.  So let's limit Wizards to spell they actually created...and they are powerless.   The assumption for the duel is you get access to everything allowed by RAW.  For non casters, this means you can have custom items created with any and all spells that you want.  It's the same fiat (authorative order) Jkaron uses to say somehow the Wizard should be considered as having every single spell in the Wizard's spell book.  If you're going to make absurd assumptions, it goes both ways.




So wait, I propose caster vs. non-caster where the caster can't have spells, and both characters can only have items they created themselves, and this still isn't enough of a nerf to even them up - you need to add "non casters... have custom items created with any and all spells you want."

So basically, you are saying that a non-caster can be better than a caster if the non-caster can use unlimited spells cast by an NPC caster and the caster cannot use spells. To me, you have just proved the tier rankings.

To you, who knows? Likely this proves the world is flat or something.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> If it's a spellcaster who's been memorizing spells and using them to be a better fighter then the fighter?
> 
> Probably quite a bit more then the spellcaster who's out of spells.  It's the spellcaster who's been doing all that fighting instead of using the resources otherwise.
> 
> If it's been a fairshare...probably still more than the spellcaster on average, which would still probably be more than enough to take the spellcaster down.




Let's assume it's been a fairshare, both characters are low on HP, and the caster is a cleric has one Heal left.

Or it's a druid, that saved one wildshape (and it's inherent healing).

The point is that there are any number of spells (and mine are certainly not the best examples) that can suddenly "save the day" for the caster, while the fighter is a one trick pony.

If the fighter has used up his daily flight capability, a simple fly spell could be an autowin for the caster.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Let's assume it's been a fairshare, both characters are low on HP, and the caster is a cleric has one Heal left.
> 
> Or it's a druid, that saved one wildshape (and it's inherent healing).
> 
> ...




Healing is cheap.  If the Caster was a selfish prick, you better believe I'd have a potion or two of healing kept as well.  Anyone in a party that had a Cleric or Druid that didn't heal would have some other way to heal besides them...if not, simply let those two classes be the fighter, step back and let them fight all the hordes until they have cast all their spells.  If you don't like them, backstab them if you're a thief, assassinate them if your an assassin, or simply grapple and strangle them to death if you are a fighter or monk.

Ironic thought, sunder weapon.  Does a casters mouth and hands count as weapons?  If so, break their dang hands and mouth...or if you count a head and neck...break their neck...

Of course that's more the realm of Evil DM and roleplay rather than direct rules...

Flight?

I suppose the caster could cast a spell and fly away...and no longer be part fo the party...but then...what's the point...is the caster just playing a solo game with himself?

If he want's to engage the fighter...he better hope the fighter didn't have archery skills or I'd probably NOT want to spend my last spell on fly...better to have something a little better against bows and arrows if I were taking on someone who could have a high BAB, a high Strength, and lob missiles at me.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

> However, due to their armor they can wear by class, as well as a nice  HP (not as nice as the fighter, but nice), the Cleric can be a better  fighter than a fighter for a few fights.



Are you familiar with Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell? It's a feat that allows a cleric to persiste spells using Turn Undead attempts to reduce the metamagic feat's level adjustment. Clerics built to take advantage of it can walk around with their best spells up all day. 

Selfish? I don't know, Divine Power and Rigtheous Might are pretty hard to share with the Fighter considering that they're personal range spells. Besides, they also get to persist group buffs like Mass Lesser Vigor.



> HOWEVER, after those few  fights, the Cleric's out of spells, whilst the fighter still can keep on  ticking.  That's the Fighter's strength, to be able to keep going...and  going...and going naturally without the fear of running out of spells.



Forgive me for being blunt, but this does remind me of  W. Somerset Maugham when he said that _"__Only a mediocre person is always at his best."_

Basically, the way I see it, fighters are always going to be active as long as they have a source of healing and a way to remove debilitating effects, but they still don't have the "big guns" so to speak. 

Plus, if after a large battle the spellcasters are nearly out of juice, I suspect it would be best to just rest and refuel rather than continue pressing on even if the fighter is at full power, since an unbuffed fighter is like infantry without fire support.



> D&D is a TEAM dynamic game.  If you want to know who brings the most  to the party, then it's who ACTUALLY BRINGS something to the party.   This is part of where 4e  (I know, many hate that game, but just listen) tries to help people  understand.  Classes are supposed to help that party synergy.  So,  Fighters aren't just there to fight, they are there to protect others,  to try to enable those spellcasters to be able to cast their spells  uninterrupted and to enable the casters to survive to be the killing  machines they are.



I agree with your analysis of the Fighter's role. Now here's the question: can other classes do it better than the fighter?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 15, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> ... which is a house rule.
> 
> It's really as simple as that.



 Show me in any rule book where it says you are obligated to provide a Wizard with any and all spells a Wizard wants to learn, whenever they want to learn them.  Because this is the basis of JKaron's Tier system.  Without that requirement, his Tier system crumbles like a house of cards. 

If you can't provide a WotC document that mandates this requirement, it's not a house rule...and it's as simple as that.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 15, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> The tier system is an informed opinion, not a fiat. If opinions are fiats to you, well, you must be living an oppressed life.



 Do you understand what a fiat is and how it is being used in JKaron's assumptions?


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk, can the sorcerer of a barbarian tribe which has no other arcane spellcasters learn spells after he levels up from an epic battle involving a goblin horde?


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 15, 2011)

Really my personal opinion of this is that dnd is a game about magic. As you level up regardless of class what you are really doing is increasing the overall "magic" of the campaign. The heroes start somewhat grounded in reality going up against mundane threats (orcs, goblins, pit traps etc) as they go along they accrue magic items and go on to face progressively more mystical threats ogres -> mindflayers -> dragons/beholders -> demons/gods.

The thing is fighters and their ilk are inherently grounded in what we might think of as realistic. Even the BEST fighter EVER!!! will be limited when faced with arcane threats. Sure they might be able to mow down 1000 + first level dudes. But they cannot fight giants or demons or anything high level unless they too have magic.  Wizards are not limited in this way because they are not grounded in  reality the way fighters are they are infact inherently magical.

As long as dnd is a game based around facing and overcoming ever more magical challenges characters or classes which are not magical will be at a disadvantage.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> I agree with your analysis of the Fighter's role. Now here's the question: can other classes do it better than the fighter?




On the short term yes, on the long term...no.

This is why in 4e there was a push to do away with the one encounter day.  Even two or three sometimes is too short.

In the movies...Do you see Conan go to the dungeon and after 6 minutes call it quits?

Sometimes adventurers are in the dungeon or adventure for days.  Also, enemies aren't stupid, though many play them that way.  Goblin guards killed at an entrance don't just leave an entrance unguarded after that forever after...somone discovers what happened, more are sent to guard, and others are sent out for vengeance.  You don't get that chance to recover...

That's where the Warriors come in.

Plus, anyone who doesn't want to play as a group or in a group and wants to play a solo spellcaster can go play with themselves in the corner all they want...but most want someone who can play with everyone else.

Everyone complains about casters at the upper levels, but the thing is, casters have to GET UP TO THOSE LEVELS first.  

The dynamic would be more like Fighters are great at the lower levels.  Most casters will die in relation to the fighters at low level.  At high level, if I am a Wizard, I want to have that power to be able to crumble an entire city at my whim...but then by that point, I'm high level, and yes, I would want my power to overshadow that of a normal fighter.

If one wants to destroy the Wizard or Cleric or Druid (but why a Druid...they should't be inherently good OR evil) then there should be a quest that requires something extreme...perhaps to give that fighter the special item that allows them to fight the spellcaster on equal ground.

Heroes in books normally have to find that special item or they'll be toast as well.  I like that dynamic.

It's sort of a reward for those who played that 1st level Wizard that would get squashed after their two spells were cast if it weren't for the Fighter to protect them, or the Cleric that had to choose which spell to cast, one to aid in healing or one to aid in battle.  They get that all power at the end of the powerups...after playing the weaker guy at first.

However, it should be remembered there's ALWAYS that equalizing dynamic in the adventures.  Perhaps it's that one Ring some halfling will toss into the fire.  Sure you could toast Aragorn with a word...but that halfling will catch you by surprise.  Or maybe it's that magical Sword conan finds which makes him completely immune to any magic you cast.  Sure you can annihilate his companion, but you better have someone to protect you against Conan or you'll simply be another one of the many deaths to his name.

Okay...I got side tracked.  Yes, I do like the dynamics of spellcasters getting more powerful...BUT I think Fighters have their place and purpose and even that Cleric or another can't really replace them.  I've seen people try, but most of those get banned (actually all of them have been banned from every group I've ever seen) for being really selfish and not good team players.

And that's the REAL importance...is that you should be a good team player and play as a group.  Every character has different strengths and abilities.  An  RPG shouldn't be purely about combat, and a spellcaster that concentrates solely on that is wasting a ton of potential.  I'd rather have a Fighter that can kill the things, and a spellcaster that can save us from being killed from that infamous puzzle by using the right spells at the right time then some cleric that thinks they are a better fighter than a fighter any day of the week.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

> On the short term yes, on the long term...no.



Would you mind expanding on how a cleric cannot replace a fighter in the long term? (Just to be clear, I am talking about a party where the fighter role is taken up by a cleric, not a party where there is a cleric and a fighter.)



> The dynamic would be more like Fighters are great at the lower levels.   Most casters will die in relation to the fighters at low level.



Actually, from my experience in groups, casters do not do horribly at lower levels. Perhaps it is because I build well, but all my spellcasters, even at low levels, contribute meaningfully to the groups they are in by debuffing enemies and providing support to other party members.



> Okay...I got side tracked.  Yes, I do like the dynamics of spellcasters  getting more powerful...BUT I think Fighters have their place and  purpose and even that Cleric or another can't really replace them.



Again, I'd love to talk more about this. Let's focus on the mechanics for a moment, shall we?

What mechanically prevents a cleric from replacing a fighter?



> I've seen people try, but most of those get banned (actually all of  them have been banned from every group I've ever seen) for being really  selfish and not good team players.



If you are talking about people who try to upstage others, I agree that that is poor form. If you are talking about people who decided "I don't want to play a fighter, I'm going to play a cleric instead" I fail to see what is selfish or bad about that.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Would you mind expanding on how a cleric cannot replace a fighter in the long term? (Just to be clear, I am talking about a party where the fighter role is taken up by a cleric, not a party where there is a cleric and a fighter.)
> 
> 
> Actually, from my experience in groups, casters do not do horribly at lower levels. Perhaps it is because I build well, but all my spellcasters, even at low levels, contribute meaningfully to the groups they are in by debuffing enemies and providing support to other party members.
> ...




Well, for starters, they don't have the BAB or the HP, and their spells will run out.  If nothing else a good Dispel will ensure their spells will last less time than they expect, as well as a whole slew of other things.  Then of course the feats that allow the fighter to grapple and strangle you outright, or any number of other things that the Cleric doesn't get at half that rate.  Overall it applies more to someone who roleplays than someone who rollplays for combat only.

We've had this discussion before however, we discovered you hated how our groups played and saw us all as draconian ignorant feebleminded scoundrels (edit: I should toss in a few cuss words you probably think about us who play a certain way as well) who wouldn't allow the freedoms you thought were a given right, you discovered you wouldn't be allowed to play as we saw you as a non-team player and munchkin (it went into what books and races and classes were allowed which you had issues with)...and we all decided we were better off not discussing it at length due to disagreements.

So, there really isn't any reason to go into it again...though I'm not certain whether you recall that discussion or not.  It was a few months ago afterall, and included your character Fisticuffs was it?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> So wait, I propose caster vs. non-caster where the caster can't have spells, and both characters can only have items they created themselves, and this still isn't enough of a nerf to even them up - you need to add "non casters... have custom items created with any and all spells you want."
> 
> So basically, you are saying that a non-caster can be better than a caster if the non-caster can use unlimited spells cast by an NPC caster and the caster cannot use spells. To me, you have just proved the tier rankings.
> 
> To you, who knows? Likely this proves the world is flat or something.



 I don't understand your response, probably because you've misconstrued something I've said. First and last... the Tier system isn't proven by 1v1 battles.  JKaron says that himself.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

> Well, for starters, they don't have the BAB or the HP, and their spells  will run out.



It is true that clerics have medium BAB and d8 hit dice, compared to the fighter's full BAB and d10 hit dice. However, spells like Divine Power grants clerics full BAB, temp HP, and a bonus to Strength, along with some 

I agree that clerics run out of spells, but there are ways to prevent that such as through the Divine Metamagic: Persist trick mentioned earlier. This allows them to have much more staying power.



> If nothing else a good Dispel will ensure their spells  will last less time than they expect, as well as a whole slew of other  things.



I would like to note that there are several ways to make dispelling harder. The most immediate is a 4,000 gp item called a Ring of Counterspells. You could also raise your caster level.


> We've had this discussion before however, we discovered you hated how  our groups played and saw us all as draconian ignorant feebleminded  scoundrels who wouldn't allow the freedoms you thought were a given  right, you discovered you wouldn't be allowed to play as we saw you as  and saw you as a non-team player and munchkin (it went into what books  and races and classes were allowed which you had issues with)...and we  all decided we were better off not discussing it at length due to  disagreements.



I am sorry you feel that way, though I do not remember saying any of those words. If I did, I should very much like to take this time to apologize, though again, I am getting the impression that you are using hyperbole.

See me as a non-team player and munckin all you wish if you prefer; it's no skin off of my nose, or that of my gaming groups (note: plural), which considers me very much a team player. I will give you the munchkin bit, though.



> So, there really isn't any reason to go into it again...though I'm not  certain whether you recall that discussion or not.  It was a few months  ago afterall, and included your character Fisticuffs was it?



 I believe I do recall it. You were of the opinion that multiclassing was bad for roleplaying and I pointed out you could have a charecter who was multiclassed to Hades and back but who was still fun and flavorful.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> It is true that clerics have medium BAB and d8 hit dice, compared to the fighter's full BAB and d10 hit dice. However, spells like Divine Power grants clerics full BAB, temp HP, and a bonus to Strength, along with some
> 
> I agree that clerics run out of spells, but there are ways to prevent that such as through the Divine Metamagic: Persist trick mentioned earlier. This allows them to have much more staying power.
> 
> ...




More like racial and MC limitations along with the idea that the DM can disallow books, but close enough.  No need to go over that entire discussion again though.  Easier just to say been there, done that, let's move onward.

Edit: I should add I don't have a problem with a party going without a fighter, and using someone as a substitute in it's place.  If I'm DM'ing I consider it part of the parcel to adapt the adventure to the party, so if they don't have a spellcaster or a warrior, or something else, a good DM should be able to adapt.  Sometimes it's harder then others (for example, a heavy trapladen adventure where no one can deal with the traps...that's a little interesting), and I won't give it completely freebie, but I'll make it survivable.  

Also, I like the dynamic of the increasing power of spellcasters, and each class having different strengths and weaknesses.  If everyone was the same, it would make life boring, same goes for roleplaying.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I don't understand your response, probably because you've misconstrued something I've said. First and last... the Tier system isn't proven by 1v1 battles.  JKaron says that himself.




Shocking how everyone misconstrues what you have said when you are wrong. Purely coincidental, I am sure.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Healing is cheap.  If the Caster was a selfish prick, you better believe I'd have a potion or two of healing kept as well.  Anyone in a party that had a Cleric or Druid that didn't heal would have some other way to heal besides them...if not, simply let those two classes be the fighter, step back and let them fight all the hordes until they have cast all their spells.  If you don't like them, backstab them if you're a thief, assassinate them if your an assassin, or simply grapple and strangle them to death if you are a fighter or monk.
> 
> Ironic thought, sunder weapon.  Does a casters mouth and hands count as weapons?  If so, break their dang hands and mouth...or if you count a head and neck...break their neck...
> 
> ...




Now you've gone to the level of ridiculousness. OK, you saved your healing potion, which somehow heals you equal to a Heal spell. I guess I saved a few charges on my staff of <spell that defeats fighters>. The debate is on which class is "stronger" "more capable" (something like that), not on who has the better equipment. The fact that a caster that is almost spent can still have an "I win" button, while the fighter cannot - that is the point. You have said nothing to deny this basic fact, just prattled on about your meaningless equipment.

As far as flying, I fly above your archery range and shoot Shrunk boulders out of my pea shooter at you. Or anything else I feel like dropping from that range.


----------



## Ettin (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Also, I like the dynamic of the increasing power of spellcasters, and each class having different strengths and weaknesses. If everyone was the same, it would make life boring, same goes for roleplaying.




I agree. I know if my fighter couldn't be overshadowed by a cleric who can do my job _and_ cast spells, I would be so bored you could use me as a chair back.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Now you've gone to the level of ridiculousness. OK, you saved your healing potion, which somehow heals you equal to a Heal spell. I guess I saved a few charges on my staff of <spell that defeats fighters>. The debate is on which class is "stronger" "more capable" (something like that), not on who has the better equipment. The fact that a caster that is almost spent can still have an "I win" button, while the fighter cannot - that is the point. You have said nothing to deny this basic fact, just prattled on about your meaningless equipment.
> 
> As far as flying, I fly above your archery range and shoot Shrunk boulders out of my pea shooter at you. Or anything else I feel like dropping from that range.




He'll walk to a cave before you hit him with how bad your BAB is combined with the range of how far you are dropping the rocks.

Or some shelter of some sort.  That is unless you are playing a Fighter with a 3 wisdom...in which case he might just stand outside in a hailstorm too.

What, you expect someone just to sit around let you drop things on them....

Riiiight.  I'm afraid I don't normally have that level of incompetancy in players...and don't normally think they would expect that out of me.

Though I suppose I could have them just stand there...in the open...where they could be picked off by orcs, goblins, or even simply lightning streaking from the sky to hit the highest point on the plain...which seeing the caster is now flying would be the caster.

More likely they are in a dungeon...where you'll hit your head before you fly out of range...

Let's use at least a little common sense.  There are a LOT better spells than fly as an I win type spell...unless you are fighting flesh statues that don't move on an open plain with nothing at all nearby.

Though in that case you probably have worse problems than fighting each other to worry about...at least in D&D.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

Suggestion would have probably been a better choice.


----------



## Visigani (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Yes, for some reason these arguments assume each class can use class abilities and wealth when trying to determine what a class is capable of if all other things are equal. What a shocker.
> 
> The fighter has free access to magical weapons, armor, and gear in all contests I have seen or participated in. I would say that being able to find anything is applied fairly. It just happens that what the fighter finds (equipment) sucks in comparison to what the wizard finds (spells).
> 
> ...






Expand your consciousness Dandu.

If both the dolphin and you have access to scuba gear... who is going to win the swimming contest? You both have the same benefits, have access to the same resources.. why would the dolphin win? How can this contest possibly be lopsided?



I'm saying do the REVERSE. Strictly pare down what the Wizard has access to. A Scroll of Timestop might be found on every street corner.... but is it likely?

This is what I mean by Intelligent Stopgap. The Fighter has his pre-built in and it's very easy to codify because virtually everything about the fighter is numerical, virtually all of his interactions are numbers based. He's swung at or he swings.

The Fighter lives in the MMO.

The Wizard lives in the storybook. He can cast "animate rope". Think about that single spell. Think about the obcene number of options and things you could do with JUST that spell.


A first level wizard in the real world would be recognized as a God if he had access to just the spells in the SRD.


Because of the intelligent things you can do with these spells, because of their untold options... you have to have an intelligent stopgap to work AGAINST them.

All of these contests assume no such stopgap.

Pun Pun is a great example of this. From what I understand it completely follows the rules. As do these Wizard contests. However, no one sane would let someone seriously do this at the table.


Fighters do not have these limitless untold options and come out of the box packaged in a relatively balanced fashion because the things they do are largely numerical.



See what I'm getting at here? The DM exists to temper the Wizard's ability because the Wizard by its very nature MUST have a plethora of options. You've said yourself that damage is the weakest aspect of the Wizard and of course you are correct because the Wizard's strength stems not from the numerical, but from the fantastical "What can I do with this?".


These contests presume there's no DM there to spite the Wizard, to drain his spells, to make him think, to cause him consternation, to WEAKEN him and LIMIT those multitudinous options.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> He'll walk to a cave before you hit him with how bad your BAB is combined with the range of how far you are dropping the rocks.
> 
> Or some shelter of some sort.  That is unless you are playing a Fighter with a 3 wisdom...in which case he might just stand outside in a hailstorm too.
> 
> ...




See below, and please address this point (noting the parenthetical). So far, you have proved my point by ignoring the elephant in the room as stated below.




kitcik said:


> The point is that there are any number of spells (and mine are certainly not the best examples) that can suddenly "save the day" for the caster, while the fighter is a one trick pony.






kitcik said:


> The fact that a caster that is almost spent can still have an "I win" button, while the fighter cannot - that is the point. You have said nothing to deny this basic fact, just prattled on about your meaningless equipment.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

Visigani said:


> Expand your consciousness Dandu.
> 
> If both the dolphin and you have access to scuba gear... who is going to win the swimming contest? You both have the same benefits, have access to the same resources.. why would the dolphin win? How can this contest possibly be lopsided?
> 
> ...




But you've just proved the point...

Because of these "limitless options" the wizard is a "higher tier" class than the fighter and the DM must actively try to limit the wizard (if they wish for balance) while no such effort is required with respect to the fighter. QED.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

there are several problems with these arguments however, not that anyone ever realizes or listens when they are all in favor of these ridiculous things.

First off, despite me using the MMORPG idea...it isn't one.  It's a Roleplaying game.  Roleplaying should be there by default.  Because of this, classes are balanced NOT because of how they are in combat, but overall.

How does this play in, because of various other factors.  That it's a roleplaying game is the biggest and most important one however.  

Second, You are all assuming higher level characters.  A second level wizard won't have a third level spell unless they find the scroll to it typically.  They have to grow into it.  A sixth level druid has 11 spells, 5 of which are merely 0 level meaning 6 leveled spells.  


Third, because it's an RPG and a game based on team dynamics, why waste the wizards or druid's spells on becoming a fighter, or a thief at these levels, especially in an extended dungeon where you won't be able to recharge...as one could put it, unless you do that leave the dungeon and expect everything to stay the same thing.

Fourth, you combine it all, and you get where every character and every class has their use.  Fighters are extremely powerful at lower levels in relation to wizards.  In an actual Roleplaying game where you face traps, diplomacy, survive the environment, Rogues, Bards and Rangers can be the highest tier characters at lower levels.

Sure, IF you survive as a spellcaster you gain some pretty powerful stuff, I LIKE that, but you have to survive first.  People are all talking combat like it's the only thing, but roleplaying covers more than that.  In addition, someone who centers on themselves and attacks other players is going to find themselves rapidly without a group to play with.

So the point I've been trying to make which I think everyone is missing is that it's actually a roleplaying game.  It's a team game.  It's one where cooperation is required to survive between players.

When that stops being necessary, the game typically breaks down and someone finds themselves playing with....themselves.

Now granted, this thread was about changing it so that high level fighters are "repaired."  After risking dying with d4 HP at first level, limited spells, and the entire wreckage, I WANT spellcasters to be the ultimate powerful class at high levels, that's part of the entire dynamic.  At that point everyone has lots of magic and equipment anyways.  It still shouldn't be about who's more powerful. 

When the fighter was protecting the first level wizard, why complain about the person playing the wizard?  They had their role and place.

The same still exists.  That rogue that has the sword of death to any Cleric, all he has to do is hit the Cleric and each hit the cleric has to make a save or die...well that Cleric is protected by someone with a high perception (you hope).  That Warrior with a sword that makes him immune to all magic, well you have a fighter to stop him still while the wizard tries to use the environment instead.

There are still ways for Parties to play the game and it to have a place for everyone...but in the end...if it truly becomes a one person show...that really is a boring RPG session.


----------



## Visigani (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> But you've just proved the point...
> 
> Because of these "limitless options" the wizard is a "higher tier" class than the fighter and the DM must actively try to limit the wizard (if they wish for balance) while no such effort is required with respect to the fighter. QED.




"Higher Tier". That is the religion found on these boards.


Where you see "Higher Tier" I see "Development Failure".


Why not call them the classes where the developers failed the most? I mean... that IS the assessment, right? Because really tier is an idiot of how much X class can wreck the game....



But see, I don't think it's that. I think the Tier system is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, more about masturbation than anything else.

The people who play these kinds of games frequently identify with weak intelligent people.

But when you get right down to it... it's not Wizards who are the top tier... it's Clerics, maybe Druids... yet here we are... week after week... going on about how the Wizard would kick the big Strong fighters ass....


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

First, let me say that I agree with the spirit of a lot of this and I think we have a lot of common ground.



GreyLord said:


> Second, You are all assuming higher level characters. A second level wizard won't have a third level spell unless they find the scroll to it typically. They have to grow into it. A sixth level druid has 11 spells, 5 of which are merely 0 level meaning 6 leveled spells.




This is true. I have seen good arguments both ways as to which class is best at low levels. I will say that casters "reign" (more below) after about 12th level with certainty. 



GreyLord said:


> Third, because it's an RPG and a game based on team dynamics, why waste the wizards or druid's spells on becoming a fighter, or a thief at these levels, especially in an extended dungeon where you won't be able to recharge...as one could put it, unless you do that leave the dungeon and expect everything to stay the same thing.




The point is that, at higher levels, you could easily have a fighterless party, but you could not have a casterless party (unless the DM weakened CR). It is just one more example of the options a caster has.



GreyLord said:


> Sure, IF you survive as a spellcaster you gain some pretty powerful stuff, I LIKE that, but you have to survive first. People are all talking combat like it's the only thing, but roleplaying covers more than that.




The thing about this is, fighters can only do one thing, rogues maybe 1 and a half. Casters can do everything. So, a larger variety of challenges only allows the caster to shine more. "Find Traps" "Suggestion" etc. obviate the roguish & social skills of other classes at higher levels when casters have plenty of spells and scrolls. This was far less the case in 1E for a variety of reasons.



GreyLord said:


> So the point I've been trying to make which I think everyone is missing is that it's actually a roleplaying game. It's a team game. It's one where cooperation is required to survive between players.
> 
> When that stops being necessary, the game typically breaks down and someone finds themselves playing with....themselves.




Agreed. The thing is, at lower levels you must cooperate. At higher levels, the fighter becomes less and less necessary and contributes less and less to the group. Bummer to play the fighter and watch yourself become superfluous.



GreyLord said:


> There are still ways for Parties to play the game and it to have a place for everyone...but in the end...if it truly becomes a one person show...that really is a boring RPG session.




Exactly, hence the thread.

Yes, a good DM can help this issue in various ways (by nerfing casters and boosting non-casters through access to spells, magic items, types of encounters, etc.). But if they're not subtle, the caster player will feel like they're being singled out for punishment.

It would be better to find a way to cause casters to still need / appreciate non-casters at high levels through the straight mechanics of the classes.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

Visigani said:


> Where you see "Higher Tier" I see "Development Failure".
> 
> Why not call them the classes where the developers failed the most? I mean... that IS the assessment, right? Because really tier is an idiot of how much X class can wreck the game....




I think someone messed with your autocorrect. "idiot" --> "indicator"
Anyway, I agree.



Visigani said:


> But see, I don't think it's that. I think the Tier system is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, more about masturbation than anything else.




Hmm, you got me on this one. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, eh? Masturbation?



Visigani said:


> The people who play these kinds of games frequently identify with weak intelligent people.




Hard to respond to nonsensical statements so I will pass.



Visigani said:


> But when you get right down to it... it's not Wizards who are the top tier... it's Clerics, maybe Druids... yet here we are... week after week... going on about how the Wizard would kick the big Strong fighters ass....




Huh?



> Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
> 
> Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, _Erudite_


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> First, let me say that I agree with the spirit of a lot of this and I think we have a lot of common ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I suppose that is common ground.  Thing is, I LIKE casters being that powerful at higher levels.  At a certain point Fighter's can't compete, nor can rogues or anyone else...but then...Where in King Arthur was Lancelot able to Kill Merlin (or even desire to), or where was Gandalf killed by an Orc or high level swordsman from Gondor or Mordor (he wasn't).

They can still Roleplay as a group but the interest can change.  I suppose it's more of something from the old school of thought with the entire name level thing.  

Sure, they can all go dungeon crawling, but other things can prop up with the campaign.  The Warriors start getting titles and lands which they must build armies and defend, whilst playing politics (where Bards can come in extremely useful).  Wizards garner to powers to defend the lands of the Warriors (or their own) in cooperation against bigger and badder foes, whilst the Rogues, well they are trying to build worldwide guild dictatorships and such.  All of them cooperating to combine resources against some gigantic threat (maybe an invasion from the planes, or otherwise).  At that point, the Warrior's armies, the Wizards Powers, the Rogues network, and the Cleric's influence all can combine for High level campaigns that far outreach the single dungeon crawl of the lower levels.

So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering enemy lands with armies.  It's all part of the game, adding new dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.

Of course if one merely focuses on the growing power of the spellcasters without adding anything for the others to grow and increase with...it probably will get boring for them and you'll all need to start a new low level campaign (which I feel happens quite often, as I think most people play lower level games than higher levels...maybe my opinion is off on that, but I think that overall that's how the market research has shown for at least some D&D type RPGs).


----------



## Dandu (Aug 15, 2011)

> So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very  fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly  wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as  they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering  enemy lands with armies.  It's all part of the game, adding new  dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.



Fighter can't really bring an army to the dungeoncrawl, though.


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> It would be better to find a way to cause casters to still need / appreciate non-casters at high levels through the straight mechanics of the classes.




It is worth noting that this one of the issues that 4E tried to address by taking away most of the caster utility spells and giving fighters and other defenders more 'stickiness'.

The result has been a decent game system that no longer feels like D&D...


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Fighter can't really bring an army to the dungeoncrawl, though.




Hmm, depends on the alignment.  Send all the soldiers into the pyramid to set off the traps and then proceed onwards?



Joking aside, you're right.  That's why he hires another group to go dungeon hunting!  Someone has to rule and lead the army...let the Wizard clear the Dungeon and the Cleric get that divine intervention to defeat Gruumsh's army's of darkness descending upon you!


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Aug 15, 2011)

To Visigani and others arguing that the tiers are irrelevant due to the DM or player skill or gentlemen's agreements or the like, I direct you to JaronK's introductory remarks on the Tier system:



> My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group.  If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, *the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters*.  If it's weak and inflexible, *the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity*.  Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members.  Neither is desireable.  Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:
> 
> 1)  To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group
> 
> ...




The Tier system is not saying that T1 classes are the best classes to play.  The Tier system is not saying that the DM has to let T1 classes wreck the game.  The Tier system, when it comes right down to it, is a measure of two things: how much DM intervention is needed to make the game work for certain classes, and how much power lies in PC hands when playing certain classes.

T3 classes are generally the most balanced classes, and can handle CR-appropriate encounters fine without much buffing or nerfing of either the PCs or the opposition.  T3 PCs can influence the game world to a good extent but usually can't completely change the world or circumvent every challenge.

T1 classes are generally more powerful and versatile than everyone else, and can overpower CR-appropriate encounters to the point that the DM needs to either present them with above-CR encounters on a regular basis or optimize CR-appropriate encounters with good tactics to keep up.  T1 PCs can influence the game world on a massive scale and can completely dominate everything from kingdoms to dungeon crawls if they aren't checked.

Here's what might come as a surprise to you if you view the Tier system as merely a masturbatory fantasy for nerds who were beat up by jocks in school: the Tier system says that the T5 classes are _just as bad as the T1 classes_.  They're weaker and less versatile than everyone else, and can't deal with CR-appropriate encounters unless the DM holds back or nerfs them and/or "plays dumb" tactically, the players are exceptionally skilled, or the players have lots of items/allies/other resources to compensate.  T5 can't really influence the game world at all except through things like Diplomacy which are game-altering and -breaking regardless of tier or through pure roleplaying/DM fiat/Plot Coupons.

The variation in tier isn't a development failure in and of itself; the development failure is WotC assuming that they could remove most of the caster restrictions and non-caster benefits from AD&D and retain the possibility of having casters and noncasters be on a roughly even playing field in the same party.  T1 characters don't wreck the game inherently if the DM knows what he's doing; I've run games with 5-6 T1 casters in the party and it's worked out fine because I was able to provide them a challenge with intelligent T1 opponents.  T5 characters don't fail at life inherently if the DM is willing to work with them a lot; I've run games with 5-6 T5 noncasters in the party and it's worked out fine because the players knew their classes' weaknesses and played to their strengths in a campaign and campaign setting built with an eye to T5 limitations

The problem comes in when you try to have T1 and T5 characters in the same party _and the DM doesn't compensate for this_.  You're saying "Well, the DM can always..." and the response is that yes, that's exactly what the Tier system is _for_, to tell the DM that he'll need to adjust things up for T1s and adjust things down for T5 and put in significant effort to challenge a party of mixed tiers, unless the players are aware of the problems with that setup and can hold back/self-nerf/compensate the lower-tier PCs/otherwise equalize the PCs via gentlemen's agreements.  Rather than being the ultimate expression of nerd superiority, in many games T1 casters (and sometimes their T2 brethren) are nerfed or banned altogether.  Quite often, T5 (and sometimes T4) classes are _also_ banned because there exists no quick fix that will let them "play with the big kids," or they're buffed far past the extent of a quick fix, or the underlying system is changed to let them compete through a combination of caster nerfs and martial buffs.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 15, 2011)

[MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION] I am not against powerful wizards either. I just remember 1E, when I felt like there was more balance (for a variety of reasons) and feel like 3.5 did a poor job in this area. For one thing, by getting rid of casting times and providing Concentration.

That said, I love 3.5.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 15, 2011)

kitcik said:


> [MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION] I am not against powerful wizards either. I just remember 1E, when I felt like there was more balance (for a variety of reasons) and feel like 3.5 did a poor job in this area. For one thing, by getting rid of casting times and providing Concentration.
> 
> That said, I love 3.5.




Irony.

I also felt AD&D was more balanced then 3.X edition.  Multiple reasons.

Crazy how we can have that same point of view and yet enter in on different sides on a discussion,

OR maybe we're on the same side, but approaching it from opposite ends of the discussion.


----------



## nonsi256 (Aug 17, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Second, You are all assuming higher level characters.  A second level wizard won't have a third level spell unless they find the scroll to it typically.  They have to grow into it.  A sixth level druid has 11 spells, 5 of which are merely 0 level meaning 6 leveled spells.




I once started a campaign with a group I did not know before hand, of 3rd level characters: a fighter, a rogue, a monk and a cleric. I entered as a 2nd level Gnome beguiler.
I can tell you that just before I hit 4th level I was kicked out - for dominating the game (in combat and out of it - [FONT=&quot]and not by being the loudest or the most talkative of the lot[/FONT]) and making it boring for the rest.
The DM was actually very enthusiastic about most everything I did. I just knew too well which feats & skill tricks to take, I had like a kazillion and one skill points and I knew how to exploit them to the maximum.

So you see, it's not just about the high-end of the spectrum.


----------



## nonsi256 (Aug 17, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Sure, they can all go dungeon crawling, but other things can prop up with the campaign.  The Warriors start getting titles and lands which they must build armies and defend, whilst playing politics (where Bards can come in extremely useful).  Wizards garner to powers to defend the lands of the Warriors (or their own) in cooperation against bigger and badder foes, whilst the Rogues, well they are trying to build worldwide guild dictatorships and such.
> 
> So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering enemy lands with armies.  It's all part of the game, adding new dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.



The question is what in the world is there in 3e+ to stop spellcasters (especially the arcane types) from achieving the roles of both conquerors and guildmasters (via diplomacy, manipulation and trickery), while at the same time pursue their true goal of dominating the deepest arcane secrets or the mightiest of divine powers ?​


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 17, 2011)

Magic in D&D has always been characterized as a powerful force capable of things that normal people cannot readily duplicate, thats why it seems _magical._

D&D classes were designed to make different contributions to the overall adventure. It was not assumed that the adventure began and ended with the combat round. 

While very powerful, originally D&D magic was not really _easy _or _reliable. _While a high level magic user could really "shake the pillars of heaven", the combat rules as written made this very difficult to pull off. The fighter OTOH was a stable reliable source of combat power. 

Fixing things therefore requires decisions to be made about what kind of game you want. If you want everyone to be somewhat balanced in combat performance then try a 4E style. If you want magic to remain distinct from the mundane then limit its ease of use and reliability rather than raw power. 

1) Remove turn based initiative and make casting time matter. 

2) Scrap the economy of cheap plentiful consumable magic items. Of course a wizard will have a magic solution for everything if he can stuff his pockets full of wands and scrolls at the local dime store. Why choose spells carefully? Get trinkets to handle the boring utility stuff (since the save DC doesn't matter) and load on BOOM for the memorized stuff.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 17, 2011)

> The question is what in the world is there in 3e+  to stop spellcasters (especially the arcane types) from achieving the  roles of both conquerors and guildmasters (via diplomacy, manipulation  and trickery), while at the same time pursue their true goal of  dominating the deepest arcane secrets or the mightiest of divine powers ?​



The famous fighter will save?


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 18, 2011)

ahh the good old word 'balancing'
here's a little secret, there's NO balance in the game, and it is meant to never be, there isn't any numerical way to balance things different as concepts.
warriors goes, and beats people hard.
mages... don't even fight.

the word is integrate! make your players help each other. I'm a dm and a mage, and I can take down an epic monster without a single fireball...
I just transform the party barbarian into a fire giant, cast two dozen spells on him, that I prepared and, et voila' the perfect killing machine, and I don't even have to raise a single finger.
I feel satisfied (I love plans well made) BA barracus feels satisfied because he did beat the baddies, the party rogue is happy because can fly on the new broom we found in the loot, and the party bard goes off with the lady we saved. everyone's happy! 
no wait that was the A-team, but take it as example, there's ALWAYS someone who makes the plan, someone who beats the baddies, and other people that supports the group with other various abilities, you want options for a warrior? usually at high level the few ones are lead an army, that hopefully includes a wizard at your service  can't beat them? ally with them!


----------



## kitcik (Aug 18, 2011)

bologna




<nuff said>


----------



## Visigani (Aug 18, 2011)

I've been ruminating on the "Fighter as Hero" in the same vein as Hercules, Achilles, Perseus, Captain America, and Theseus.

A sort of "Martial" version of the Sorcerer. There's something "in the blood" that makes them special, something different and empowering. Some kind of edge they were granted whether via an artifact, divine blood, blessed fortune or whatever.


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 18, 2011)

Visigani said:


> I've been ruminating on the "Fighter as Hero" in the same vein as Hercules, Achilles, Perseus, Captain America, and Theseus.
> 
> A sort of "Martial" version of the Sorcerer. There's something "in the blood" that makes them special, something different and empowering. Some kind of edge they were granted whether via an artifact, divine blood, blessed fortune or whatever.




well hercules possessed an unique strenght that allowed him to overcome alot of challenges following greek mythology, thus he stood up the challenge against anything he could manage to reach in melee due of that.. about achilles well he were simply invulnerable, that pretty much can stand a mage, for a few time at least before gets sent to another plane..
with all those great heroes you forgot to mention ulysses, whych used his brains, despite being a warrior, to overcome challenges, along with smart ideas, military tactics and a smooth tongue, and he were a mere man, no more than that. and no, Ulysses isn't a rogue.
also for example agamennon, the king, the one who did lead lots of people, fighters can make great leaders, they have strenght in that and should use it to their own good, few nations would follow a wizard, alot more would follow something they can understand, a warrior!
such should be epic level playing, politics, since pretty much the character can archieve alot on his own, they can change the whole face of the planet. a level 5 warrior can save a village a level 20 can pretty much kill all the orcs in an area and then what?... no more orcs, people rejoice.. a dozen or more wagons worth of loot (if you kill dunno.. 3000 orcs you get their weapons and armors.. sure nonmagical but they can provide the weapons and armors for a small army) it takes "little" even for a warrior of higher levels to go to a small region of the world and completely change the political asset of it, not to mention the fame for his deeds, and the impact on farmers lifes, or on trade of this region with the others now that dangerous creatures died, or more dangerous creatures thinking of moving in, OR not moving in, depending on what tales they hear.. possibilities are endless and all they have to do is.. fight.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 18, 2011)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The Tier system is not saying that T1 classes are the best classes to play. The Tier system is not saying that the DM has to let T1 classes wreck the game. The Tier system, when it comes right down to it, is a measure of two things: how much DM intervention is needed to make the game work for certain classes, and how much power lies in PC hands when playing certain classes.
> 
> T3 classes are generally the most balanced classes, and can handle CR-appropriate encounters fine without much buffing or nerfing of either the PCs or the opposition. T3 PCs can influence the game world to a good extent but usually can't completely change the world or circumvent every challenge.
> 
> ...




Not quite.

Look, I can't speak to anyone's individual experiences. If you say you tried to run a campaign with Wizards and Fighters and it didn't work...so be it. Nonsi256 just gave us anecodote of his Tier 3 Beguiler being so dominant over a Tier 1 Cleric, he got kicked out of the group. We have no way of knowing that the skill level or effort is of the various participents given the classes. And there in lies the first and ultimate problem with the Tier System: are the assumptions valid?

In any analysis, the analyzer makes assumptions. The validity of the analysis is based on applicability/accuracy of the assumptions made. Let me ask a couple of questions that speak to this:

1) Do D&D campaigns really work they way JaronK assumes in his examples?

2) Are his methods of comparison internally consistent?

3) Does he shift the goalposts? Does he talk about camparing A...but then really compare B?

There are a truck load of problems with many of the assumptions made in the Tier System ranking. Perhaps the biggest is the conflation of a "optimized" build with the notion that you can optimize to outperform all classes simultaenously (which isn't optimizing), and that you can maintain that level of robustness (which outpeforms every other lower Tier class) throughout an entire campaign. 

A big problem, imo, is how JaronK approaches Wizards. The Wizard or Cleric, in the context of an actual game...cannot bring the full power of every knowable spell to every encounter. Jaronk ignores this because he talks about _potential. _But that _potential_ is meaningless if it is illusory. The player character does not know how many times he'll need Fireball versus Haste versus Water Breathing and it's not like he can cast ten of each at 10th level.

Yes, a Wizard can go home and study Rock to Mud and bring down a castle wall. Gee, do you think the guy who built the castle wall never contemplated such a contigency? Do you think the guy who kindnaps the King's daughter never considered what a 10th level Wizard might do to find him? Jaronk acts like the world of D&D never met a 15th level Spellcaster with Genesis or Contact Other Plane before.

The perception of balance is contextual. Tier system tries to present perceived balance as an absolute. He claims one of his goals is to prevent pre-emptive nerfing of Classes...and yet he's advocating the exact same thing. He's trying to convince you that you need to nerf Tier 1's to play with Tier 5's or you'll be in over your head as a DM. Nonsense. If you don't know what you're doing as a DM...you're going to be in over your head no matter what classes you have. You may think you're going to "balance" the game by having a mage battle...only to find the Monk with Improved Grapple and 8 ranks in Tumble and the Run feat has moved 5 times his move rate in one round, grappled your caster, and pretty much ended the threat in two rounds. 

Any class can derail an encounter if you don't consider the full range of that class' abilities. The fact is that most DM's are less familiar with designing encounters to contend with powerful casters because most DM's have less experience with it period. We've all DM'd Fighers and Barbarians. We've all DM'd people who love to play martial classes. A much smaller subest of people like playing spell casters (statment made by Monte Cook and impetus for why they improved spell casters in 3e to begin with). As a result, DM's have less experience with the available spells and the consequences of those spells. The world of D&D has dealt with spell casters for over 1000 years even if you, as a DM, haven't. 

What Jaronk and I 100% agree on is that if you grant any Class unfettered access to Spells, you're going to have a harder time managing the game. It doesn't matter if access to those spells is through a Class ability, items, or cohorts/companions. That doesn't mean Classes who can access Spells are broken. Manage the Spells and you fix all the Classes that have access to those Spells.

JaronK and I also 100% agree that just because WotC wrote it down, doesn't mean it belongs in the game. Monte Cook, a game designer for 3e, has publically stated that WotC screwd up with the Harm spell. There's no rule that you have to allow splat books. 

Kahn_bloodbane is correct. Balance has no meaning in an RPG. The game cannot be balanced because you are comparing things which have contextual purpose/effectiveness. You can't balance context. You can't "balance" the Track Feat with the Extend Spell Feat, there is no scientific way to do it. The best you can do is create some perception of fairness...and fairness isn't balance. Fairness is subjectve.

The bottom line is the Tier System is a product of the underlying assumptions. Every DM is capable of deciding how well those assumptions describe the conditions under which the players play. It's self evident that if you give any Class unrestricted access to ALL resources be they spells, contacts, magic items, Feats, or Actions, you're going to have to prepare for more contingencies in a campaign. That does not mean a Wizard and Figher can't play in the same campaign without the DM bending space and time to make it happen. Stating or presenting such is just irresponsible posting.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 18, 2011)

You should post this on BrilliantGameologists and debate directly with JaronK.


If you think monks and adepts are balanced with wizards and druids and clerics, I am happy for the karma in your life. Enjoy your game.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 18, 2011)

kitcik said:


> You should post this on BrilliantGameologists and debate directly with JaronK.
> 
> Why should anyone here waste their time defending someone else's thesis, even if they agree with it?
> 
> Also, if you think monks and adepts are balanced with wizards and druids and clerics, I am happy for the karma in your life. Enjoy your game. Why try to convince everyone else that you are "right"?




Why do _you_ try to convince anyone you're right on forums? Why do you even post? Why are you debating with me? Why don't you just take it up with the game designers?

Any more inane questions?

I think you're most effective posting videos of Indiana Jones movies and claiming they proved someone being denied their dex bonus.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 18, 2011)

> Why do _you_  try to convince anyone you're right on forums? Why do you even post?  Why are you debating with me?



Why do _you_?


----------



## kitcik (Aug 18, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I think you're most effective posting videos of Indiana Jones movies and claiming they proved someone being denied their dex bonus.




Thanks.

You're a regular Shia LaBeouf!!


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 18, 2011)

wow beautiful and well written post arrowhawk! :O in the end you did clarify everything, going to the very concept of it. it makes no sense 'balance' a roleplaying game, it is not a math game, it is not a chess game, it's not something that can be defined with pure mathematics. a roleplaying game is basically another world and, reality.. isn't balanced, at all (so aren't my campaigns either the heroes doens't always win, at all.). mages? well they are scary, a well prepared mage can do virtually everything, and the only protection against them is.. more magic, whathever is in form of magic items, or another mage, or a cleric, or.. smarts!
you know that detect invisibility doesn't find people hidden in shadows? and also true seeing can't pierce trought a nonmagical disguise?... if I slap on my face a pair of fake mustaches... hey it's there, it's real, it's not an illusion, and a thunderstone can DEAFEN?.. (deaf! now you got 50% of failing a spell requiring verbal components..), a blinded mage for example cannot target people with spells..
in the end, it's all a matter of.. brains! (mmm brains..says the homer-illithid) if you know your enemy you can fight him effectively, mages and clerics are a reality in D&D world, no need of balancing, you just need to, bother with considering them in the big picture and tailor situation keeping them in count..
also with npcs! they themselves doesn't have limitless resources, if they kidnap a baron's daughter they wil keep in count that the baron might hire someone to rescue her, they surely know how much money the baron has (else why kidnapping the daugher?) and more or less can understand what kind of theat they can be put against.. again use smarts, why keep an hideout, if they can wander tru an intricate forest they know well.. a mage scries upon them, oh wow they are in an intricate forest I don't know, I study well the area for a teleport! oh wait! darn they are moving! and.. KEEP on moving, how the hell I teleport to them? plus the forest looks all the same to me...
they can set traps in the forest they know, keep on moving, and have a dozen of small hideouts while other of them whych remains in the baron castle spies upon the baron and keeps on 'communicating' terms of pay them the randsom via anonimous letters.
it's a dangerous game, but fun!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 18, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Thanks.
> 
> You're a regular Shia LaBeouf!!



 I guess that makes you Megan Fox. Sorry you got booted from the last film


----------



## kitcik (Aug 18, 2011)

1) I enjoyed Kahn's post, regardless of whether I agree with it.

2) Despite the first line, I am not really sure who agrees with who.

3) Steal underpants.

4) Assuming they actually do agree, draw your own conclusions on the implications.

5) Don't forget the bologna.

6) This mage you speak of - could it be?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAmNjMsqsFw"]Their Fated Travels... Stupid Wizard is Stupid (Animated Shorts) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## kitcik (Aug 18, 2011)

kitcik said:


> You're a regular Shia LaBeouf!!






Arrowhawk said:


> I guess that makes you Megan Fox.




Wow, that's rather disturbing actually.

Just to make this clear to other posters, whatever Arrow may be wishing, we never hooked up. And I'm not a chick. And I'm not interested in dudes or Arrowhawk.


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 18, 2011)

haha I just posted my own view on the whole matter and how I run games  granted, when I dm NOT everyone in the world is smart, there's also umprepared and stupid kidnappers who doesn't think of such things and gets their butts kicked troughtly by adventurers, mages, or yeah even deers.
and don't kid too much on that.. a mage who sees a deer and thinks elves wants to ambush them is a smart mage, mage paranoia RULES! XD
and glad you enjoyed my post 
about bologna, it's the actual name of the town I live in... if I remember well for you americans it's a sort of.. steak?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 18, 2011)

Thanks kahn. If only one reader gets it and is encouraged by it, then the post was worth the time it took to write.



kahn_bloodbane said:


> a well prepared mage can do virtually *everything*...




This is the problem word here. This word should be "anything." A well prepared mage can do anything but NOT everything. Understanding the difference is key to understanding the underlying problem with the Tier System. A Sorcerer who is "optimized" to do a specific task (because that's what optimization means) is as one dimensional as a Fighter and no more flexible at changing that optimization from encounter to encounter. So ask yourself it that makes sense in terms of the tiering?




> and the only protection against them is.. more magic, whathever is in form of magic items, or another mage, or a cleric, or.. smarts!




And gods. _Contact Other Plane_ specifically says that on rare occasions a diety or some othe force may block the use of the spell. Well guess who gets to decide when those rare occasions crop up? The higher you go, the more likely a demi-diety or demigod or diety or being from another plane may interfere with the use of reality altering spells.


The biggest thing is to educate oneself on what spells any given caster in a party has and what those spells can do. Once one becomes familiar with what spell casters can, designing challenges that they can't unwravel will be easier and easier.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 19, 2011)

kahn_bloodbane said:


> about bologna, it's the actual name of the town I live in... if I remember well for you americans it's a sort of.. steak?




Yeah, it's actually a processed, packaged meat product, like sliced Spam.

Colloquially, it also means something like "that's ridiculous."


----------



## Dandu (Aug 19, 2011)

> and no more flexible at changing that optimization from encounter to encounter.



Limited Wish. Psychic Reformation.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 19, 2011)

Shorter Arrowhawk: superhuman system mastery by the DM allows achievement of Melee vs. Spellcaster nirvana.

Close?


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> This is the problem word here. This word should be "anything." A well prepared mage can do anything but NOT everything. Understanding the difference is key to understanding the underlying problem with the Tier System. A Sorcerer who is "optimized" to do a specific task (because that's what optimization means) is as one dimensional as a Fighter and no more flexible at changing that optimization from encounter to encounter. So ask yourself it that makes sense in terms of the tiering?




actually I really meant everything. a well prepared mage means it had time to prepare, and if someone is smart, (and the point of mages is being smart) they can do literally everything. you'd be surprised what minor magic items can do, also considering that mages CAN enchant them themselves.. you need attack bonus? easy there's an enchant (a +1 too) that gives bab like a cleric, you need strenght? you can do a spell, or make yourself a magic item, you want more power, there's tenser transformation, you want more strenght? you can polymorph yourself into a giant (and that really hurts..) need damage reduction? stoneskin.
I understand that if you think in terms of adventure... the mage eventually will end powers while the warrior will end at max hp, tho on the single encounter (and if you play smart you can reduce alot encounters) you can do alot..





Arrowhawk said:


> And gods. _Contact Other Plane_ specifically says that on rare occasions a diety or some othe force may block the use of the spell. Well guess who gets to decide when those rare occasions crop up? The higher you go, the more likely a demi-diety or demigod or diety or being from another plane may interfere with the use of reality altering spells.




rare occasions. as you said, rare should be rare as in.. once or twice in a campaign, a god would interfere with a rogue that kidnaps a baron daughter?.. why? it better has a really good reason, besides contact other plane doesn't necessarily ask to him, like you can ask to the god of justice as well, gods have limited omniscence around their temples, let's say the kidnapper is a follower of shar and shar doesn't like interference in her follower plans, if there's also a temple of tyr in town tyr knows everything too, and you can contact HIM and he's very eager to tell you everything for.. justice.
the higher you are the more you attract attention of gods sure, but doens't necessarily means gods will stop you doin what you want, simply because for as much as you wrong one god with a wish you make happy another, and they will eventually fight each other for that. IF a god interferes with your wish to save his follower, then, another opposed god can grant you a miracle to further his ends. Balance is something universal, it isn't there to 'nerf' powerful characters and neither to provide lazy dungeon masters with poor excuses to not give informations to players. if a player arrived to have a wish and properly words it, he's entitled to have such power.



Arrowhawk said:


> The biggest thing is to educate oneself on what spells any given caster in a party has and what those spells can do. Once one becomes familiar with what spell casters can, designing challenges that they can't unwravel will be easier and easier.




the point isn't designing challenges they can't unravel like that you completely break the world balance, the point is simply to make happen things, you must prepare npcs give them appropriate ranks and knowledges and give them the best plan they can affond with their intelligence and resources. Then, the players will do their wrost. not every situation is meant to be a challenge, the more higher up a character goes the harder will be they find a true real challenge, an adventure can take a whole 10 minutes to finish in a well done world, the point is, is it really over? the one who did kidnap the baron daughter acted alone? was a small organization or a part of a larger, more complex whole? maybe the players acts with rush and kills the poor unfortunate things that angered a level 20 player that happened to pass by, but then they will be spied by the mighty secret organization who wanted the daughter of the baron kidnapped with an apparent randsom to more subtely manipulate him for political means? have someone offer his help in exchange of a favor, someone who used those bandits like tools for his dark church only to play the 'good friend' of the baron and get him vote in the feudal council like he wants, to change the balance of powers of the region and subtely gain power in a massive multi regional plot to cause a devastating war?
there, it goes up to the high level it needs.
would he prevent the heroes from squashing the poor 'smart' kidnapper of the baron daughter? absolutely not! it would mean expose his treachery! but he can befriend them, spy them, manipulate them, make them think he's the good guy and so on. only to, in the end frame them for the big mess of war he managed to start... either that or they are smart, take their time to get the kidnapper, do the right questions with the right divinations, maybe not find much but mistrust the 'good samaritan' maybe even letting him ally with them to then outsmart him foil his plans and denounce his evil acts to the world!

ok sorry I stop rambling.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 19, 2011)

kahn_bloodbane said:


> actually I really meant everything. a well prepared mage means it had time to prepare, and if someone is smart, (and the point of mages is being smart) they can do literally everything. you'd be surprised what minor magic items can do, also considering that mages CAN enchant them themselves.. you need attack bonus? easy there's an enchant (a +1 too) that gives bab like a cleric, you need strenght? you can do a spell, or make yourself a magic item, you want more power, there's tenser transformation, you want more strenght? you can polymorph yourself into a giant (and that really hurts..) need damage reduction? stoneskin.
> I understand that if you think in terms of adventure... the mage eventually will end powers while the warrior will end at max hp, tho on the single encounter (and if you play smart you can reduce alot encounters) you can do alot..
> 
> 
> ...



 I wouldn't consider kidnapping a baron's daughter..."reality altering."  So I'm not sure why you are telling me a god wouldn't interfere with it?  I never said or suggested a god would.  And as far as the motivation of Gods...who says they operate like you and me?  Gods are whimsical and do whatever they want...sometimes even violating their own alignment restrctions.  God's are not obligated to answer to mortals.   Immortal beings are beyond the comprehension of mortal beings.  Just read the Bible if you don't believe me.  We only know what Gods want us to know.

A Wizard can't do everything between "encounters."  A Wizard has to pick spells _ahead of time_.  Most DM's don't tell the Wizard eveything the party is going to encounter, so the Wizard is going to have to guess at what spells will be needed.  This limits the Wizards options in terms of doing "everything."   Wizards don't get THAT many spells between levels 6-10.  They simply can't do everything that needs doine from start to finish.  If they can, then you really need to consider adding more than a few encounters between rest periods and not telegraphing what you're going to throw at the party.

And the point I'm making _is_ about breaking reality.  That is the basis of Tier 1 characters.  Jaronk will tell you a Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Erudite, etc... will break reality...he doesn't say _at what level _they can do it...he just throws it out there like they can do it from levels 6-15...which they can't.  You can't make Tier 1 without the class ability to break reality.  You start messing with the fabric of reality and I'll give you odds that God(s) will interfere if he/she/it/they exist.


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 19, 2011)

with that you assume there is only ONE god that decides everthing. whych in most cases in D&D isn't. there's more than one god, one is whysmical others are not, some violates their own alignment, others will NEVER EVER, penality losing their god status.
there's rules for gods, entire manuals, descriptions on them, finely woven, to create balance in the world, not excuses to not answer players enquiries. they can be beyond comprernsion of mortal beings sure but not beyond DM comprehension and if a god of justice doesn't allow find an evildoer the dm better have a VERY convincing story to justify that. the dm must be IMPARTIAL (or at least that's how I am) both toward the players and npcs treating them the same way.
about "don't get THAT many spells" do you know how much costs to make a 1st level spell castable AT WILL at caster level 1 on a simple wonderous item?
2000 gold. plus 1/25 of that in xp. actual cost of the mage tho is half that
and 2 days of work.
oh wow I got an item that does 1d4+1 dmg usable at will! (of course I can think more useful ones!)
the math to do such items is spell level x caster level x2000 gp so a level 2 spell at will is 2x3x2000 = 12000 gp, but still it's at will... 12 days 6000 gp spent and  480 xp. and you get a caster level 3 level 2 spell AT WILL. not hard isn't it? like that, you can be ready for anything at any time.
this without counting magic items you find of course.

I don't agree wirth your "If they can, then you really need to consider adding more than a few  encounters between rest periods and not telegraphing what you're going  to throw at the party." that's wrong... I am the dm, if the players encounters something is not because I throw them something to them, but because that something is going to go there at that time and casually finds them. plus.. please.. random encoutners? seriously?.. rope trick (second level spell player's handbook) completely makes useless any "night encounter".. we are a little grown up to still roll dices for random encounters come on, roleplaying games did develop ALOT since "against the giants" module.

mess with the fabric of reality hmm let's see level 15 limited wish, yeah it works, you can do that, if the dm has particular problems with that spell.. well just remove it from game and say the gods doens't allow it to work. or make sure that in the 25 words you need to phrase the wish there's no loophole to give funny results "I wish for a magical sword +5" and 6 random magical swords appears! XD
limited wish is used and been used by long, if you don't want to deal with it.. ok.
anyway there's classes that alters reality a certain kind of mage from tome and blood fatespinner maybe? anyway he changes odds to accumulate spin to then change odds again afterwards.. that is defined alter reality.
maybe he meant in a loose way of altering the fabric of reality (aka simply weaving magic.)


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 19, 2011)

Here's a quick fix for balancing fighters and caster. Play a low level campaign. DnD is meant to emulate high fantasy which is demons, dragons and magic swords. If you want lord of the rings or some other low or gritty fantasy where magic is small and subtle then play and set all your adventures at low levels. 
Also if as a DM you throw magical opponents at the PCs be prepared for them to GTFO, cue the Balrog scene, because magic is specifically needed to counter magic in DnD.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Aug 19, 2011)

kahn_bloodbane said:


> plus.. please.. random encoutners? seriously?.. rope trick (second level spell player's handbook) completely makes useless any "night encounter".. we are a little grown up to still roll dices for random encounters come on, roleplaying games did develop ALOT since "against the giants" module.




First, the duration of _Rope Trick_ is only an hour per level. In order to get full effects of a night's rest, the caster must have a caster level of at least 9th level (8th depending on the DM); or be 5th level and have the _Extend Spell_ feat; or have a caster level of 5th (4th) level and have a _Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend_; or be 3rd level and have _Heward's Fortifying Bedroll_. The _Extend Spell_ feat requires a character design decision -- albeit, a very good one -- to make work. The _Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend_ and _Heward's Fortifying Bedroll_ options each require a magic item that may or may not be found. _Rope Trick_ doesn't just work, it needs design and play decisions to make work and those decisions come with opportunity costs.

Second, while it is true that RPG theory and design has improved over the years, so too has the theory and methodology in using random encounters. If you get a chance, read some of The Shaman's posts about his use of random encounters in his game of _Flashing Blades!_ At the very least, random encounters can break DM tendencies while providing the game with an element of the unknown. 

Third, (and this is not directed specifically at your post) how powerful one character is opposed to how powerful another is exists in two states: the theoretical (or potential) and the actual. For some, the theoretical and the actual will be quite close; for others, the difference can be monumental. These differences are the result of player skill at design, player skill during play, and player style, modified by the skill level of the other players and of the style and skill of the DM. In my opinion, these factors have a greater effect on the relative power levels of the various characters than does the inherent imbalances suggested by the Tier System. That is to say, an inherently powerful class, played by a player with a low skill level will often be less powerful than an inherently weak class played by a higher skilled player. 

Fourth, individuals are willing to accept differing levels of imbalance in their games. Personally, I find the game most enjoyable with classes that range from Tier 2 to Tier 4. I can accept that level of imbalance more so than the imbalance that exists between Tiers 1 & 4 or Tiers 2 & 5.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 19, 2011)

kahn_bloodbane said:


> with that you assume there is only ONE god that decides everthing.



 Where did I every say or assume there was only one god?



> entire manuals, descriptions on them, finely woven, to create balance in the world, not excuses to not answer players enquiries.



 The only gods who are interested in balance are the NEUTRAL gods. Everyone else is trying to tip the scales in their favor. God's don't need excuses to do what they want. They don't answer to the player characters' sense of what those gods should be involved in.



> the dm better have a VERY convincing story to justify that.



There's a whole lot of stuff that goes on per the source books that is not convincing. So good luck on people agreeing on that. I believe what you are trying to convey is that the DM cannot be _abitrary_. Players have to beleive that if they do the same thing...they'll get the same result. That is not the same as being "IMPARTIAL."



> the dm must be IMPARTIAL (or at least that's how I am) both toward the players and npcs treating them the same way.



I think you're using the wrong word here. "IMPARTIAL" would imply that you do not consider the PC's when creating world. An "IMPARTIAL" DM would allow 1st level characters to walk into and be killed by a 5th level dungeon. A DM's job is to be 100% partial. You are charged with making the game fun for all players. That means presenting them with a world that has just the right amount of challenge. That is partiality. When your PC's foil some noble bad guy, you don't have the high ranking noble call in some Mind Flayer Assassin and wipe out the party do you? Even when the noble could totally afford to do it?



> about "don't get THAT many spells" do you know how much costs to make a 1st level spell castable AT WILL at caster level 1 on a simple wonderous item?



I tell you what. You take all the 1st level scrolls you want into the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (lvl 9-12) and we'll see how far you get. You can give a Fighter unlimited 1st level spells and I doubt that would even move him up a Tier. 1d4+1 against a pack of Gnolls? How many 1st level Magic Missles do you think you'd get off before they tore your 5th level Wizard into tattered ribbons?

JaronK requires that you change the very fabric of reality to be Tier 1.  1st, 2nd, or 3rd level spells aren't going to do it.




> I don't agree wirth your "If they can, then you really need to consider adding more than a few encounters between rest periods and not telegraphing what you're going to throw at the party." that's wrong...



That is your perrogative. But I agree with Jacob. If you think random encounters are for children DM's, then you're denying yourself a very useful tool in making the game challenging for the players and balancing out spell casters within a group.




> mess with the fabric of reality hmm let's see level 15 limited wish,



 A Limited Wish is hardly game breaking. It's limited to effects of 6th level spells and lower. I don't even think it can permenantly raise ability scores.




> maybe he meant in a loose way of altering the fabric of reality (aka simply weaving magic.)



 Well, the examples he throws out are like destroying the world of Toril, or destroying entire planes, or making invincible armies, or binding Efreeti and getting Wish Loops, or using Love's Pain and killing someone on another plane and they don't get any saving throw or spell resitence. And if you can do ALL those things...not just one of them, then you're Tier 1.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> You can give a Fighter unlimited 1st level spells and I doubt that would even move him up a Tier.




Shall I design a 10th level fighter (non Dungeoncrasher) with unlimited first level spells, while you create a 10th level Tier 4 character of your choice?

Hint: I will not be casting Magic Missile...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 19, 2011)

Okay, damn message board cut off my XP comment.  It was supposed to read:

"I assume True Strike will be one of the first spells on that list? "


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 19, 2011)

probably you heard this in different context but... it's not how big it is, it's how you use it.
truest me, few level 1 spells used well can change the whole asset of the so called.. 'balance'  I talk from personal experience XD


----------



## Dandu (Aug 19, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Okay, damn message board cut off my XP comment.  It was supposed to read:
> 
> "I assume True Strike will be one of the first spells on that list? "



Enlarge Person would be nice as well.

Haste too... which is a first level spell on the Trapsmith prestige class' spell list.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 20, 2011)

Figure I can effectively spam a few of these "1 minute per level" spells - even as a 1st level caster, that is 10 rounds. If I keep recasting 4 of them, each will be up at least 6 rounds when the encounter begins.

Enlarge, Haste, Mighty Wallop (I will have a bludgeoning weapon).

Methinks whoopass would proceed...


----------



## Hunter99 (Aug 20, 2011)

This problem again? 

I would suggest you have a demon hack the wizards limbs off. 

Fixes the problem.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 20, 2011)

Not as long as the Regenerate spell exists.


----------



## Hunter99 (Aug 20, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Not as long as the Regenerate spell exists.




Rats, foiled again!


----------



## Mirror (Aug 20, 2011)

I'm reading this and enjoying it, mostly. I do have a question though. One of the things I heard about trying to introduce balance was the creation of the ToB:BoNS. Does that completely fail, or did it have the opposite effect?


----------



## nonsi256 (Aug 20, 2011)

Mirror said:


> I'm reading this and enjoying it, mostly. I do have a question though. One of the things I heard about trying to introduce balance was the creation of the ToB:BoNS. Does that completely fail, or did it have the opposite effect?




If you don't mind investing the time to study an entire subsystem and having it affect core classes as well, then it's a decent game addendum.
However, I find this set of rules to go a long way in returning noncasters the precious battlefield mobility 3e has robbed them of (which significantly increases overall damage output and battlefield control).


----------



## kitcik (Aug 20, 2011)

Search up JaronK's tiers on BrilliantGameologists.

The ToB classes are the highest tiered melee classes, so it helped.

But, the way to "balance" things, IMHO, is to nerf casting not improve melee classes. Through casting times and nerfing Concentration.

Anyway, just my $0.02.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 20, 2011)

I don't know, you could simply say attacks keep on increasing (4 is no longer the limit and BAB keeps rising in Epic), as well as make Fighters immune to magic unless they choose to allow it to affect them (hence can't be healed unless they let it).

Still wouldn't have the Fighters be anywhere close to a Wizard at the high levels (can you say, I wish all the oxygen leaves the atmosphere around this spot) as anything around the Fighter can STILL be affected and kill the Fighter instantly, but it could be something of a drastic fix.

Ironically, I always felt that it was an unholy quadrumvite (not a word, just made it up) of checks and balances.  A Wizard could kill a Cleric with high Level spells, the Cleric could kill the Fighter, the Fighter kills the thief...and the Thief...they can use stealth to backstab a wizard and typically can kill the wizard with one blow (wizard isn't expecting backstab, nor detects the thief typically, sure the Wizard could prepare and kill the theif...but that's saying the Wizard is even EXPECTING the Theif).

Thief doesn't do enough damage to actually kill the fighter overall (that's typically, I had a Thief that could kill just about anything with a backstab at high levels) and hence it's sort of a quadrumverite of who can kill who how.

Obviously easily broken overall (for example, and Assassin could kill anyone), but sort of a wierd balanced way.


----------



## Dandu (Aug 20, 2011)

Foresight breaks the chain by never allowing the wizard to be flatfooted.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Aug 20, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Look, I can't speak to anyone's individual experiences. If you say you tried to run a campaign with Wizards and Fighters and it didn't work...so be it. Nonsi256 just gave us anecodote of his Tier 3 Beguiler being so dominant over a Tier 1 Cleric, he got kicked out of the group. We have no way of knowing that the skill level or effort is of the various participents given the classes. And there in lies the first and ultimate problem with the Tier System: are the assumptions valid?




The Tier system assumes that the classes are being compared with the same amount of optimization and player skill.  To say that someone "beat" a T1 cleric with a T3 beguiler says nothing about their relative tiers; rather, the Tier system says that (A) if the player of the T1 class had the same skill and had optimized his character to the same degree as the player of the T3 class, the T1 character would have more versatility and problem-solving capability, and (B) if the player of the T3 character were instead playing a T1 class with similar optimization level, he would have more versatility and problem-solving capability.

The Tiers are not about who can beat whom in a fight; it's widely acknowledged that the T4 and T5 martial types do the most direct damage and have the highest DPS-to-effort-required ratio of all the classes.  The Tiers are about what putting X amount of effort into a class and Y amount of player skill will do--the Tome of Battle classes are T3 where the fighter and co. are lower T4 and T5 because you can take whatever trick a fighter or barbarian does ("mounted charger" or "chain tripper" or "tank" or whatever) and be able to do essentially the same build, perhaps with slightly less power due to lack of focus, _and also_ do other things.  Likewise, nonsi's well-played beguiler is an example of an optimized T3 class being played with a lot of skill vs. a not-so-optimized T1 class being played with less skill...but had his character been a focused enchanter instead of a beguiler, he could do everything the beguiler could do _and_ other things to support the role such as summoning more minions or debuffing enemies or the like



> In any analysis, the analyzer makes assumptions. The validity of the analysis is based on applicability/accuracy of the assumptions made. Let me ask a couple of questions that speak to this:
> 
> 1) Do D&D campaigns really work they way JaronK assumes in his examples?




Yes, in my experience they do, though granted my experience is not universal.  In one of my current campaigns, I have a party of 13th level PCs consisting of a kineticist blaster (fire-focused), a mystic theurge necromancer (cleric/dread necro with early entry), a crusader charger (mounted on a nightmare), an arcane archer (mystic ranger base with Sword of the Arcane Order), and a bard (Dragonfire Inspiration-focused).  There are two T2s in the party and two T3s, but it is the T3s who are more valuable.

Why is that?  Is it because the Tier system is bogus?  No, it's because the kineticist can chuck several dozen d6s of damage per round, but never bothers to determine whether enemies are resistant to fire.  It's because the necromancer has several hydras, dire animals, and other heavy hitters in his undead army, but always just sends them in to gang up on one target and beat them up without doing anything vaguely tactical.  It's because the arcane archer fires more _solid fog_ arrows than _fireball_ arrows, and has enough different types of arrows to pick the right ones for the job.  It's because the crusader uses his mount's high speed and _etherealness_ to surprise foes and get to where he's needed on the battlefield to defend people instead of just hitting people over and over.  It's because the bard's player is the tactician of the group and is usually the one to come up with the best plans, and knows where a single _suggestion_ can turn the tide of battle.

When the necromancer's player was absent one session and he asked the bard's player to handle his character while the bard was off doing something else IC, the party was able to wreck an enemy organization that had given them a lot of trouble before.  The necromancer's spell selection hadn't changed, and the undead army's composition hadn't changed, the bard's player was simply able to play up that character to its full tactical and strategic potential.



> There are a truck load of problems with many of the assumptions made in the Tier System ranking. Perhaps the biggest is the conflation of a "optimized" build with the notion that you can optimize to outperform all classes simultaenously (which isn't optimizing), and that you can maintain that level of robustness (which outpeforms every other lower Tier class) throughout an entire campaign.




Again, the Tier system isn't saying "T1 classes always automatically make all other classes inferior," it's saying "If you give someone who plays fighters really well a buff-focused DMMersist cleric or a wild shape-focused druid, he'll do just as well at fighting things and will have the versatility to do other things as well."  The Tiers are not defined on the _necessity_ of outperforming lower-Tier classes, merely on their _ability_ to do so--if the wizard in your game _wants_ to fill a certain role, he can do it, whether the role is blaster or tank or summoner or party face or whatever else, but it is not required that he do so.



> A big problem, imo, is how JaronK approaches Wizards. The Wizard or Cleric, in the context of an actual game...cannot bring the full power of every knowable spell to every encounter. Jaronk ignores this because he talks about _potential. _But that _potential_ is meaningless if it is illusory. The player character does not know how many times he'll need Fireball versus Haste versus Water Breathing and it's not like he can cast ten of each at 10th level.
> 
> Yes, a Wizard can go home and study Rock to Mud and bring down a castle wall. Gee, do you think the guy who built the castle wall never contemplated such a contigency? Do you think the guy who kindnaps the King's daughter never considered what a 10th level Wizard might do to find him? Jaronk acts like the world of D&D never met a 15th level Spellcaster with Genesis or Contact Other Plane before.




This objection is brought up quite frequently, and I am forced to disagree with it yet again.  Several things put the wizard at the top of the Tier list:

1) Divinations.  Even if your DM frowns on spamming _contact other plane_ or using _commune_ for binary search, a simple _divination_ asking "Am I likely to face undead or constructs today?" or "Does [name of BBEG] have any protections against teleportation in his stronghold?" or similar can help tailor your spell list to fit what you will encounter.

2) Leaving slots open.  If you run into something you can't beat immediately with any of your spells you don't need to go home and rest for 9 hours, giving your enemies time to regroup and rest, if you've left slots open in the morning; you can be ready with the right spells for the situation in 15 minutes.  Alacritous Cogitation, Uncanny Forethought, _Rary's spell engine_, and other feats and spells can let you cast the right spells right out of your spellbook in a matter of rounds instead of minutes.

3) Items.  Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free; good wizards take those spells that are only useful every so often and keep a scroll of them around for when they're useful.  _Pearls of power_ let them take that single _haste_ they prepared and turn it into two or three.  Wands can handle a lot of common utility spells, freeing up the wizard to prepare more combat-relevant spells--or vice versa, letting a utility wizard prep out-of-combat spells in his slots and rely on wands of combat spells.

Even by level 7 or so, "But the wizard might not have a spell relevant to the situation at hand!" isn't a good objection.  Yes, if the wizard needs to have one specific spell a half-dozen times in quick succession, he isn't likely to be prepared for that specific eventuality, but as long as the wizard has something vaguely relevant he'll be fine.



> The perception of balance is contextual. Tier system tries to present perceived balance as an absolute. He claims one of his goals is to prevent pre-emptive nerfing of Classes...and yet he's advocating the exact same thing. He's trying to convince you that you need to nerf Tier 1's to play with Tier 5's or you'll be in over your head as a DM. Nonsense. If you don't know what you're doing as a DM...you're going to be in over your head no matter what classes you have. You may think you're going to "balance" the game by having a mage battle...only to find the Monk with Improved Grapple and 8 ranks in Tumble and the Run feat has moved 5 times his move rate in one round, grappled your caster, and pretty much ended the threat in two rounds.
> 
> Any class can derail an encounter if you don't consider the full range of that class' abilities. The fact is that most DM's are less familiar with designing encounters to contend with powerful casters because most DM's have less experience with it period. We've all DM'd Fighers and Barbarians. We've all DM'd people who love to play martial classes. A much smaller subest of people like playing spell casters (statment made by Monte Cook and impetus for why they improved spell casters in 3e to begin with). As a result, DM's have less experience with the available spells and the consequences of those spells. The world of D&D has dealt with spell casters for over 1000 years even if you, as a DM, haven't.
> 
> What Jaronk and I 100% agree on is that if you grant any Class unfettered access to Spells, you're going to have a harder time managing the game. It doesn't matter if access to those spells is through a Class ability, items, or cohorts/companions. That doesn't mean Classes who can access Spells are broken. Manage the Spells and you fix all the Classes that have access to those Spells.




This I agree with entirely: the Tier system is a warning for DMs more than it is an absolute standard of balance.  I can handle a party of T1s and T5s just fine, but less experienced DMs might not be able to--that doesn't mean that said DM needs to implement blanket nerfs, it means he needs to ask his caster players to tone it down a bit and work with him until he gets a handle on things, or read up on the spells to get an idea of what they can do, or the like.



> Kahn_bloodbane is correct. Balance has no meaning in an RPG. The game cannot be balanced because you are comparing things which have contextual purpose/effectiveness. You can't balance context. You can't "balance" the Track Feat with the Extend Spell Feat, there is no scientific way to do it. The best you can do is create some perception of fairness...and fairness isn't balance. Fairness is subjectve.




Once again, this is a common statement which I strongly disagree with.  There is very much a notion of balance in an RPG.  You can compare two games and say that one is "more balanced" than the other, or that they are about as balanced as each other.  You can judge the relative power of different options, from the superficial level of "If a 3rd-level spell deals 10d6 at max level, a 2nd-level spell shouldn't deal 15d6 at max level, so that 2nd-level spell is too strong" to the more nuanced level of "This campaign will feature a disproportionately high number of undead and constructs, so Sneak Attack will be less powerful without options like weapon crystals or ACFs to somewhat compensate."

What an RPG cannot have is _perfect_ balance, that's self-evident...but that doesn't mean you can't strive for balance.  You can't scientifically determine whether _charm person_ will be balanced with high Diplomacy ranks, taking mind-affecting immunity and other factors into account, but you _can_ determine that it's not fun for the enchanter to render the rogue's Diplomacy ranks irrelevant or for the rogue to render the enchanter's spells irrelevant and that changing the binary _charm_ spells and the too-easily-abused Diplomacy system for balance purposes is a good idea.  You can't feasibly generate every possible cleric and fighter build and compare their combat stats and other merits, but you _can_ look at their general capabilities, note that the cleric can easily duplicate the fighter's abilities with a handful of spells, and remove those spells for balance reasons.



kitcik said:


> But, the way to "balance" things, IMHO, is to nerf casting not improve melee classes. Through casting times and nerfing Concentration.




The way to balance things is to nerf casters _and_ buff melee classes.  The martial classes need more variety in their abilities, to let them keep up with Team Monster and give them more and more interesting options, and the casting classes need their broken tricks toned down or removed.  No single option will do the trick.  Power the martial types up to caster levels and you get Frank and K's Tome series, which many people dislike; tone down the casters to martial levels and you get 4e, which as many and more people dislike.  Though it isn't always the case, in this situation the answer does indeed lie somewhere in the middle.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 21, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Foresight breaks the chain by never allowing the wizard to be flatfooted.




Wizard has to sleep sometime!



haha...seriously though, as I said, obviously easily broken.  Beyond that Clerics can easily counter wish even, a Cleric unready or poorly designed could easily lose to a well designed well prepared Fighter, and though somewhat silly in tone above, the Fighter DOES have to sleep sometime too!

Plus, even the all ethereal Ninja (originally complained about when it appeared in the Complete Adventurer may be the one caught unawares by the Wizard!

So, just a loosely jointed way that kind of shows all classes do have weaknesses that can be exploited by others, sometimes it's just as simple as someone else pointed out in the thread, something the Wizard didn't expect (his fighter buddy attacking him) is enough to one shot the Wizard to death even though the pattern doesn't fit in the Quadrumvirate.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 22, 2011)

Good post...

Refreshing to talk with someone who doesn't resort to ad hominems and thinly veiled insults.

Let's start with something we apparently both agree on. 

1) Any class which has more options/resources is going to present more challenges for a DM than those that have less options.

This isn't a revoluationary concept, nor is it brilliantly insightful. It's self-evident. But I would believe that many players/DM's have never conceptualized it i.e. understood why high level Spell Casters were chumping their campaigns. IMO, this is the most the Tier system has to contribute. Pushing Jaronk's analysis for greater granulity (as he does) is frought with issues.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> The Tier system assumes that the classes are being compared with the same amount of optimization and player skill. To say that someone "beat" a T1 cleric with a T3 beguiler says nothing about their relative tiers.



 Amen. Now do me a favor and add this reply to those select few in this thread who keep thinking 1v1 proves something about Jaron's ranking.



> Tier system says that (A) if the player of the T1 class had the same skill and had optimized his character to the same degree as the player of the T3 class, the T1 character would have more versatility and problem-solving capability



He says that..but it's little more than proof by assertion. I'm referring to the assertion that the rankings hold true as long as they have the same skill/optimization. JaronK makes a flawed induction. There's a very simple way to illustrate this. If you sit a carrot at the game table and alternatively give it a fully optimized (whatever that means) Wizard and a fully optimized Fighter, which Class will prove more useful?

Low optimization and skill is going to squash any true "power/versatility" curve down to a flat line. Jaronk fails to consider this. Now, does JaronK provide us with a skill+optimization matrix versus class? No. There is no metric for determing the comparative skill/optimzation, _or lack thereof, _in the people in your group and matching that up with how much of a difference it will mean between Tier 1 and Tier 6. 

Moving on... 


> The Tiers are not about who can beat whom in a fight



Please keep repeating that for the benefit of others who haven't seemed to grasp that concept when making their objections.




> The Tiers are about what putting X amount of effort into a class and Y amount of player skill will do--



It doesn't do that at all. JaronK never mentions what _amount _of skill or optimization we are talking about. He makes a blanket statement and then adds in a few caveats that are completely underemphaised. Kind of like the fine print on the bottom of a pack of cigarettes compared to the entire add: all the cool people smoke, but these things could kill you.



> Likewise, nonsi's well-played beguiler is an example of an optimized T3 class being played with a lot of skill vs. a not-so-optimized T1 class being played with less skill...



How much better is Nonsi than his friends? How much more optimization has he put in? Can you provide me with a metric that allows me to compare them? How familiar is the DM with Beguiler class to begin with? There is a underlying point being made here at it's crucial to a later point: these things are immeasurable from any quantitative standpoint...but yet JaronK says we can quantize the classes. Do you see the inherent problem? You respond to this notion...so we'll come back to it.



> Why is that? Is it because the Tier system is bogus?



I'm not saying that JaronK's system is bogus. I am telling readers to determine if the assumptions which are the basis of the analsys are valid for their campaign. I'm also pointing out problems with his analsys which affect the accuracy of his analysis. As I said, and to which I believe you agreed, if you give _any_ class unfettered access to "magic," that class will have more options and be harder to account for than any class that does not have access to magic. 



> ...It's because the bard's player is the tactician of the group and is usually the one to come up with the best plans, and knows where a single _suggestion_ can turn the tide of battle.



Your anecdote underscores my point. The assumptions of the Tier system aren't valid for your campaign, nor were they valid for Nonsi's. Neither of you have PC's with equal skill/opt across classes. Now let me ask you...how many times have you as aDM'd ever had equal skill and optimization across all the classes?

Yet, JaronK is advocating the nerfing of Wizards compared to Monks..._right out of the box. _Jaronk suggests you should ...at the very moment you roll the character...give classes different point-buy totals based on their Tier ranking. Yes....yes...it's all in the context of equal skill. Okay...so what happens when the skill levels/effort put into a build are different? How does one modify the point-buy? Not too clear on that point is he?



> Again, the Tier system isn't saying "T1 classes always automatically make all other classes inferior,"



 Not precisely, but he does goes over the top in suggesting that very thing. He says the rankings are valid no matter what equal level of skill/optimzation you have.  He only offers ONE set of Tier rankings.m He suggests you nerf from day one.  He suggests you don't even _allow_ Tier 1's to play with Tier 5's. The vast majority of his discussion in his thread is about defending his Tier system, not pointing out where it's wrong or that it is being missued.



> The Tiers are not defined on the _necessity_ of outperforming lower-Tier classes, merely on their _ability_ to do so--



 Under what set of circumstances? How well do those circumstances represent any individual DM's campaign?



> if the wizard in your game _wants_ to fill a certain role, he can do it, whether the role is blaster or tank or summoner or party face or whatever else, but it is not required that he do so.



 And performing those roles comes at an opportuinty costs.  So under Jaron's logic. The average person playing a Wizard can out "role" the Fighter (who is played by an average person as well) at his job--killing and tanking--and do all of the tasks that are required of him as a Wizard...all from levels 6-15? Are you going to support that as a truth? 

The problem is all of JaronK's "proofs" are based on power/gaming. They aren't based on equal levels of skill. They are based on a Wizard having a high degree of skill.



> 1) Divinations. *** "Does [name of BBEG] have any protections against teleportation in his stronghold?" or similar can help tailor your spell list to fit what you will encounter.



 And it never occured to BBEG that some spell caster might be trying to find out that exact thing? I mean this is my point. Spell casters with access to all the spells in the book have been around for 1000 years in any D&D campaign. I swear its like an 11th level Wizard is Cortes discovering the Aztecs.



> 2) Leaving slots open. *** if you've left slots open in the morning; you can be ready with the right spells for the situation in 15 minutes. Alacritous Cogitation, Uncanny Forethought, _Rary's spell engine_, and other feats and spells can let you cast the right spells right out of your spellbook in a matter of rounds instead of minutes.



 See my response to #1 above.



> 3) Items. Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free; good wizards take those spells that are only useful every so often and keep a scroll of them around for when they're useful. _Pearls of power_ ....



This seems a common response when people are confronted by the spell limitations of Wizards.  JaronK specifically states that using items doesn't make that class better...because all classes can use items. Its irrelevant if the Wizard can make the scroll as a Class ability because a) He can't do that at the start of combat; 2) Any class can either buy or have an item with any particular spell custom made e.g. Boots of Free Movement, Potion of Mind Blank.  Is there any restriction on what can be made in to a potion? A Masterworks potion belt lets you drink potions as a free action. So if Wizard can do it with a scroll made before the adventure...a Fighter can do it with a potion.



> Yes, if the wizard needs to have one specific spell a half-dozen times in quick succession, he isn't likely to be prepared for that specific eventuality



 So you're saying there's usefulness in a non-caster who can do something in quick succession half a dozen times? 


> but as long as the wizard has something vaguely relevant he'll be fine.



 I'm not sure what's vaguely relevant to Water Breathing...but now you're in the middle of a wholly subjective judgment call and I won't try and try to argue yea or nay.



> This I agree with entirely: the Tier system is a warning for DMs more than it is an absolute standard of balance.



Unfortunately, it's presented as a standard of balance and its defended that way. It makes no attempt explore the areas where it fails horribly and leads to misinformation.



> ...it means he needs to ask his caster players to tone it down a bit and work with him until he gets a handle on things, or read up on the spells to get an idea of what they can do, or the like.



That's a very generous thing for you to say.



> Once again, this is a common statement which I strongly disagree with. There is very much a notion of balance in an RPG.



So now were getting to the heart of the matter...or rather the best part. People _talk_ about balance, but that's not what balance is. Balance is not subjective. Balance is by its very definition an _objective _weighing of two things with a common metric. Read the definition:


a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 


A "balance" is also a scale where two things are weighed against each other. Game designers are taking the word...misapplying it...but then trying to benefit from its implication. The fact that you can't achieve perfect balance is not at issue. Nobody's talking about "perfect" balance. But, balance implies an empirical comparison and in the world of RPG Classes, an empirical comparison is not possible. It's literally _not _possible to balance things that do not have a similar metric.



> You can compare two games and say that one is "more balanced" than the other



And what exactly are the two things you are weighing? Do they have quantitatve values? No, they don't. Their values, even with things like DPS, are entirely dependent on the context in which they are being evaluated.

I'm going to expand on something I just said. A game designer wants to use the term balance because they'd like to believe (and convicne others) such a thing is not only possible (which it is not) but they've moved closer to achieving it. It's sophistry. What they are evaulating is effectiveness in some specific or set of contexts. Effectiveness is contextual. But if you use the word "balance" then everybody understands you are talking about a non-contextual quality and you are free to pursue your own personal notion of "balance" without having to defend it. If you tell people you are looking for fairness...good luck with that. Effectiveness? You'll be arguing 24/7 defending what it means to be effective. But "Balance" you can throw that word out there and the only thing people are going to argue is whether you have achieved it....and guess what is so wonderful about pursuing "balance"? People are going to have the darndest time _proving _you haven't achieved. 

Not only can you not achieve balance, you can't even measure it.



> You can judge the relative power of different options



 What you are really doing is assessing _effectiveness _given test cases in your head. This "balancing" of a campaign is really one assessing what one believes to be the effectiveness of the party given certain scenarios or contexts. As soon as the party does something to change the context...suddenly the "balance" can be thrown out of whack.




> ...but that doesn't mean you can't strive for balance.



That's exactly right. By using the word "balance" we avoid the subjective pitfalls of words like fairness and effectiveness. But the "balance" one strives for is a result of context. A budget sheet is balanced _regardless_ of context. Why? Because the things being balanced share the same metric: money. RPG's cannot be broken down into empirical values. Hence they cannot be balanced and you cannot change the balance because such a thing does not exist. You have contextual effectiveness and perceptions of fairness. That is what you can manage as a game designer/DM. People talk about...they all have this concept of it...but they fail to understand how it is unmeasurable in an RPG and that discussions based on it a inherently flawed...and we wonder why no one ever agrees on things being balanced in an RPG?



> You can't scientifically determine whether _charm person_ will be balanced with high Diplomacy ranks, taking mind-affecting immunity and other factors into account, but you _can_ determine that it's not fun for the enchanter to render the rogue's Diplomacy ranks irrelevant or for the rogue to render the enchanter's spells irrelevant and that changing the binary _charm_ spells and the too-easily-abused Diplomacy system for balance purposes is a good idea.



 Right. But you're not talking about balance but contextual effectiveness. You can call it achieving nirvana...but that doesn't change what it is.



> You can't feasibly generate every possible cleric and fighter build and compare their combat stats and other merits, but you _can_ look at their general capabilities, note that the cleric can easily duplicate the fighter's abilities with a handful of spells, and remove those spells for balance reasons.



 Now you are talking about perceptions of fairness and fun. Balance =/= Fun. Purpose is closer to fun than balance.



> The way to balance things is to nerf casters _and_ buff melee classes....



 What if I told you that the way to improve things is to make martial classes needed (and not in a trivial way) and effective at higher levels? Isn't that what we are really talking about? Do we really care what "balance" means as long as the Fighter class is important to party success at a high level?

The problem is purpose....not balance.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2011)

There is no spoon?


----------



## kitcik (Aug 22, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Good post...
> 
> Refreshing to talk with someone who doesn't resort to ad hominems and thinly veiled insults.
> 
> ...




tl;dr

In any case, the self-evident thing is that someone who knows what they are doing will do it better than someone who does not. So what?

That is why the tier system assumes equal optimization / player skill. Seems like the only assumptions you can make and still have a tier system.

Unless you want to have "beginner" classes and "idiot" classes, while forcing the most experienced / intelligent players to be monks and fighters.

Once again, you change your entire argument, while pretending not to, in order to flame on the tier system, even though you are too scared to do it on BG. It used to be "wizards should be nerfed by reducing their access to spells because that's RAW" and now it's "nerfing is dumb, all that matters is player skill." Get real.

Every campaign and every player is different. That doesn't invalidate the tier system or support statements like "a fighter with unlimited first level spells would not move up a tier."

What I don't understand is what you are trying to achieve by saying that casters are not more powerful / better / more versatile than non-casters because of <your reason du jour: casters can be denied spells / players have different skill levels>. It seems like arguing that high revenue is not an advantage in baseball because the luxury tax evens things out or because the Marlins won the World Series.

*Mod Edit:* See my post below, please.  ~Umbran


----------



## Dandu (Aug 22, 2011)

> Once again, you change your entire argument, while pretending not to, in  order to flame on the tier system, even though you are too scared to do  it on BG.



Really, I do think JaronK could stand to hear more of his outstanding insights into how D&D works.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2011)

kitcik said:


> ...even though you are too scared to do it on BG.





*EN World is not grade-school playground where you accuse people of cowardice and double-dog-dare them to do things.  We expect more mature behavior from our posters than that.  

You're getting personal, addressing the poster rather than the post.  Please stop.*


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 22, 2011)

The best and most appropriate way (in my opinion) to balance fighters and casters is to make higher level casters more rare than higher level fighters.

Cause when you think of it, those people wielding ridiculous power should absolutely have a much higher mortality rate due to the nature of things they have to do to attain it.  Next, if a high-level fighter needs to take on a high level caster, then they should be preparing themselves for that fight well in advance.

If not, then they should be char-broiled.  Nuff said.


----------



## kahn_bloodbane (Aug 22, 2011)

honestly, when I started my campaign (around 15 years ago, and yes it's still ongoing) I did tell the players, "the system is this one, it isn't perfect, everyone agree to it's rules? we can play something else if you like" players gone "yeah ok we want to play D&D" and thus we played D&D, there been lots of reading rules, lots of rule lawiers trying to get stuff going how they liked, then there been the 3rd edition and the afterwards conversions, and, finally 3.5 (we never got to 4th, we all agreed it sucked) we had many players and many dms and well, the fundamental rule of it is, the books are the rule what there is written is the rule, end of it, if players are smart enough to attain immortality using such rules (there's ways) they will suffer consequencies of it (ok now your immortal, happy? let's keep on playing.. if you don't have fun anymore knowing there's no way you can be beaten you can change your character, else you have to keep on playing that one.) some quit their characters some kept on til today (over 10 years) the game kept on going, legends born, legends got lost (the baddies: oh your immortal? really you can't die? ok let's trap you in the negative material plane.. bye bye) some legends returned (you trapped me in the negative plane.. now it's time for PAIN >:|) and so on.. overall the players are happy.. and are STILL happy.. there's always more things to do, to discover, the worlds are endless, and no amount of power is umbeatable.
honestly, it's not power that changes your so called balance (my dming method is balance-free and running fine!) it's the creativity of the players, and how they manage to exploit whathever little thing and dm hook or thing they find in adventures, I've seen 5th level wizards beat 12th level wizards with creative use of few low level spells, I've seen warriors so full of apparently minor magical items that could do the rogue job better than rogues or even improvise themselves wizards, I've seen a 7th level party beat TWO cr 11 black dragons, I've seen a 11th level party beat a freaking atropal in 4 rounds of combat simply using the player's handbook spells and being well prepared knowing they was going against an atropal..
it's a roleplaying game, there's no way to predict the ideas of players and if players has a magnificent idea should we penalize them in the name of balance?
the world lives with the characters, there's friends, enemies, allies, territories, a warrior wins over a wizard in myth drannor, why? the wizard spells are very unlikely to work there, a warrior wins over a wizard if he is king azun IV of cormyr, simply because his court mage and his whole kindom will probably wipe the floor with the baddie wizard face for him, a warrior who has more money to spend than he can count can hire a band of drow mercenaries for a ridiculous amount of money to kill the wizard in question, or can buy a bunch of iron golems for protection, or even a beholder maybe..
the class matters relatively it's what you build in the whole campaign, the people you help, the people for who you do quests, those who are grateful toward you, those who loves you, those who follows you and would follow you til hell and back if you'd ask them to (see cohorts and leadership skill followers), the gods you helped (if you got high level enough to do such a feat).
you can talk of 1vs1 fights only at 1st level when nobody knows the people, but in the travel from 1st to 20th level you pretty much are speaking of wars between large factions not between two specific people, it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to get to high level and you are BOUND to leave a large trace of your passage. always.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Aug 23, 2011)

I would just like to state, for the record, that I'm not a rabid fan of the Tier system or anything of the sort; I have my issues with the placement of some classes and with the system as a whole just as others do.  I've merely seen many people misinterpret and/or slander it (not that anyone here is doing any slandering) since it was originally posted on the pre-Gleemax WotC boards and I try to defend it from misunderstanding where I can.



Arrowhawk said:


> He says that..but it's little more than proof by assertion. I'm referring to the assertion that the rankings hold true as long as they have the same skill/optimization. JaronK makes a flawed induction. There's a very simple way to illustrate this. If you sit a carrot at the game table and alternatively give it a fully optimized (whatever that means) Wizard and a fully optimized Fighter, which Class will prove more useful?
> 
> Low optimization and skill is going to squash any true "power/versatility" curve down to a flat line. Jaronk fails to consider this. Now, does JaronK provide us with a skill+optimization matrix versus class? No. There is no metric for determing the comparative skill/optimzation, _or lack thereof, _in the people in your group and matching that up with how much of a difference it will mean between Tier 1 and Tier 6.




T1 ≥ T6 holds true both when a competent player plays either class (T1 > T6) and when a carrot plays either class (T1 = T6).  If you choose tactics and abilities purely randomly, a ranking of Tiers won't help a DM determine how to best challenge your party...but I would hope "The Tier system is valid when not DMing a party of vegetables" would not have to be a stated assumption. 



> It doesn't do that at all. JaronK never mentions what _amount _of skill or optimization we are talking about. He makes a blanket statement and then adds in a few caveats that are completely underemphaised. Kind of like the fine print on the bottom of a pack of cigarettes compared to the entire add: all the cool people smoke, but these things could kill you.
> 
> How much better is Nonsi than his friends? How much more optimization has he put in? Can you provide me with a metric that allows me to compare them? How familiar is the DM with Beguiler class to begin with? There is a underlying point being made here at it's crucial to a later point: these things are immeasurable from any quantitative standpoint...but yet JaronK says we can quantize the classes. Do you see the inherent problem? You respond to this notion...so we'll come back to it.




Granted that they are not numerically quantifiable, perhaps, but I'd argue that they're not immeasurable.  If you look at two parties containing wizards, one of which has a pure blaster and one of which has a buffer and support caster with the rest of the party being of identical composition, and see that the latter has a higher success rate, you don't need to know about the exact numerical superiority of _fireball_'s damage output vs. _haste_'s damage output to see that the latter is helping more.

Likewise, we don't need to know that nonsi has put in 34.7 hours of work building his character while the cleric's player has only put in 14.2 hours; we can look at the amount of time nonsi spends on D&D forums, compare the feat and item choices for both characters, etc., and make a _qualitative_ judgment of their relative skill and optimization levels.  As well, the beguiler's tricks are the same as a wizard's tricks, excepting a handful of class features.  If the DM is familiar with an enchanter wizard's tricks, he need only read a few paragraphs of text to become familiar with the beguiler's capabilities, and if he _isn't_ then the beguiler and wizard are equally unknown.



> Your anecdote underscores my point. The assumptions of the Tier system aren't valid for your campaign, nor were they valid for Nonsi's. Neither of you have PC's with equal skill/opt across classes. Now let me ask you...how many times have you as aDM'd ever had equal skill and optimization across all the classes?




On the contrary, they were quite valid.  Assumption 1: Given the same player skill, a T[X] class is more versatile and has more potential than a T[X+1] class; when a T2 class was played by the same player as the T3 class, the player accomplished more, and more varied, things with the T1 class.  Assumption 2: Things are easier on the DM when the party is composed of classes 0 to 1 Tier apart; the party was cohesive and relatively balanced on the whole.

The Tier system measures a class's worth to a party in general, not its worth when played alongside other characters of equal optimization by players of equal skill.  A buff-focused T1 class can be a benefit to both a conjurer/CoDzilla/CoDzilla/artificer party and a warmage/healer/monk/expert party, and a fighter who sinks all of his bonus feats into Weapon Focus can be drain on the resources of both parties.  While I personally believe that I as a DM should oversee character creation to ensure that everyone is at roughly the same balance points--helping the novice players pick choices that are both fun and powerful and reminding the experienced players not to try to steal the spotlight--that isn't really what the Tier system aims to measure.



> Yet, JaronK is advocating the nerfing of Wizards compared to Monks..._right out of the box. _Jaronk suggests you should ...at the very moment you roll the character...give classes different point-buy totals based on their Tier ranking. Yes....yes...it's all in the context of equal skill. Okay...so what happens when the skill levels/effort put into a build are different? How does one modify the point-buy? Not too clear on that point is he?
> 
> Not precisely, but he does goes over the top in suggesting that very thing. He says the rankings are valid no matter what equal level of skill/optimzation you have.  He only offers ONE set of Tier rankings.m He suggests you nerf from day one.  He suggests you don't even _allow_ Tier 1's to play with Tier 5's. The vast majority of his discussion in his thread is about defending his Tier system, not pointing out where it's wrong or that it is being missued.




This point I agree with completely.  I disagree with arbitrary nerfing or banning of classes, and don't ban anything at all in my games, just remind players that anything they do the NPCs can do as well and leave avoidance of broken options to their own judgment.  A helpful guide for DMs that warns them about problematic classes is one thing, a blunt suggestion to remove said classes altogether is another entirely.  While I support the concept of the Tier system in general I do not endorse or at all like the discussion surrounding it of "T1/T5 classes are evil, don't let people play them!" and similar.  Working with players, nerfing and buffing _as appropriate_, and other tactics are preferable to heavy-handed bans.



> And performing those roles comes at an opportuinty costs.  So under Jaron's logic. The average person playing a Wizard can out "role" the Fighter (who is played by an average person as well) at his job--killing and tanking--and do all of the tasks that are required of him as a Wizard...all from levels 6-15? Are you going to support that as a truth?




Sadly, it can be the case with the appropriate spell selections.  One doesn't need a gish PrC to buff up, wade into battle, and waste the competition rather effectively.  Focus on touch spells, use the _bite of X_ and [Polymorph] spells...there are several options.  Heck, casting a bunch of _heroics_ spells and then a _Tenser's transformation_ is a straightforward (albeit not-at-all-recommended) method for a wizard to be a fighter for all intents and purposes.

Note that the wizard can't necessarily be a fighter and perform all of his wizardly duties at the same time, but that's the power of the T1 classes: they can be a normal wizard/cleric/druid/etc. then wake up one morning, decide to become a fighter, and then do that, without permanently affecting their abilities.



> The problem is all of JaronK's "proofs" are based on power/gaming. They aren't based on equal levels of skill. They are based on a Wizard having a high degree of skill.
> 
> And it never occured to BBEG that some spell caster might be trying to find out that exact thing? I mean this is my point. Spell casters with access to all the spells in the book have been around for 1000 years in any D&D campaign. I swear its like an 11th level Wizard is Cortes discovering the Aztecs.




1) If the BBEG is a caster, yes, there are easy and plentiful countermeasures to a caster's direct divinations, but that means that you can't have a BBEG who isn't a caster and has no access to casters.

2) What sort of protections are there against _commune_ and _contact other plane_?  _Mind blank_ definitely protects against direct divinations, but whether it can protect against indirect divinations like the above is debatable--and even if it can, there's a several-level window where the divinations are available but the countermeasures aren't.

The fact that you have to specifically protect against enemy divinations is exactly the sort of thing the Tier system is meant to warn DMs about



> This seems a common response when people are confronted by the spell limitations of Wizards.  JaronK specifically states that using items doesn't make that class better...because all classes can use items. Its irrelevant if the Wizard can make the scroll as a Class ability because a) He can't do that at the start of combat; 2) Any class can either buy or have an item with any particular spell custom made e.g. Boots of Free Movement, Potion of Mind Blank.  Is there any restriction on what can be made in to a potion? A Masterworks potion belt lets you drink potions as a free action. So if Wizard can do it with a scroll made before the adventure...a Fighter can do it with a potion.




There's a reason the artificer is a higher Tier than a UMD rogue: he uses items better than other classes.  UMD is disregarded because anyone can use it with enough skill ranks, but other class features are not.  _Pearls of power_ only work for spellcasters; wizards gain scroll scribing and the ability to use spell trigger items for free; non-personal spells can't be put into potions; and so forth.  The reason scrolls are a factor for a wizard and not for, say, a UMD rogue is that if a wizard gets a scroll it can become a permanent part of his power once scribed into his spellbook.  Faced with a need to teleport across a continent, a rogue needs one _scroll of teleport_ per trip, which may not be available to buy; faced with the same, a wizard needs a single _scroll of teleport_, which he can craft as long as he has access to that spell in any form regardless of the market, and then he's good to go.



> So you're saying there's usefulness in a non-caster who can do something in quick succession half a dozen times?




Absolutely.  The fact that the wizard _can_ memorize nothing but _knock_ and _shatter_ and _disintegrate_ to be able to open locks and disable traps better than the rogue doesn't mean that any wizard with two brain cells to rub together _should_ do so.



> I'm not sure what's vaguely relevant to Water Breathing...but now you're in the middle of a wholly subjective judgment call and I won't try and try to argue yea or nay.




My point is that you're assuming the wizard must have prepared the exact spell _water breathing_; if the obstacle is "be able to breath underwater" the wizard can cast _water breathing_, or can _alter self_/_polymorph_ into a form with the ability to breathe water (or one that doesn't need to breathe), or buff his Con to let him hold his breath longer, or conjure up materials and then _fabricate_ an item to let him breathe water, and so forth.



> So now were getting to the heart of the matter...or rather the best part. People _talk_ about balance, but that's not what balance is. Balance is not subjective. Balance is by its very definition an _objective _weighing of two things with a common metric.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...




I disagree with the notion that one cannot balance RPG classes due to lack of a metric.  The metric(s) exist and can be balanced to.

From a mathematical perspective, you can seriously sit down and look at the math of your system to determine the exact expected hit percentage for each class, exact damage potential, exact expected success rate on skill checks, etc.  It's not hard, conceptually speaking, to do this and come up with a rigorously balanced game.

From a design perspective, you can seriously tell GMs that X% of encounters should be noncombat encounters using roughly Y skill checks or Z item charges or whatever, and determine how much each class should contribute under those conditions and balance those numbers appropriately.

From a conceptual perspective, you can seriously declare that combat will take up X% of the game, and balance Class A to contribute 40% of the time in combat and 60% of the time out of combat and Class B to do the reverse and have those classes be weighted equally in the purely numerical, purely objective Class Effectiveness Index or whatever that you created.

The problem with this idea, and the reason I said that a certain degree of balance is possible but perfect balance is not, is twofold: First, one must make certain assumptions to do this testing.  You cannot balance weights until you decide upon the gram and the Newton; you cannot balance games until you decide upon the basic concepts and mechanics of your game.  The standard to which one balances is entirely arbitrary (a gram could easily have been defined in another way), and most games are designed with badly-chosen (or completely undetermined) arbitrary balance points that don't necessarily align to the way the game will be played--witness the relative party effectiveness of a blaster/healbot/tank/sneak party played AD&D-style in 3e vs. a debuffer/buffer/controller/DPSer party played "new-school" style.

Second, the fact that balance _can_ be achieved doesn't mean it _will_ be.  No designer will sit down and try to apply numerical values to nonnumerical quantities because someone somewhere will disagree, and if those someones are your player base or your bosses you're in trouble.  Taking most open-ended abilities out doesn't work; observe 4e.  Making assumptions about playstyle doesn't work; observe 3e.  Leaving everything to the DM doesn't work; observe AD&D.

So while you are correct in saying that achieving objective, perfect balance in any sense in any modern RPG is impossible, I object to the notion that one cannot possibly have a scale of "less balanced" to "more balanced" by which to judge games, based on weighting different aspects of gameplay and adjusting outputs to suit the desired baseline.



> What if I told you that the way to improve things is to make martial classes needed (and not in a trivial way) and effective at higher levels? Isn't that what we are really talking about? Do we really care what "balance" means as long as the Fighter class is important to party success at a high level?
> 
> The problem is purpose....not balance.




I would respond that both nerfing casters and buffing noncasters is exactly how one should go about making classes nontrivially needed and effective at high levels.  As long as a caster can replace a noncaster class, the noncasters will not be needed; as long as a noncaster will need outside assistance in the form of party help or items to be baseline effective, noncasters will not be effective.


----------



## Empirate (Aug 23, 2011)

I think a lot of what Arrowhawk's complaints regarding the tiers is about is that JaronK used numerative descriptors for the tiers. This can lead to a (false) observation that "the tier system is numerical, ergo quantifiable, ergo needs to be mathematically provable". This is not the case.

Instead of "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6", the tiers could easily have been labeled "Epsilon, Gordion, Delphi, Hephaistos, Okeanos, Tyche": "Gordion" classes are generally about as powerful as "Epsilon" classes, but the latter have more versatility much of the time. "Tyche" classes are not worth playing unless in a very low-power environment, and will struggle to solve even simple problems much of the time. A party composed of all "Delphi" and "Hephaistos" classes can be expected to be able to perform well in most fields, but will usually not be able to trivialize any challenge with a single ability. Etc.

But JaronK used numbers - why? Because there's a progression from "most powerful AND versatile" to "least powerful AND versatile", and numbers show this more easily than other names (although a, b, c etc. will work as well).

HOWEVER, the general statement that there is a progression from "most whatever" to "least whatever" doesn't mean that it is quantifiable. In fact, the tiers are _qualitative _categories, measured not in DPS, or spells/day, or something else, but in _qualitative _standards. JaronK provides these standards in short, concise descriptions. He also provides a bunch of example challenges, _qualitatively _measuring each class against their potential to perform well in a number of situations.

To remind you what the tiers _actually mean_:




			
				JaronK said:
			
		

> Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than  classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving  encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the  player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played  well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without  extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





Insistence on quantifiability of tiers, or game balance for that matter, misses the point. By an unmeasurable distance.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 23, 2011)

Once again, another good post refreshingly free of inane questions, snarky innuendo, and ad hominems.

Let me start by saying we probably agree on about 60%-80% of this. I think there are some details we could debate (and I might be inclined to ). But there is something you said that I want to restate:




Eldritch_Lord said:


> I try to defend it from misunderstanding where I can.



 I think this needs to go both ways. I think one of the problems with JaronK's Tier system is that it leads to _misinformation_, which is worse than no information. With misinformation you draw the _wrong_ conclusions.

Let's revisit something you said and to which I responded in the previous post..



> The Tiers are about what putting X amount of effort into a class and Y amount of player skill will do--



This seems like a natural extension of the Tier system doesn't it? But no where is it actually proven or is there any real evidence to support it. So the manner in which this Tier system is presented leads us to extend its implications far beyond what can logically or scientifically be supported. I think this does a disservice to the game and those who play it. And this is mostly why I'm posting. The Tier system is held up as some universal truth about D&D when it's not.

As I said before, we know that given the same player, the more options you give them, the more they can do. But that doesn't mean they will make choices that are actually beneficial or that they'll make the right choices. Who is more detrimental to the party in the hands of a bad decision maker, a Wizard or a Fighter? A bad decision make is still equal skill.



> "The Tier system is valid when not DMing a party of vegetables" would not have to be a stated assumption.



 But that's exactly the assumption he makes. He says "equal skill / optimzation." So at what point above a vegetable does the Wizard move five Tiers above a Fighter? Do you think Jaronk can tell you that? 

So let's look at the discussion point by point...



> Granted that they are not numerically quantifiable *** you don't need to know about the exact numerical superiority of _fireball_'s damage output vs. _haste_'s damage output to see that the latter is helping more.



 Apologies, I'm having a hard time figuring what it is you mean to say. I was pointing out that we don't know how much of X effort is required to put into Y class to make the Tier system true. I agree that we can look at contextual effectiveness between various party confirgurations...but I don't understand how this relates to the point you originally made.



> Likewise, we don't need to know that nonsi has put in 34.7 hours of work building his character ***and make a _qualitative_ judgment of their relative skill and optimization levels.



 So there are bunch of things being conflated here. Equal effort =/= equal effectiveness. Nonsi could spend 10 minutes making a character and I could spend 10 hours and Nonsi's could be more effective in a given context. Likewise. I might take Nonsi's charcter and be more effective with his character than he is in another context. The point is you really have no way of knowing what are relative skills/optimization level is. I believe the charop boards are filled with people who disagree about what is the best way to "optimize" for any specific role or task. Can you look at the arguments being made and determine who would _play_ X class better than the other? 



> As well, the beguiler's tricks are the same as a wizard's tricks...



 Yes and no. Both use the same spells, but implementation /method is often more important than base functionality. The approach (method) of the beguilar is diferent than the Wizard.  One can be familiar with all the spells and feats but doesn't mean that as  DM, you're familiar with a Wizard playing as a blaster.  That _mode_ of play may still catch you buy surprise.  So the Beguiler respresents a different mode of play.  Nevertheless, i threw it out there as an example of a one of the factors that determines how well a DM prepares for certain classes, not as a truth about nonsi's situation.




> On the contrary, they were quite valid. Assumption 1: Given the same player skill,



Apologies, my point was not clear. Neither you nor Nonsi has equal skill/optimization across all players. So it would be dangerous if not outright folly to start changing the (nerfing/boosting) characters based on the Tier system. I believe we are in agreement on this.




> The Tier system measures a class's worth to a party in general, not its worth when played alongside other characters of equal optimization by players of equal skill.



So here we are again with what seems a logical extension of the Tier system...despite no real or even illusory evidence to support such an extension. Jaronk ostensibly created the Tier system for two purposes:

1) Warn DM's about the difficulties in providing a fair (people use the word "balanced") campaign when you have a Wizard and Fighter at lvl 11.

2) The "intraparty" (term he specficially uses) effectiveness between classes. In other words, the Wizard is more poweful than the Fighter at level 11 i.e. the classes are not "balanced" and thus you as a DM need to "balance" them. 

I've never seen a party with equal optimziation / skill across all classes. Have you? How do you know when skill is equal? Do you give your players an IQ test and a knowledge test on D&D? So you really don't know what level of skill/optimziation you are dealing with. You have a comparative sense...but you can't quantify it. So to reiterate a point I'm guilty of beating like a dead horse. We don't know _when_ the Tier system is true...we are only told that it is true for *all* skill levels. Well, we've already proven that it's not.




> While I personally believe that I as a DM should oversee character creation to ensure that everyone is at roughly the same balance points--



 While I neither disagree or agree with this, assessment of what that point is entirely subjective.




> ... wade into battle, and waste the competition rather effectively. Focus on touch spells, use the _bite of X_ and [Polymorph] spells...



Let's change the nature of the discussion. Can you talk to me about a campaign you had that went from 1-15 and at what point the Tier 1's took over the game? 

Or just talk generally how high level spell casters caused the armageddon that JaronK tells us will result with the mix of Fighters and Wizards in the same party. Like you, I don't have infinite experience playing 3.5, so it would help to hear examples where things worked exactly as JaronK predicts them to. 

[quote[ Note that the wizard can't necessarily be a fighter and perform all of his wizardly duties at the same time, but that's the power of the T1 classes: [/quote]
Funny, because that's my argument as well...but that's not how Jaronk presents it...



> Capable of doing *absolutely everything*, often better than classes that specialize in that thing.



Jaronk doesn't add any time constraint modifiers. He says "absolutely everything." So are we in agreement that he overstates the case?



> they can be a normal wizard/cleric/druid/etc. then wake up one morning, decide to become a fighter, and then do that, without permanently affecting their abilities.



 And I'm very curious to hear based on your experience how often that happens. How often does the Wizard become the Fighter and do this more efficiently and effectively than the Fighter himself? Share specific campaign anecdotes if you can.




> ...but that means that you can't have a BBEG who isn't a caster and has no access to casters.



 ...and why would that be an issue? I would assume that if you have high level casters who can do these things...they are takling missions that _require_ these things to be done and in turn expect them to be doing these things. I mean isn't this like the monsters you put in a high level dungeon? Are you putting in monsters with AC's and damage output that indeed pose a thread to the martial classes who are at that level? Why wouldn't those same dungeons have threats for the spell castesr? I.e. lots of Enfeeblement anti magic, time constraints, inhospitable environments for resting...etc. 



> 2) What sort of protections are there against _commune_ and _contact other plane_?



 Well, COP has a failure %. Second, there's nothing in RAW that says a being from that plane doesn't come looking to kill the person who is disturbing them. If you are a deity (you know, immortal being beyond the scope of man), and some mortal beings are constantly bugging you with questions...you might be willing to answer...and then make sure they never ask again. Or warn them of the consequence of your answering their question before you answer it. Per RAW, a deity or outside force can block use of the spell...who is to say that any such use isn't a "rare" occasion?

_Commune_ has a bunch of strict rules...specifically that the deity will answer the question to further their own interest. In both cases, you can feed players misinformation about what questions to ask. If a kidnapped victim or treasure is in a Rope Trick..then they techncially aren't in the city are they? 

Let me make an observation. A lot of these discussions have this feel of talking about what _could_ happen, about what is _technically_ possible under RAW. But the more I look at specific cases, the more I see RAW options for DM's to manage the situation. I do 100% agree with Jaronk's suggestion that it's easier to design campaigns for any characters that are 1 diminesional. But that includes classes like Sorcs who have optimized their build for blasting. 



> The fact that you have to specifically protect against enemy divinations is exactly the sort of thing the Tier system is meant to warn DMs about



 Jaronk makes it sound like an impossible task simply because you have a Fighter in the group. Is that your experience? Are Wizards _in a single sessions_ invincible when compared to Fighters? I don't mean potentially, I mean as you have played the game.




> ....a wizard needs a single _scroll of teleport..._



 One thing I am inclined to agree with is that 3.5 does a lousy job of keeping Spell Casters reigned in. Reading Monte Cook's articles, it's clear that many of the designers played 1e. They remember how limited Magic Users were and I think they went overboard in opening up Spell casters. With spells like Miracle able to be cast in a Stanard Action, or clerics being able to worship ideals and have no restrictions on spell level, I think they over did it. Celebrim shared some helpful insights on the matter as well. Couple short casting times with the 5ft step and Combast Casting and good luck stopping a spell being cast. He also oints out that in 1e, a high level Fighter could save on a 2. Now, the addition of spell level and caster modifier on the DC check is wholly unfair to martial classes and their chances to "Save or Suck" as he puts it. 

I definitely think there are fairness issues with casters and non-casters.




> My point is that ***can _alter self_/_polymorph_ into a form with the ability to breathe water (or one that doesn't need to breathe), or buff his Con to let him hold his breath longer.



 Rather than examine the specifics, I will concede the point.




> I disagree with the notion that one cannot balance RPG classes due to lack of a metric. The metric(s) exist and can be balanced to.



 But you do agree that if you can't reduce something to a number...it can't be balanced?



> From a mathematical perspective....



Debating this topic would take hours.  I will make the general point that really what you're doing is taking abitrary situations and trying do determine effectiveness. MMORPG's do this by having certain iconic builds fight various different enemies which they feel are representative. But as you acknolweged, there are a small universe of assumptions that go into any such analysis. 



> First, one must make certain assumptions to do this testing. You cannot balance weights until you decide upon the gram and the Newton;



 I would argue that the assumptions aren't in just choosing the metric...they are aslo choosing the conditions of the test. There is no unversal test for determining DPS if there are circumstancial modifiers. You'd have to test under all those different circumstances...and then you'd run into another problem... 



> most games are designed with badly-chosen (or completely undetermined) arbitrary balance points that don't necessarily align to the way the game will be played--



Bingo!!! Look at car comparisons. Review guides put cars through a battery of tests and take objective measurements. Then they rate the cars based on things like 0-60, 0-100, 100-0, lateral g's, cargo capacity, 5 mph bumber crash, etc. Now...do all those tests have equal value to all buyers? No. You may not give a rat's patootie about 0-60 if you're buying a car to haul groceries. So while there may be popular agreement on ranking importance of the tests, its still subjective. So how would you balance those cars without making them all the same car? You can't. You can't compare the important or value or usefullness of lateral g's to 0-60. There is no common metric. At best you can determine how those qualities might coorelate to some other quality you do value (like mpg).



> Second, the fact that balance _can_ be achieved doesn't mean it _will_ be.



 I am not debating about whether balanced _will _be achieved. I'm saying that since you can't determine how cars "balance" you can't measure it. 



> No designer will sit down and try to apply numerical values to nonnumerical quantities because someone somewhere will disagree, and if those someones are your player base or your bosses you're in trouble.



Now we are on the same page. This is why designers who talk about "balance" are using the wrong word...either intentionally, or unintentionally. But they certainly can't talk about fairness can they?



> Leaving everything to the DM doesn't work; observe AD&D.



 Well, I think you're stepping in hot water when you say "doesn't work." Under 1e, D&D became the most recognizable roleplaying game of all time. Some of that was undoubtedly due to negative press and target market, but it was still immensely popular. I'll offer a thought about any RPG:

You can't improve the game...you can only change it.



> I object to the notion that one cannot possibly have a scale of "less balanced" to "more balanced" by which to judge games, based on weighting different aspects of gameplay and adjusting outputs to suit the desired baseline.



 I completely agree that people use the term "balance" and make changes based on perceived "balance," but what they are really doing is changing contextual effectiveness. They aren't creating balance. They are saying, "I think providing more X to this class makes the class more effective in this situation...and that is better for the game."  Totally...totally...subjective. 

The reason why I make this distinction is that one of the first things you learn if you take any decision analysis cours is is that the most important part of decision making/problem solving is to accurately identify the problem.  Failure to do so means you end up solving the wrong problem...and possibly making things worse.

Since you can't "balance" D&D, continually trying to achieve something that is immeasurable is foolishness. It's almost clinical insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. People keep trying to tweak the rules over and over and expecting things to "balance" are barking up the wrong tree. 

What you need to do is say, "Here are the prototypcial scenarios in which we are going to achieve equal effectiveness for all classes." Outside of those cases, we accept disproportinate results. Then you can debate about the parameters of those scenarios, but at least you know what you're getting and where you're getting it.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 23, 2011)

Empirate said:


> I think a lot of what Arrowhawk's complaints regarding the tiers is about is that JaronK used numerative descriptors for the tiers.




No.

So there isn't really a need for me to address the rest of this.


----------



## Empirate (Aug 23, 2011)

OK, Arrowhawk, let me just quote a few things for you from one of your last posts, and bold the important bits:



			
				Arrowhawk said:
			
		

> Now, does JaronK provide us with a skill+optimization matrix versus class? No. There is no *metric* for determing the comparative skill/optimzation, or lack thereof, in the people in your group and matching that up with how much of a difference it will mean between Tier 1 and Tier 6.







			
				Arrowhawk said:
			
		

> JaronK never mentions what *amount* of skill or optimization we are talking about.







			
				Arrowhawk said:
			
		

> *How much* better is Nonsi than his friends? *How much more* optimization has he put in? Can you provide me with a *metric* that allows me to compare them? How familiar is the DM with Beguiler class to begin with? There is a underlying point being made here at it's crucial to a later point: these things are immeasurable from any *quantitative* standpoint...but yet JaronK says we can *quantize* the classes.







			
				Arrowhawk said:
			
		

> Balance is by its very definition an *objective weighing of two things with a common metric*. [...] It's literally not possible to balance things *that do not have a similar metric*. [...] Not only can you not achieve balance, you can't even *measure* it.





Now don't go telling me your criticism of JaronK ISN'T in (IMHO: large) part about quantifiability. To wit: it is. And thus, isn't pertinent to what JaronK actually tried to achieve. You're talking about measuring class difference, measuring game balance, applying similar metrics to similar things - and it all adds up to ignoring that this is about quality, not quantifiability, of certain gameplay phenomena in D&D.

Note that I'm not dissing your general line of complaints. I'm feeling (like you) that JaronK went waaay overboard, and his (her?) recommendations to DMs (nerf this, disallow that, don't play with groups of far apart tiers etc.) are a *metric* ton of shoot. But I feel your argument could be much strengthened if you actually took under consideration that what you're dealing with here is all about qualitative differences between classes, and nothing about quantifiability of said differences.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 24, 2011)

This


> Jaronk used numaritive descriptors




and this:




Empirate said:


> about quantifiability.



are wholly separate topics. I couldn't care less what he labels the tiers or how many tiers there are or whether a Beguilier is in Tier 2 or Tier 3. 

My point is that he is presenting it like it's science...and it's not. Have you read the explanations of why things are in their tiers? They read like scouting reports of highschool football players, except they can't even reference things like 40 times, vertical leap, or max reps at 220lb.



> To wit: it is. And thus, isn't pertinent to what JaronK actually tried to achieve.



 I can't speak to what he is trying to achieve, I can only comment on what he says, how he justifies it, and what I think is the consequence of saying such things.



> and it all adds up to ignoring that this is about quality, not quantifiability



 When you put things in a ranking and strata....you are quantifying them. 
*Quantization* is the procedure of constraining something from a relatively large or continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set.​


> ....that what you're dealing with here is all about qualitative differences between classes, and nothing about quantifiability of said differences.



Which would seem inconsistent with quantizing the classes wouldn't it? Do you think there is an inherent problem with taking something that is assessed qualitatively and then presenting the information as if it's quantitative?

The problem is that when you want to make assertions about games that have any teeth, you're forced to present the facts in a quantitative manner. Qualitative discussions are subjective and that gets you no where because you can't prove that Cake A taste better than Cake B. But if you present it like its provable...welll then suddenly people think you're right.

EDIT:
That should say "...you are quantizing them.", not quantifying. My bad.


----------



## kitcik (Aug 24, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> This
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK, numerical descriptors and quantification are two separate things. Got it.



Arrowhawk said:


> When you put things in a ranking and strata....you are quantifying them.




OK, numerical descriptors and quantification are the same thing. Got it.



Arrowhawk said:


> Which would seem inconsistent with quantizing the classes wouldn't it? Do you think there is an inherent problem with taking something that is assessed qualitatively and then presenting the information as if it's quantitative?




I'm not sure, it's all very confusing for some reason. 

But I see your point - there is an inherent problem in taking qualitative differences and trying t quantify them. Got it.



Arrowhawk said:


> The problem is that when you want to make assertions about games that have any teeth, you're forced to present the facts in a quantitative manner. Qualitative discussions are subjective and that gets you no where because you can't prove that Cake A taste better than Cake B. But if you present it like its provable...welll then suddenly people think you're right.




Aah, so you have to quantify any assertion about a game for it to have teeth, but you can't quantify it because it is qualitative. So you can't make any assertions about D&D. Got it.

Note to moderator: shut down the forum, it is pointless. No further assertions can be made about D&D.


----------



## Empirate (Aug 24, 2011)

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION]: my thoughts exactly! Would love to XP you, but can't at the moment.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 24, 2011)

Empirate said:


> @kitcik : my thoughts exactly! Would love to XP you, but can't at the moment.




That's too bad. Because you're thinking exactly like a guy who thinks showing you tube clips of Indiana Jones movies proves things about D&D.  I can see how my response might be confusing, but I've read some of your posts in other threads and I assumed you were capable of connecting the dots.

I have three cakes. I have ranked them in the order that I like them and given them "numerical descriptors." Do you think I've just quantized the cakes?  No? Then why do you think using numerical descriptors is the same as quantizing things?  

Nevertheless, using numerical descriptors has nothing to do with the discussion. Reducing a large and continuous set of values to a small descrete set ...does. If you think that means the same thing as using numerical descriptors, I can see why you are confused.

Part of the confusion may be my using both "quantify" and "quantize." I thought it was clear that I was pointing out the problem with quantizing classes, not quantifying classes.  I think it's clear you can't quantify or quantize subjective qualities but you can quantify preferences.   Still, that doesn't seem to be the true source of the disconnect based on your post, but it may be part of the problem, if so, my bad. I'll pay more attention to which word I'm using.



> Now don't go telling me your criticism of JaronK ISN'T in (IMHO: large) part about quantifiability. To wit: it is



And no it is not.  You quote several different responses out of context and then try and present them as all talking about the same thing.  You seem to focus on words that identify quantitative things--amount, metric, quantify-- and then you suggest that they must invariably be talking about the same thing.  Uh...no.   You also seem to either to fail to understand the point that is being made in those quotes you reference, or you just are intentionally ignoring them because it doesn't suit the point you want to make...or rather debate.

My concerns are 50% about the logic used to justify the Tier and 50% about the damage one does to the game in doing something like the Tier without doing a better job of identifying its limitations. While we seem to agree that Jaronk goes overboard, you seemed to be confused by the tangential discussion about "balance." For reasons I haven't tried to fathom, you seem to need to erroneously distill my position into something you can critique or be critical of.

I'll spell it out:

When you quantize (not quantify) something that is subjective/context based...you can't justify your quantization like it's provable fact. _More to the point, the logic he employs is contradictory/inconsistent_. The use of numerical discriptors is irrelevant to both those topics.

Does that clear it up for you?


----------



## Empirate (Aug 24, 2011)

No. No it doesn't, I'm sorry to say.  I am connecting the dots as best I can, but it really seems to me that your arguments contradict each other just like kitcik pointed out.

My quotations of your arguments may have been _quoted _out of context (else I would have had to quote your entire post), but were not _read _out of context, I assure you.

Maybe I _am_ latching on to those parts of your argument that irritate me (if only because this debate has been rehashed so often), maybe I concentrate on those parts too much, and I'm sorry if that gives the impression as if I'd _want _to criticize you. I generally don't find it necessary to constantly point out what parts of another forum member's posts are to my liking. I prefer to enter arguments where I don't agree, or where I see a deficit in an ongoing debate, so I can try and offer my own two cents.

Maybe your argument has become so long, and includes so many tangents as well (balance etc.), that I just don't comprehend it very well anymore, so my two cents are worth less than one. But I really thought I had a point there, which you just deny outright without going into details about why. Well, that's your prerogative, I'm not arguing this any further.

What we can probably agree on is that this personal debate of ours doesn't contribute anything to the ongoing discussion, so we may as well leave it at that.

That said, I believe the same point could be raised with regards to the whole thread...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Aug 24, 2011)

Great post. Great on a number of levels and not to over do it, but I think it does you much credit and it changes the complexion of the discussion, at least for me.

But as you said,



Empirate said:


> I generally don't find it necessary to constantly point out what parts of another forum member's posts are to my liking.




So I won't go into the details. 

Let me start at the end..



Empirate said:


> What we can probably agree on is that this personal debate of ours doesn't contribute anything to the ongoing discussion, so we may as well leave it at that.




Maybe we can't.  The main purpose I come to boards is to discuss things. While I tend to post in an authoritative manner, really, I'm more interested in learning what I don't know than telling people what I do. One of the key problems in any discussion/debate is overcoming the imprecision in the English language. If you're confused by something I'm saying, then others are too. The other major challenge in forum discussions is correctly identifying/describing the problem (as I've said). As such, if you think I am not correctly identifying the problem, I would consider that of paramount importance to the discussion. Since my point is to challenge the basis under which we believe Fighters are not balanced with Casters, clearing up the confusion does contribute to the discussion. But that's just my opinion.



Empirate said:


> My quotations of your arguments may have been _quoted _out of context (else I would have had to quote your entire post), but were not _read _out of context, I assure you.



This is what I see...

Q: Do you enjoy eating candy?
A: No, I can't stand candy, it's vile and I hate it.
Q: As a dentist, how do you feel about candy?
A: I love it. Candy is the best thing in the world.

You:
"You contradict yourself. First you said this..."


> A: No, I can't stand candy, it's vile and I hate it.




"and now you're saying this:"


> I love it. Candy is the best thing in the world.






> Maybe I _am_ latching on to those parts of your argument that irritate me




This. And guess what? I do it too. It's called selective filterin. It's been clinically documented that in political debates. People completely ignore objective facts that are contrary to their position. It's one of the things I try to avoid most in my posts.



> maybe I concentrate on those parts too much



I think this criticism can be aimed squarely at me with regards to the tier system. I am focusing on what I see as its flaws...but mainly because I feel _that the way it is presented _it does more harm than good.



> and I'm sorry if that gives the impression as if I'd _want _to criticize you



 No need to apologize. I was dismissiive of your first post and that wasn't helping.



> I prefer to enter arguments where I don't agree



 Pretty common affliction isn't it?



> so I can try and offer my own two cents.



 And this is where I have been remiss. In your first post you suggested that my argument might be improved. But I dismissed the benefit you were offering me (whether you mean it as such or not).



> Maybe your argument has become so long, and includes so many tangents as well (balance etc.), that I just don't comprehend it very well anymore




Yes. This is the problem with quoting bits and pieces and responding to them. Like I am doing now.




> But I really thought I had a point there, which you just deny outright without going into details about why.



 Well then help me to understand what it is you are saying. Let me go back and reread your post and see if I can figure it out...

Okay. Let me see if I can paraphrase your argument. Tell me if I got it wrong:

JaronK has made qualitative rankings and doesn't have to prove them quantitatively. Requiring him to do so leads to false conclusions.

Is that the essence of what you were saying?


----------



## kitcik (Aug 24, 2011)




----------

