| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 23:27:17
From WotC
6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal
Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.
========================================================
ME: I have a problem with this idea. To me, and I thought many others, a wizard has devoted his entire life...and his exceptionally rare talent...to becoming a master of forces others can't comprehend.
How in the hells do you make him only the equal of a man that is simply incredible with a weapon?
There is a break in the logic here.
Originally wizards were supposed to be hard to survive with as your Player Character...the reward for sticking with that character was to gain power and the ability to put down that bastard that once bullied you as a child.
Wizards are becoming has-beens now. 
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 07:49:21
Here is what would make me happy, and I think it could "balance" issues regarding Wizard Power.
I like Ritual Magic in 4e...HUGE plus idea for this edition of the game...HUGE!
In 5e I think they should take it a step further. Rituals could take in more of a Wizard's Magic...and really make his Spellbook something critical!
The only thing I didn't like about 4e magic was the "Per Encounter" and "Daily" casting...I hated it. I think they should go back to the earlier spell progression tables, allow wizards to learn any spell they want; but only be able to memorize a certain number per day just as before.
However, that coupled with Rituals would make wizards capable in a fight...give them options out of combat...and over all limit their power so that they don't seem overwhelming.
I'm up with a cold right now, so I hope that makes sense through my cold meds. 
Essentially, some of the more powerful spells could be turned into Rituals that can REALLY drain a caster if they aren't careful. Either monetary drain, life drain (suffering penalty or whatever) and so on...but I HATE having to give up experience to use magic.
That always seemed just wrong to me.
So in essence, place the "game changer" spells...those that really twist the fabric of the balance issue...into Rituals that could be dangerous somehow, or require strict circumstances or whatever so that they are reigned in. This would make me happy because I could still have any of the magic I wanted...but would also prevent the wizard from being so very overpowered.
Make sense?
LONG LIVE 4e's RITUAL MAGIC!!! 
EDIT:
Just noted that I wasn't totally "with it" just now.
I'm trying to say that all a Wizard's spells would still be memorized for a day and take up slots...whether they were "at will" spells to be cast and then forgotten, or Ritual Spells that might require quite a bit of effort to cast. But all spells would go back to being memorized as before.
This prevents the Ritual from being cast an infinite number of times...but allows a wizard to "get it started" when he is memorizing his spells for the day. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 02:55:56
Ever had a wizard in the group that had summoning and evocation band to him. I have. Because while I know nothing about 4 Ed, and while I know nobody that's played it and liked it, I don't judge something without sufficient data, which I don't have. That said, A high level Wizard is going to maybe have spells that can do those things. Or raise lots of undead soldiers, or be really good at illusions.
He's a wizard, he had to play a wizard and get there, and survive. That's not always the easiest thing, even if you play it smart, because pound per pound, most malay classes, can take more damage than you can. I'd say all can, but I can't honestly say that.
It is been my understanding that in this game, all classes aren't created equal. I could be a level 31 fighter ranger, and I go up against someone like Elmenster in a fight, I'm going to probably die. I for one, can live with that. That's what to me makes non-spell casters the more heroic group, especially when they aren't using really powerful magical stuff. When they do it, they have to use training and their whits. You follow.
Oh, and just as an unimportant after thought, I don't buy the 4 Ed is like an MMO, unless you want it to be. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 02:09:08
I really don't buy the "4e is like a MMO" thing. It's no more like a video game than, say, 3.5 was, and saying "it's like a MMO" is sort of a truism--certain MMOs (such as WoW, for instance) are BASED ON D&D.
The thing that produced the perception of 4e being like an MMO was, I think, that they streamlined the text of powers (rather than describe it all out in small detail) to be what you expect to see in a video game manual or online, and the art style became more WoWish. Playing the game, you can definitely make the analogy to "activating abilities" being like "pressing hotkeys" on a keyboard. And they released a book that was mostly about character-building and combat (which all the PHBs have been anyway), contributing to the view. But that assumes you're playing without adding your own flavor or making an attempt to roleplay, things which can't be dictated by rulesets. If you play D&D like a MMO, then lo-and-behold, you get a MMO-like experience. But I happen to *know* (based on my own ongoing games) that 4e can very easily be just as immersive and fantastic as any other edition, with much simpler mechanics to distract you less from the story.
But that's neither here nor there. The point of this thread is about whether a fighter and a wizard should be equal.
I find myself mostly in agreement with RLB. From a mechanical standpoint, yeah, they should be equally fun and one shouldn't clearly outclass the other. From a story standpoint, that makes very little sense--yes, they should both be fun in a story, but clearly a powerful wizard is going to have more raw firepower than a fighter, even of the same level.
What I think we need here is a "separate but equal" clause. The wizard and the fighter vary so widely in terms of technique that it's really tough to compare their respective power levels. A high-level wizard can wipe out 100 orcs in a few rounds with the right spells. A high-level fighter will take all day to do that, but it'll still get done. (And after that fight, the wizard is short some big damaging spells, while the fighter might just be down a few hit points but otherwise good to go.) And in a gaming experience, both of them should be necessary and fun to play. I think design can achieve that, but going the route of the 3.5 magic system compounds the problem of the wizard going nova and wiping everything out in no time flat, while the fighter hits a couple things really hard but is slowed down by his lack of area of effect attacks.
Also, re: "4e PCs are all spellcasters": I will concur that it kind of looks like that on the surface in the initial PHB, but I think the flavor is pretty clear that martial characters derive their skills from training, while wizards get it from arcane power, so it's not a situation where everyone's casting "spells." Later design in the game made it less clear, particularly with psionics and the Essentials books, where martial characters became all about techniques to enhance their movement (for thieves) or fighting techniques (for fighters). So yeah, I don't see 5e going the way of "all classes are spellcasters." Certainly not based on any playtesting I've done. 
Cheers |
| Matt James |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 01:13:55
I'm with Lord Karsus. 3e really started to see a massive push towards using spellcasting to make many tasks instantly conquerable. Think of a thematic instance where a party of heroes has been traveling for days, fleeing a beast that stalks them. They have no time to rest, let alone forage for food and water. Wait. Scratch that. Thankfully our trusty Wizard can just summon some food and water. Bam. Problem solved. This problem started in 2e by the way, but just wasn't as prominent.
Spellcasters can have powerful, devastating spells. That was never a concern--especially for very powerful spellcasters. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 23:48:36
Back to that fighter, yeah, I use him a lot, but he was a lot of fun. I got into that situation once too, wizard with the fly spell, look you can't hit me with anything but ranged stuff. Well, I asked my DM, can intimidate be used to taunt. This was before the knight with it's challenging shout, said, run with it. And run I did, I don't remember the specifics, but essentially played to his self confidence enough, that he came in a little bit closer, and I made a charge and a leaping strike. Didn't kill him, but hurt him pretty bad. If there had been a wall there, I would have used that to spring off of. And I even throw my sword from time to time, had a backup for just that kind of thing, which if my weapon could deliver touch spells, then I'd ask the DM if I can temp charge the weapon with a spell and throw the thing. Still, I usually carried around a bow, or a crossbow for those times when I couldn't get at the enemy any other way.
It all depends on what your DM will allow and what he/she wont. I've more than once screwed a caster by breaking his concentration. Gnome pepper to the face does wonders for that. It's not magical, easily obtainable, and pretty darn cheep. I wonder how a beholder would react, hmmm.
Anyhow, that's my opinion on the subject. Oh, caster's in our party have been killed more than once by non-casters. Its actually happened more times than caster to caster death. This of course doesn't deal with the argument directly, largely, because archer builds for fighters aren't common, and that many DMs, so I'm told, allow casters lots of oppertunaties to gain spells back. Ours can be a bit cruel about that from time to time.
My suggestion, is make concetrate more of an important part to casting. At least for one thing. In some fantasy settings, a spellcaster has to pay attention to his hands while he's casting the spell, this means the caster is constently having to shift his concetration between casting and observing the battle. The difficulties that this can create are considerable. I'm not saying all this to argue with your points, I can see the valadity in parts, but rather, a simple method to deal with them.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 23:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
This is actually what I loved about the FREEDOM of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. There was no such thing as "Check" at all...characters just said what they wanted to do and the DM made a judgement call.
Sure, have a "sure" thing is great with "Taking 10" or even "Taking 20" but it was far more fun for me when there was more interaction and less "Roll me a Spot Check please" in the game.
I'm a dinosaur I know...
-Rolling checks, or Taking 10/20 has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. When the rules of the game are such that classes with access to magic (a) can do things that make non-magical classes redundant after certain levels or more importantly, I think (b)'inflate' other mechanics of the game to the point that they become semi-useless in various situations without being otherwise augmented by spells, items, and so on, what's the point of playing those classes? Various non-magical mechanics can (and should) be installed a la Tome of Battle or the 4e Fighter to make non-magical classes more versatile so that they can be more meaningful in more situations. I've mentioned in the past about a Bladesinger (Duskblade) character I had that was rendered useless when we were fighting a Beholder who did something as simple as float 15 feet in the air. My sword couldn't reach, because I specialized in the Elven lightblade, I carried no bow, (and I had no spells that were ranged, playing on my classes ability to channel touch spells into my sword). Simple mechanics such as a heroic jump high into the air, or maybe a fear-inducing effects upon challenging and taunting my opponent, or various other things would make similar scenarios that pop up all the time when it comes to non-magical classes being limited in battle. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 22:48:09
Time/Age...gets everyone in the end.
Just ask Tharizdun...he can testify! |
| BEAST |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 21:19:56
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In MY experience, Wulfgar said this simply because he was still alive. In truth, he had no expectation that Drizzt would show up...he was only commenting that way because he was happy his friend DID show up and thanking him at the same time.
Aye. I haven't read it yet, but it is my understanding that the most recent short story, "To Legend He Goes", ends
(spoiler:) with Wulfgar heading off on an adventure from which he never returns, and there is no Drizzt there to save him, nor any expectation of such, either.
Which gets me to thinking: if a macho bad-A barbarian can't even withstand the forces of nature forever, then how in the Hells can this gaming system contrivedly force him to be able to withstand the forces of magic, just because he has a character challenge rating of such-and-such?! (/spoiler) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 19:02:06
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
@ Beast
Thats a very good point , in real life all of our favorite heroes would be dead ten times over. I remember when Wulfgar sets out to recover the remains of Delly Curtie there is a point in the fight with the orcs that ensues that he is facing impending doom and that's just when Drizzt shows up to save him. after the fight when Drizzt chides him for his recklessness he remarks that he knew that Driizt would show up as that is what is does. A profound observation about his heroic nature no doubt but completely unbelievable by the laws of our world. I mean what are the odds against him always showing up at the opportune moment, ridiculously high.
In MY experience, Wulfgar said this simply because he was still alive. In truth, he had no expectation that Drizzt would show up...he was only commenting that way because he was happy his friend DID show up and thanking him at the same time. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 19:00:23
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I think you all will enjoy 5e.
I'm hoping that 5e will be a game I can call my own again.
4e is a good game, it just wasn't "the same" for me.
I guess since now that I'm in my 40s I'm starting to dislike change; but hoping for a "good change" in my favorite game!
I'm crossing my fingers for 5e... |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 13:48:42
@ Beast
Thats a very good point , in real life all of our favorite heroes would be dead ten times over. I remember when Wulfgar sets out to recover the remains of Delly Curtie there is a point in the fight with the orcs that ensues that he is facing impending doom and that's just when Drizzt shows up to save him. after the fight when Drizzt chides him for his recklessness he remarks that he knew that Driizt would show up as that is what is does. A profound observation about his heroic nature no doubt but completely unbelievable by the laws of our world. I mean what are the odds against him always showing up at the opportune moment, ridiculously high. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 12:40:26
I think you all will enjoy 5e. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 08:15:31
OK, I've only been playing for about a year now.
Please no gasps.
But it's been my understanding that not all classes were created =, that's why you have a party. The fighter serves as the meat shield at times so the spellcaster, or the thief/rogue, can kill him. The wizard is dealing with the caster, so the fighter can close and kill him, etc. The fighter gets more hit points, more feats, and the best armor. The wizard, without spells, magical items, or levels in warmage, or bard, can't cast in armor, without risking spell falure. And he's got to blow a feat, if he's a straight wizard, to ware the stuff.
Is a complete balance?
I don't think so, but your a lot bettter off than a rogue, at least a straight rogue, when the caster notices you. Lets be real about this, every class has their advantages and disadvantages. If one's with a balanced party, any one disadvantage is taken care of. Wizards, even at high levels, can still run out of spells, it happened to a party member. A fighter would have killed him, if it wasn't for the party. And yes, my own fighter was killed by a wizard, right before he was killed. This example only highlights the point, that no class is completely equivelent to any other. Their strengths and limitations, excluding endless variety with 3.5, |
| BEAST |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 07:14:40
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree with the Any Given Sunday approach. But I don't understand the term Equal. What does this mean mechanically? What does this mean in regards to how the classes play along side eachother? What does this mean when they square-off against eachother?
Just because two wizards might have the same (or equal) level, does not necessarily mean that they have the exact same (or equal) skill set. A level 20 wizard can be characterized by having a variety of skills in his repertoire, but that does not necessarily mean that all level 20 wizards possess all such skills, or that they are all equally adept at those skills.
Basically, you can a lot of different ingredients go into the making of a pie known as "level 20". Two different "pies" might initially seem similar at first glance, but on closer examination, you might be able to pick up on the subtleties and nuances of the different ingredients, varying cooking times, varying cooking methods, etc., used to produce them.
And since you can have wholly different methods to get two different "level 20" wizards, obviously you have completely different methods to arrive at a "level 20" fighter. The skill sets are very different. Just because the level number of 20 is equal or the same, does not even begin to make their skill sets equal or the same.
Deep down inside, I resist any effort to go against that basic truth.
And since the skill sets aren't equal or the same, then it's hard for me to imagine the combat effectiveness of two people of different classes (even if of the same "level") being equal or the same.
All the super-duper swordplay in the world ain't gonna do you a lick of good when a whopping fireball gets dropped on your ass! You're just gonna be slicing and dicing at thin air, as the flames are burning and melting.
I like it when RAS admits in his stories that Drizzt and Entreri should've both been so dead 10 times over a long time ago, because fighters ordinarily just can't go head to head with advanced wizards. These guys have had to depend on (in-world) lucky conditions--and (real-world) authorial plot-armor for favored sons--to spare them, time and time again. There's something valuable there, in that admission. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 06:59:21
That's why I like storeyteller games. Well, they have their own set of flaws, but alot of times if you can sell it, it can be made to work. For instance, we altered combat in our D& D games to allow for dodge and block rolls from out of that system.
It allows for things like:
The wizared ends his spell with a flurish, just as the fighter goes into an affensive roll, only being clipped by the lightening bolt and coming up to slash the wizard violently.
From a roll perspective as follows:
F, spot 15, declares offensive rool, giving him a roll on a dodge to take half damage.
W, given a chance to spot the motion of the roll that will bring the fighter, 5, which fails, he's too busy concentrating on the spell, and the other party members. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 05:34:35
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
[quote]Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Why is it hard for people to accept that those that use magic can simply do so much more than those that can't?
-Nobody is denying that. What's the point of playing something other than a magician, at the point that magicians can do exponentially more than non-magicians, and that in various scenarios, non-magicians are limited to the point of being completely useless. There are a lot of non-magical mechanics that can (and should) be put in place to make non-magicians (especially Fighters) more versatile, able to do things non-magical in nature that could replicate the effects of magic, to allow them to be able to be meaningful at points in the game when they currently might not be.
This is actually what I loved about the FREEDOM of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. There was no such thing as "Check" at all...characters just said what they wanted to do and the DM made a judgement call.
Sure, have a "sure" thing is great with "Taking 10" or even "Taking 20" but it was far more fun for me when there was more interaction and less "Roll me a Spot Check please" in the game.
I'm a dinosaur I know... |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 14 May 2012 : 02:31:49
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I'd have absolutley no intention of requiring a "Save or Die" mechanic for Fighters.
-Doesn't 'Save or Die' refer to things that simply blanket kill the enemy if they fail their saves (like Disintegration)?
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Why is it hard for people to accept that those that use magic can simply do so much more than those that can't?
-Nobody is denying that. What's the point of playing something other than a magician, at the point that magicians can do exponentially more than non-magicians, and that in various scenarios, non-magicians are limited to the point of being completely useless. There are a lot of non-magical mechanics that can (and should) be put in place to make non-magicians (especially Fighters) more versatile, able to do things non-magical in nature that could replicate the effects of magic, to allow them to be able to be meaningful at points in the game when they currently might not be. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 20:31:53
And then there was peace.
I LOVE the Ritual aspect of 4e...it is one of the things I liked most!
I think we have an understanding of each other, even if we don't agree completely. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 17:48:51
Ah, now I understand what you mean Dalor. That because of magic's mere existance (regardless of it's usage) breaks the game because not everyone can do it. But I wouldn't say that, because of this reasoning, Magic or spellcasters are broken or make other classes inferior. Let me try to explain my reasoning behind "unbalanced":
- a LOT of people look at balance as a sort of "Vs" thing between one class and another. And while that might be one area of concern, it's not always the biggest concern. Other, possibly bigger, concerns should be factored in such as what 1 PC can do with their turn (in and out of combat) in the grand scope of the game. If a character, regardless of class, can kill a Solo monster (or a monster designed to be the "boss" or whatever) in 1 turn with 1 check, like a Saving Throw or attack, then it's unbalanced. Wizards and other spellcasters have more of these 1-trick ponies in their bags than non-spellcasters do, hence unbalanced. But a wizard should be able to Charm a bad guy if he beats his resitances or saves or whatever, that's the balancing part of the game. To mitigate how powerful such a spell is, you reduce the time one is Charmed or give him ample ways to recover from the Charm during play.
In the example you've given, the Fighter was first charmed by the wizard, (requiring a Will Save, or for the Wizard to overcome his Willpower via an attack). THEN the wizard casts a spell that clouds the Fighter's mind about his allies (another Save OR attack). The Fighter then has multiple turns to overcome BOTH spells for every turn he takes. Meanwhile, his ally wizard could Dispel the magic OR attack the bad-mage along with the other characters. I'm ok with a wizard spending two or more rounds focusing on the Fighter while everyone else tries to take him down.
- Magic can do a lot and SHOULD do a lot, non-spellcasters know this. BUT magic has limitations and consequences. It should also cost quite a bit per casting of powerful spells. This is one of the things I really liked about 4E, is that they separated Combat spells and non-combat spells (ie. Rituals). What it did was make these options still very viable but not a casual thing done ALL the time. For another example, lets take an Adventuring Party that is moving stealthly through an enemies castle. They come to a locked door and find out that the people on the other side are awake and plotting an attack. The group has a few options for the locked door:
Option 1- Rogue disables the lock via a successful Thievery (or Open Lock) check, barring no traps. This is quick and silent, but isn't a nesessarily a sure thing. If he messes up, it could make noise and spoil their secrecy.
Option 2- Wizard performs the Knock ritual. It's a sure thing, it's silent, but it'll take a while (perhaps 10 minutes) to perform.
Option 3- Fighter breaks down the door with his Boot and charges in. It's fast, it's simple, it's an almost guarenteed plan but it's loud and they lose any chance of being silent.
To me, those are all great choices. But it's only because the Wizard's Knock ritual takes a while to cast. If he could cast it in 6 seconds or the ability to put that spell into a wand, it becomes the Default options and NO other option are even considered. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 02:28:28
One of my favorite characters was "simply" a fighter/thief, and I had a BLAST playing him.
BUT, without his magical items, he would have been hard pressed to defeat Zhentarim dispatched Demons meant to kill him!
I fully understand the need for classes in a game to be as close as possible, I really really do! I just don't think people are understanding that it isn't possible to equal things when magic is in play. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 01:35:02
I don't have a problem with it, and the fighter was the first class I played. I was a pretty good one too, come to think of it, but I knew I'd need defenses against magic and planned accordingly.
The classes aren't entirely balanced, if they were, then you'd not need a party. At least, that's how it is in 3.5, I've heard differently for 4E, but can't say one way or the other.
And just as a closing note, aren't usually the most memorable non-spellcasters, the ones with some really special magical item. Well, I don't know if glasssteel morningstars with alcamical stuff count as magical, but you get the idea. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 00:24:29
OH...and on top of all that:
The fighter wouldn't even be able to kill demons and such most likely if it weren't for the MAGIC sword he is using, the MAGIC armor that protects him, the MAGIC potions that heal him and BLAH, BLAH BLAH forever!
Seriously.
Why is it hard for people to accept that those that use magic can simply do so much more than those that can't? |
| Sightless |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 00:19:57
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I think 4e is an AWESOME game...but even then, at higher levels, a wizard can do just sooooo much!
Magic breaks mechanics simply because Magic is designed to pervert reality!
No matter how we look at it, for a game to have MAGIC, magic has to do things that others just can't do...or there is no need of magic.
Even if we limit how long a Charm Spell works...it still works. EVEN if we make the Charm Spell so that it has to be administered by a Love Potion or some such...it still does something that nobody else can do. Even if it is a long ritual that takes a week of "proper brewing" with hair from the target...in the end it takes away the free will of someone and makes them your mental thrall for a period of time, no matter how short that time is.
Lets just look at this one scenario: Party enters a room to fight an evil wizard. He is there, but they have been hacking apart his minions for the better part of a day to get there. He knows they are coming, he just knows what they look like and etc because he can Scry on various parts of his lair. The party is ready for him though, they know who this guy is and the type of magic he uses. Hell, the party has their own wizard!
But WAIT! The Fighter of the party, standing beside the cleric with the thief and wizard behind them suddenly gets a twinkle in his eye. You see, the Evil Wizard has been scrying on the party and actually cast the Charm Person spell on the Fighter as soon as the door was opened. The Fighter is now charmed for five melee rounds and has the chance for a saving throw any time he is asked to attack one of his friends.
The Evil Wizard shouts "Look out my friend! Dopplegangers have tricked you!" The fighter turns to see his friends turning into warped and evil abominations! The fighter has also failed his saving throw against the Phantasm placed in his mind by the Wizard!
....I mean this argument can go back and forth for INFINITE amounts of debate.
But the bottom line is that magic can always be created to supplement/augment other magic. The Fighter doesn't get a saving throw every round now, because he believes the OTHER magic spell showing him his friends as evil.
As for Contingencies...they take place before the action they are designed to prevent.
So on and so on until we puke...
Magic is magic folks. If we are going to play a fantasy game, those who use magic are always going to have the deck stacked against everyone who can't use magic.
Isn't that why fighters, at least in my experience, carry more defensive gear than anyone?
Oh, and at the risk of extreme cheese, if the fighter simply under went the ritual of Osterious he'd have a third eye and be able to activate anti-magic cone.
That's in a dragon magazine, but I couldn't tell you which one if my life depended on it. Only know it means you take the special ability in place of a feat, which grants you a beholder eye in your forehead. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 13 May 2012 : 00:10:39
I think 4e is an AWESOME game...but even then, at higher levels, a wizard can do just sooooo much!
Magic breaks mechanics simply because Magic is designed to pervert reality!
No matter how we look at it, for a game to have MAGIC, magic has to do things that others just can't do...or there is no need of magic.
Even if we limit how long a Charm Spell works...it still works. EVEN if we make the Charm Spell so that it has to be administered by a Love Potion or some such...it still does something that nobody else can do. Even if it is a long ritual that takes a week of "proper brewing" with hair from the target...in the end it takes away the free will of someone and makes them your mental thrall for a period of time, no matter how short that time is.
Lets just look at this one scenario: Party enters a room to fight an evil wizard. He is there, but they have been hacking apart his minions for the better part of a day to get there. He knows they are coming, he just knows what they look like and etc because he can Scry on various parts of his lair. The party is ready for him though, they know who this guy is and the type of magic he uses. Hell, the party has their own wizard!
But WAIT! The Fighter of the party, standing beside the cleric with the thief and wizard behind them suddenly gets a twinkle in his eye. You see, the Evil Wizard has been scrying on the party and actually cast the Charm Person spell on the Fighter as soon as the door was opened. The Fighter is now charmed for five melee rounds and has the chance for a saving throw any time he is asked to attack one of his friends.
The Evil Wizard shouts "Look out my friend! Dopplegangers have tricked you!" The fighter turns to see his friends turning into warped and evil abominations! The fighter has also failed his saving throw against the Phantasm placed in his mind by the Wizard!
....I mean this argument can go back and forth for INFINITE amounts of debate.
But the bottom line is that magic can always be created to supplement/augment other magic. The Fighter doesn't get a saving throw every round now, because he believes the OTHER magic spell showing him his friends as evil.
As for Contingencies...they take place before the action they are designed to prevent.
So on and so on until we puke...
Magic is magic folks. If we are going to play a fantasy game, those who use magic are always going to have the deck stacked against everyone who can't use magic. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 21:18:41
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
You can't make any class that doesn't use magic equal to a class that does simply because magic is magic...
So then it's your opinion that, in high level games, the fighter (or really, any non-spellcasting class) should remain an unnecessary
part of the group and let the mage/cleric/druid win the battles because non-magic people can't (nor shouldn't) be able to compete with magic?
Nope, that isn't what I was saying.
What I'm saying is that no matter the supposed balance of character classes, they will never be able to truly balance them.
When a low level wizard has the ability to charm an even higher level fighter...the balance ends.
But there can be way of balancing how powerful such spells, like Charm Person are. For one, I'd probably allow a saving throw each round of combat to negate the effect OR every 5 minutes in a non-combatant situation. Sure, he'll be your buddy and fight by your side for a turn or two, but not for minutes or hours on end with no chance to regain his senses. Or maybe the charm only lasts for X-amount of combat rounds or even when certain conditions are met, like after attacking one of his allies he finally comes to his senses.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Magic does things that are always going to be "game breaking" simply because it is magic. So no matter what they try to do in game design, unless they make magic almost totally mundane like a technology anyone can use...then those who use magic will always be able to do things that even the mightiest warrior can do.
Even if they made it so that a Warrior can Intimidate the hell out of someone to make them do what they want them to for a short period of time (i.e. Forced Charm Person or some such), it is still not going to fix things.
Magic is magic...and any game with magic in it is always going to be unbalanced in favor of the ones that use the magic.
Funny you say that because I felt things were pretty balanced in 4E, even with wizards Charming foes, blasting people away with Fireballs, and creating mires of acid for enemies to fall into. And I'm not even saying that Fighters (and other non-spellcasting classes) should be allowed to do things that Wizard and other spellcasting classes do, far from it. But what they need to be is an acknowledged party member from start to finish. To me, that's balance. By allowing everyone at the table to come together to drive off/slay a foe as each play a different, yet equally important role within the group. I felt that you don't get that sort of team-building experience with 3E because playes know that by mid-levels, if they're not slinging spells then they're probably not going to contribute as much, even when certain situations might suit them the best.
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
However, if the Classes are "equal," shouldn't a High Level Fighter have the tactical training to set up a battlefield to his advantage where the Mage would be on equal ground?
The Mage has spent his life studying arcane arts, he's good at Teleporting away and protecting himself with contingencies. But what if the Fighter uses his tactical knowledge to know he needs an antimagic device and a fast blade to take out the mage before the spelluser can trigger a contingency?
My dad is a Professor of Physics. If you go toe-toe with him in a discussion on String Theory, he'll roast you.
But don't worry about him if you are driving bumper cars. He's not good at using his knowledge of physics to keep you from hitting him, or to aid him in knocking you out.
I am against a Fighter being able to face off against a mage and have just as good a chance of killing him at thirty paces as the mage has a chance of killing the fighter. But the balence doesn't have to be in hit points, base attack, and damage. It could be simply wit in use of arms. A smart fighter, not just a brute with a sword.
Does that work? Would it be plausible? Or am I simply not understanding something? It's entirely possible
From a play-style perspective, it could possibly work. From a mechanical standpoint, probably not. I like the idea of setting up the battlefield, area, or trap (as it were) to defeat a skilled and accomplished wizard but this comes off as Player creativity and ingenuity, not so much off the class or mechanics themselves. So this will vary pretty greatly from player to player, espically beneficial to players who've had real-life experiences with tactical combat.
To be precise, balance has to start with the mechanics. Whether it's in numerical form (HP, BAB, Saves) or the description/ability of spells (like Save-or-Die spells), their impact on any given encounter has to be somewhat equal across the board. If you give the Wizard 6 different way to outright slay a monster and character options to improve those chances while giving the Ranger 1 specific way to outright slay a monster but only under extreme circumstances that is only effective 40% of the time......chances are most player are going to want to contribute A LOT and would want to be effective at effecting battles on a consistant basis. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 15:58:27
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I understand the marketing behind making all classes equal...I really do.
But let me lay it out this way:
The reason that wizards should die like flies at low level, and treat others like flies at high levels is very simple. Survival of the fittest.
Sure, a level 1 wizard used to be able to put a group of orcs to sleep with a single spell...NO SAVING THROW! But after that, he was DONE! Later, his options got better...but he had to make it to later. And how did he do that? By having a friend that is a fighter, another that was a cleric, and another that was a thief!
There was a BIG REASON why these classes absolutely sucked at one thing and excelled at another; and that was to create an adventuring party.
Early on, the wizard was the one who had the spell at just the right moment...he might not be much use for most of an adventure, but when it is absolutely needed, he has that spell that saves the day. After about 5th level, he can help out quite often...but still has to reserve his strength for the right time. After 9th level, he begins to find that he doesn't always have to have a party with him; but must use his magic to flee at times (ala Teleport). After 12th level or so, a wizard truly can handle almost any fight thrown at him if he is smart, knows how to use his magic properly, and isn't overly cocky. At the highest levels, he is on par with the Avatars of the Gods, and quite frankly doesn't need the Fighter nearly as much any longer...the fighter often needs him.
That to me is the equality. Early the wizard needs the fighter, later the fighter needs the wizard. I don't see what is wrong with that.
I agree. But I have an honest question on the Balence issue.
Yes, toe-toe a Mage should roast a Fighter in open combat.
However, if the Classes are "equal," shouldn't a High Level Fighter have the tactical training to set up a battlefield to his advantage where the Mage would be on equal ground?
The Mage has spent his life studying arcane arts, he's good at Teleporting away and protecting himself with contingencies. But what if the Fighter uses his tactical knowledge to know he needs an antimagic device and a fast blade to take out the mage before the spelluser can trigger a contingency?
My dad is a Professor of Physics. If you go toe-toe with him in a discussion on String Theory, he'll roast you.
But don't worry about him if you are driving bumper cars. He's not good at using his knowledge of physics to keep you from hitting him, or to aid him in knocking you out.
I am against a Fighter being able to face off against a mage and have just as good a chance of killing him at thirty paces as the mage has a chance of killing the fighter. But the balence doesn't have to be in hit points, base attack, and damage. It could be simply wit in use of arms. A smart fighter, not just a brute with a sword.
Does that work? Would it be plausible? Or am I simply not understanding something? It's entirely possible. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 15:26:05
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
My point in my previous post, which I admit is dripping with sarcasm, is that with magic there will be no equal.
You can't make any class that doesn't use magic equal to a class that does simply because magic is magic...
So the argument that you need to make the classes equal is "Moo" as my friend Joey from Friends has stated.
So then it's your opinion that, in high level games, the fighter (or really, any non-spellcasting class) should remain an unnecessary
part of the group and let the mage/cleric/druid win the battles because non-magic people can't (nor shouldn't) be able to compete with magic?
Hopefully the designers of D&D:next understand that there should be some reason to play non-spellcasting classes in later levels aside from holding the mages stuff whilst he slays beings of all shapes and sizes with his arcane might. Or just kill off your non-spellcasting character and roll up a 10th level (or whatever level the group currently is) Mage and by-pass all the hard stuff from the first few levels.
Nope, that isn't what I was saying.
What I'm saying is that no matter the supposed balance of character classes, they will never be able to truly balance them.
When a low level wizard has the ability to charm an even higher level fighter...the balance ends.
Magic does things that are always going to be "game breaking" simply because it is magic. So no matter what they try to do in game design, unless they make magic almost totally mundane like a technology anyone can use...then those who use magic will always be able to do things that even the mightiest warrior can do.
Even if they made it so that a Warrior can Intimidate the hell out of someone to make them do what they want them to for a short period of time (i.e. Forced Charm Person or some such), it is still not going to fix things.
Magic is magic...and any game with magic in it is always going to be unbalanced in favor of the ones that use the magic. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 06:44:38
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But Diffan, by giving everyone powers in 4e, they apparently felt the only way to balance things was to make all classes operate like spell-casters. They didn't nerf mages - they 'magiked-up' all the other classes.
I am all for balance, but I am against equality (in classes) - different classes should shine in different parts of the game. 4e's combat-heavy approach to the rules made it necessary for everyone to be throwing powers around to feel like they were important. If the rules have to make the game fun for everyone, then the DM isn't doing his job.
But combat is precisely where balance NEEDS to be made. I don't need rules to help me roleplay situations outside of combat (heck, fighters didn't get this anyways). What I needed was a Fighter that was fun to play from 1st thru 30th level, be evocative throught the combat sequences, and participate along side a group towards a goal. I don't do that in levels 13+ with v3.5.
What your touching on is what I call the "Spotlight effect". With this, the spotlight of showcasing your abilities shines from one character to the next, often times in the same combat sequence. You put in traps to showcase how the rogue disables them. You put in undead so the cleric can feel his Turn Undead attempts aren't a pathetic class feature. You might throw in some riddles in an obtuse language that only the wizard can decipher with his scroll of Comprehend Languages and........how do yo Showcase a Fighter? Oh yea, combat. But the problem is as spellcasters rise higher and higher in power thir "Spotlight Effect" grows exponentially compared to the non-spellcasting classes. Until you have the spotlight on the person who can win at Initiative to defeat the encounter. Someone else put it like playing a Video game with 5 of your friends, but with 1 controller. Sure, you all Get a turn when something comes up that your good at, but you all really can't play at the same time because the game isn't designed that way. How about a game where everyone contributes a little with each aspect?
4E's power may have been too streamlined and it gave the illusion that they're all just spellcasters because they ALL have to deal with resource management. But just because the powers were bland or because the classes received the same amount of power per level didn't hamper roleplaying. That just doesn't make sense to me, because nothing in the Fighter's aresnal can do ANYTHING remotely like what a Wizard can do. They share a common mechanic, that's about it. Perhaps it looked the same (and sure enought, it did) but I never felt it played the same.
As for people feeling special by throwing out powers, I'm pretty partial to the Essentials line of classes where they're all pretty unique and DON'T have all sorts of powers from levels 1st thru 30th, yet the play just fine along side those that do.
Aside from what 4E does though, how do you propose one achieves "Balance" in a game with cooperative play? A game which, often argued, deals heavily with Combat? A game where magic is supposed to be intriguing and fun but doesn't just run rampant to the point of obscenity? I don't think any one system so far has done it perfectly (heh, i doubt that'll ever happen) but I do hope that D&D:Next takes the understanding that not everyone wants to cast spells yet feel important at high levels. And that not everyone who casts spells wants to feel gimped and hide when their BIG bad guns are used up. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 06:22:27
But Diffan, by giving everyone powers in 4e, they apparently felt the only way to balance things was to make all classes operate like spell-casters. They didn't nerf mages - they 'magiked-up' all the other classes.
I am all for balance, but I am against equality (in classes) - different classes should shine in different parts of the game. 4e's combat-heavy approach to the rules made it necessary for everyone to be throwing powers around to feel like they were important. If the rules have to make the game fun for everyone, then the DM isn't doing his job. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 05:16:29
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
My point in my previous post, which I admit is dripping with sarcasm, is that with magic there will be no equal.
You can't make any class that doesn't use magic equal to a class that does simply because magic is magic...
So the argument that you need to make the classes equal is "Moo" as my friend Joey from Friends has stated.
So then it's your opinion that, in high level games, the fighter (or really, any non-spellcasting class) should remain an unnecessary
part of the group and let the mage/cleric/druid win the battles because non-magic people can't (nor shouldn't) be able to compete with magic?
Hopefully the designers of D&D:next understand that there should be some reason to play non-spellcasting classes in later levels aside from holding the mages stuff whilst he slays beings of all shapes and sizes with his arcane might. Or just kill off your non-spellcasting character and roll up a 10th level (or whatever level the group currently is) Mage and by-pass all the hard stuff from the first few levels. |
|
|
