| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
 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. Its 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. 
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 00:23:38
|
I agree. The payoff for phenomenal cosmic power is having to hide behind the fighter for several levels.
If D&D Next is going to preserve 4E's "all classes are equal at all levels!" feature, then it's not a game for me. If I want all classes to be equal at all levels, I'll fire up an MMO. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 00:26:12
|
Yeah I'm not sure what to make of that either. If a 20th level wizard is capable of unloading his entire spell roster into the face of a fighter...or really any other class...they should be dead. If the fighter can close the gap and get into melee range or fill him full of arrows, yes I can see him taking apart the wizard. I'm just hoping they don't take the "balance the classes" issue too far.
"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."
I don't even understand what this means because it just seems gamebreaking. Does he mean a level 10 wizard can unload on a level 20 fighter? What's the point in playing a wizard if you can't kill anything? Or can wizards just kill monsters and not humanoids with class levels?
I'm hoping this just means something like the fighter has some sort of damage reduction built in saying they can take a good beating before dying. I'm fine with that, at long as we're not trading 3E era caster gods for 5E era melee gods. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 00:28:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I agree. The payoff for phenomenal cosmic power is having to hide behind the fighter for several levels.
If D&D Next is going to preserve 4E's "all classes are equal at all levels!" feature, then it's not a game for me. If I want all classes to be equal at all levels, I'll fire up an MMO.
Very good point. They need to stay away from too much MMO thinking in their design. If people want to play an MMO, they will fire up their WoW or SWTOR accounts etc. |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 00:54:27
|
| I agree as well. I wish they would stop with this trend. I was fine with the relative power curves of these two classes. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 01:05:09
|
-A high level Fighter should have every opportunity to be as kick ass with the massive, widespread damage and power as the high level Wizard. He/She just doesn't do it with magic. A 20th Level Wizard is able to cast a Fireball that deals 20d20 points of damage to all enemies within an X range? That's cool. The Fighter shouldn't be able to do that, since that's magical. He/She should have some sort of class ability that basically allows them to inflict large amounts of damage to all enemies within an X range. Magicians shouldn't be handicapped, per se, but melee warriors should be getting boosts relative to where they were and where everyone else is at high levels.
-Melee characters are already doing inhuman things in D&D games. In one round, if he/she is able to pick up a sword, jump twenty feet in the air smash it into the ground, dealing concussive damage and causing all enemies to fall down, how is that untoward in relation to everything?
-Tome of Battle and the 4e Fighter had it right, and hopefully D&D keeps doing in the direction they were going in. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 01:44:01
|
I've always been a proponent of class balance. To my mind a player should have a tough time choosing which class to play because they all have cool strengths and sucky weaknesses, regardless whether it's 0-level or godly level or any level between.
That being said, it's obvious a mage shouldn't be able to go "toe-to-toe" with a fighter. D&D 3E attempted to balance the classes by inflating everybody's powers and making custom magical items available to anyone with a grocery list and some spare XP - wizards got rings and bracelets which acted like platemail, warriors got weapons and charges and per-day powers which could cast spells on demand. Multiclassing combinations were encouraged and embraced to the point where everybody became largely interchangeable. 4E toned down the magical toys (a tiny bit) but instead shifted their abilities into the base class descriptions, even the most "ordinary" classes have built-in magical abilities. Such across-the-board power inflation is a fine way to game, just not at all agreeable with my grognard tastes - I like games where picking one option means losing another, where you can't have "everything" unless maybe you team up with players who made different choices. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 02:37:29
|
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.
What I see as wrong is a character being a wizard that can blast away with magic at the drop of a hat with no regard for running out. That sounds more like a Zhentarim Mageling...and we all know how often those folks die horribly.
I just think it is a major thorn in my arse that every class must be equal. Well hell...if every class is equal, why don't they simply go to a Skill Point system and get away from classes all together! At least then everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to have the same ability; but will not because they choose not to! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 05:39:05
|
Didn't they already do this? They called it 4e.
I'm still trying to figure-out precisely what they are changing, aside from how they are spinning things. 
In the RW, if everyone was 100% equal, in all things, then sports would be pretty boring, poker-games would never have a winner, anyone could get the 'hot girl' at the bar, Kim Kardashian could do brain surgery, and Stephen Hawkins would be coming out with a new aerobics video.
But the world isn't balanced, people aren't equal, and life isn't fair. By treating D&D as a simulation, you cause it to simulate reality less and less.
Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I have little interest in 5e rules - I have my own - so the only thing that will keep me purchasing WotC products is FR, and only if it knocks my socks off. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 05:52:31
|
| Well said, Dalor. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 11:19:36
|
couple of things:
Not everyone starts off at level 1 with a character, so to use a 1-20 level progression as your basis for balance isn't a very good idea IMO.
Fighters like to enjoy high-level adventure too, and not in the capacity of "Here Mr. Wizard sir, let me hold your things whilst you destroy the bad-guys on yonder battlefield."
D&D, if nothing else, is a cooperative game for a group of people to play. Balance of classes is specifically designed in such a way that each player can feel they're offering something unique and fun to the storyline as well as the resolutions of encounters or battles. Unbalanced classes and levels means that if the Wizard/Sorcerer/Spelluser "survived" (a term i'm using loosely here) by at least 7th level, (s)he can often defeat most encounters with a spell or two. How about, instead, we have a game where everyone can apply some might and have fun in the process?
I've always been a proponent of making classes better or mechanially stronger so it doesn't pull the wizard down. It looks like, from this article specifically, that the Devs are doing just that. I don't think they're pulling down the wizard or making their powers less awesome. Instead, they're making Fighters (a specific class, not just people who swing swords) better and pushing the upper limits of their strength, akin to what we've seen in mythology. |
Edited by - Diffan on 01 May 2012 11:22:15 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 12:53:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
couple of things:
Not everyone starts off at level 1 with a character, so to use a 1-20 level progression as your basis for balance isn't a very good idea IMO.
Fighters like to enjoy high-level adventure too, and not in the capacity of "Here Mr. Wizard sir, let me hold your things whilst you destroy the bad-guys on yonder battlefield."
D&D, if nothing else, is a cooperative game for a group of people to play. Balance of classes is specifically designed in such a way that each player can feel they're offering something unique and fun to the storyline as well as the resolutions of encounters or battles. Unbalanced classes and levels means that if the Wizard/Sorcerer/Spelluser "survived" (a term i'm using loosely here) by at least 7th level, (s)he can often defeat most encounters with a spell or two. How about, instead, we have a game where everyone can apply some might and have fun in the process?
I've always been a proponent of making classes better or mechanially stronger so it doesn't pull the wizard down. It looks like, from this article specifically, that the Devs are doing just that. I don't think they're pulling down the wizard or making their powers less awesome. Instead, they're making Fighters (a specific class, not just people who swing swords) better and pushing the upper limits of their strength, akin to what we've seen in mythology.
I see your point and actually agree on certain points. It is this that makes my skin tingle:
quote:
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.
If this becomes the reality of "equal" classes, then it is not equal. It used to be that a wizard's highest level spells took time to cast, and so he couldn't cast the most destructive spells in an actual melee. If he tried, he was most likely stopped by a well placed sword in the gizzard!
THAT was balance. You catch the badguy with his pants down (i.e. hide in a ditch until the dragon goes over your head to skewer its guts!) and stick it to him.
For a wizard to be able to stand toe to toe with a fighter in melee is just as absurd as a fighter being able to suck up every spell the wizard can hit him with and keep going.
To have balance, you have to have a PARTY of adventurers. If someone wants to adventure solo...then they need to be Lord Robilar and properly gear themselves with magical potions and such.
BALANCE to me is an adventuring party where everyone has to rely on someone else. I'm guessing our idea of balance is different.
It seems to many that for there to be supposed balance it means that everyone has to survive all the time and their character will never die. I think that is not a solid idea.
Yes, I'm about to say it "Back in my day..." the reason wizards died so easily was that a player couldn't get the concept down. It was a "Hard Class to Play" and many people would choose a more survivable class so that they could live. I don't believe in equal minds at all...if anyone gets to play a character, say here a wizard, and live without penalty of their stupid mistakes; then you end up with a Wizard Character that is of little use to the party at all.
I'm rambling I suppose...but I am beginning to see that this really is an issue of one game compared to another. "My game" would seem to be AD&D (1 and 2); where others see the need for everyone to be equal all the time...even the stupid. And yes, I said stupid...and no I won't take it back.
"Stupid is as stupid does..." and that is a fact.
EDIT: I forgot to mention one thing...why shouldn't a party all start at 1st level. If the folks at WotC want their game to compete with online games...then they should remember that I have yet to see an MMO that allowed you to start at any level other than level one.
The reason people don't know how to play a certain class might be because they have no respect for what it takes to play a class. Perhaps they get to be level 20 from the start...and that is perhaps the mistake. It is like a built in cheat code, or buying an "advanced account" from someone...still a kind of "cheating" depending on how you look at it.
Sure, I've started parties at level 3, level 5, or even level 9...but those players most definately knew how to play the characters they wanted to play.
There was a day, when folks started at level one even if the rest of the party was level 10. It helped them learn their class and put aside some measure of resentment..."What?! I'M level 9 and have been in the game since level 1! Why does the new guy get a character just as strong as mine?"
Petty as it may be...still true. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
Edited by - Dalor Darden on 01 May 2012 13:07:02 |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 13:02:47
|
| In 3.5 (my preferred system) a 20th level fighter is no slouch. With feats like Great Cleave, Greater TWF, and Power Attack the potential to do enormous damage is there. If he can't touch that wizard behind that prismatic sphere he had better have brought some friends along. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 15:10:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In the RW, if everyone was 100% equal, in all things, then sports would be pretty boring, poker-games would never have a winner, anyone could get the 'hot girl' at the bar, Kim Kardashian could do brain surgery, and Stephen Hawkins would be coming out with a new aerobics video.
But the world isn't balanced, people aren't equal, and life isn't fair. By treating D&D as a simulation, you cause it to simulate reality less and less.
-D&D isn't the real world. You have Dragons the size of boats as graceful in flight as hummingbirds. You have floating eyeballs that randomly defy the law of gravity. Most worlds have a massive ecological system underground that really shouldn't exist. And we're worried about a Fighter being able to...do something that a regular person wouldn't be able to do with a weapon?
-In my own games, NPCs are the ones who are limited to doing the "plain" things with weapons are aren't particularly fantastical. PC Fighters (as opposed to NPC 'Warriors', I guess) are different, and can do things that would be worth actually playing the class.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've always been a proponent of making classes better or mechanially stronger so it doesn't pull the wizard down. It looks like, from this article specifically, that the Devs are doing just that. I don't think they're pulling down the wizard or making their powers less awesome. Instead, they're making Fighters (a specific class, not just people who swing swords) better and pushing the upper limits of their strength, akin to what we've seen in mythology.
-Exactly this. The Wizard is not being toned down and made weaker, per se. Other classes (in this case, Fighters) are being improved upon, to (A) make them fun and intriguing to play at higher levels and to (B) make them worth a damn at higher levels. A Level 20 Fighter whose ranged weapon breaks is completely and absolutely useless against an opponent hovering 15 feet in the air above him.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
BALANCE to me is an adventuring party where everyone has to rely on someone else. I'm guessing our idea of balance is different.
-And, around midlevels, a Wizard doesn't need to rely on anyone else, gaining spells that start allowing him to mimic the abilities that other classes get. Would that not be a problem as well? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 01 May 2012 15:16:18 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 15:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I see your point and actually agree on certain points. It is this that makes my skin tingle:
quote:
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.
If this becomes the reality of "equal" classes, then it is not equal. It used to be that a wizard's highest level spells took time to cast, and so he couldn't cast the most destructive spells in an actual melee. If he tried, he was most likely stopped by a well placed sword in the gizzard!
THAT was balance. You catch the badguy with his pants down (i.e. hide in a ditch until the dragon goes over your head to skewer its guts!) and stick it to him.
While agree that's a great tactic, it can't be something that's used again and again and again for every fight. If that was the case, D&D would just get.....boring as the tactics would never change. Additionally, after two fights by using those techniques, I'm not sure how many DMs wouldn't just metagame those solutions away. I also think we're taking what Mearls says a bit too literally within the context of yet to be seen rules. We dont know what, if any, sort of resistances Fighters will have against magic, how much damage a Wizard's fireball does (in 3E it was 10d6 max, in 4E it was 5d6 Max). What I think he's trying to get across is that Fighters are tough and can, at times, shurg off the Wizard's fireball due to perserverence or sheer willpower. That doesn't translate to doesn't take damage or not die when his HP fall at 0. Perhaps he gains Temporary Hit Points or perhaps he gets a bonus to attacks against those who've attacked him, or perhaps he gets minor resistances to elemental-based damage. All of these could be ways to describe what Mearls is talking about, not just the Fighter is immune to the wizard's damage.
You also mentioned multi-round casting and the sheer idea of that horrifies me. I came strongly into Dungeons and Dragons in the change between 3E and v3.5 and I very minimally played 2E let alone mages in 2E (aside from Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale video games) so to go back to a multi-round casting system where round 1: I start to cast fire ball, round 2: I'm still casting fireball, round 3: I finished casting fireball and here, take X-damage is, frankly, unacceptable. When I started to look into other game systems for a fresh idea or just for fun many of the times the Spellcasting system was just like this and I doubt I'd get anyone in my group to adhere to a format such as that. If D&D:next is to be successful, they'll need to understand that unless your really getting a bang for you buck when you spend multiple rounds casting a single spell, they should stick to 1-standard action spells for 95% of the system.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
For a wizard to be able to stand toe to toe with a fighter in melee is just as absurd as a fighter being able to suck up every spell the wizard can hit him with and keep going.
Yet wizards have such spells like Greater Invisibility, Mirror Image, Displacement, Mage Armor, Shield, Ray of Enfeeblement, Tenser's Transformation, and Stone Skin to allow them the opportuinity to go toe-to-toe with a fighter and win most fights. Then you have spells that give them a jump on Initiative (Nerveskitter) and they most likely go first. Add in fly, and a melee-based character can't touch them. Simple point being, a fighter is required to have magical items on hand to be able to lend a hand when dealing with a BBEG wizard or some other spellcasting foe. And when they specifically say magic items and their respective bonuses won't be factored into the monster/encounter design of D&D:next, how are Fighters then supposed to contribute?
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
BALANCE to me is an adventuring party where everyone has to rely on someone else. I'm guessing our idea of balance is different.
It seems to many that for there to be supposed balance it means that everyone has to survive all the time and their character will never die. I think that is not a solid idea.
We have the same idea of what balance is, but continuing that balance is something different. I feel that the Fighter should defend, do it to the best of any other class, while being a weapon's expert and possible smith to reforge and fix armor and weapons. No other class should be able to, even for a limited time, do this better than the fighter. And a Wizard knows that without a Fighter, he dies pretty horribly, either at 1st level or 21st level. The Fighter's protective nature/aspect should be ingrained into his being and througout his career, he can focus further with specific weapon groups and styles, much like a Wizard focuses on one school of magic.
But this balance should be maintained throughout a character's career IMO. The wizard is best when he's using his magic to suppress LOTS of monster (via zones, walls, pits of acid, flinging them up into the air, reversing gravity, stunning them with elecrticity) or to blow them up with explosive magicks. Also to use magic in unique and fun ways (Unseen Servant to trigger traps for example), and to be a general magical solution and knowledge fellow. And these two BOTH rely on the cleric's healing ability, conditional removal, undead speciality, and general buffs. And ALL three wouldn't get far into a dungeon unless someone disable the traps and found the rooms to avoid if it wasn't for the rogue. And they'd also rely on his high damage yeild in combat to take down the really strong foes much faster. And this reliance on multiple people in the group doesn't change all that much from level to level. Which is where 3E and prior editions got into trouble. Wizards grabbed knacks from the Rogue with a swift casting spell. Clerics wore heavy armor just like the Fighter, and due to spells could fight better and BE better than the fighter.
As to where the idea came from about not dying = balance is beyond me? I've had more characters die (or come close to it) in 4E than any other system. And they were characters that were supposed to be tough, strong individuals that could take a beating. But my Dragonborn Paladin died at the hands of ghosts, the Human Fighter died protecthing his allies retreat from a few Zombies and Skeletons. My Air Genasi Warlord was brought to -8 HP last night because he started the battle with 8 hp below full (32 out of 40) and got hit twice, once for a critical. Dropped him in the second round. I probably would've died had it not been for the others in the party. In that same battle, 1 player was dropped to 1 HP from 46 and the other was dropped to 8 from 38. I mean, it was pretty intense and luckly no one died but it wasn't like we just walked on through and slaughtered everyone wholesale. So even with a relatively balanced game like 4E, deaths are often a roll or two away.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Yes, I'm about to say it "Back in my day..." the reason wizards died so easily was that a player couldn't get the concept down. It was a "Hard Class to Play" and many people would choose a more survivable class so that they could live. I don't believe in equal minds at all...if anyone gets to play a character, say here a wizard, and live without penalty of their stupid mistakes; then you end up with a Wizard Character that is of little use to the party at all.
I'm rambling I suppose...but I am beginning to see that this really is an issue of one game compared to another. "My game" would seem to be AD&D (1 and 2); where others see the need for everyone to be equal all the time...even the stupid. And yes, I said stupid...and no I won't take it back.
"Stupid is as stupid does..." and that is a fact.
Stupid players are going to normally die regardless of class design, because....well they're stupid or don't consider the ramifications of their actions. You don't, however, design classes for peoples varying intelligence. For one, because D&D shouldn't be as elitist as some might think and for two, everyone should have the same opportuinity to enjoy a class as iconic as the Wizard in Dungeons and Dragons.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
EDIT: I forgot to mention one thing...why shouldn't a party all start at 1st level. If the folks at WotC want their game to compete with online games...then they should remember that I have yet to see an MMO that allowed you to start at any level other than level one.
The reason people don't know how to play a certain class might be because they have no respect for what it takes to play a class. Perhaps they get to be level 20 from the start...and that is perhaps the mistake. It is like a built in cheat code, or buying an "advanced account" from someone...still a kind of "cheating" depending on how you look at it.
Sure, I've started parties at level 3, level 5, or even level 9...but those players most definately knew how to play the characters they wanted to play.
There was a day, when folks started at level one even if the rest of the party was level 10. It helped them learn their class and put aside some measure of resentment..."What?! I'M level 9 and have been in the game since level 1! Why does the new guy get a character just as strong as mine?"
Petty as it may be...still true.
For one, you answered your own question: because certain people who have a good grasp of the rules don't necessarily HAVE to start at 1st level for an adventure. Besides, D&D rules SHOULD be far more flexable in terms of what you can do with them than ANY MMO to date. I should have the ability to start an adventure at 1st, 3rd, 13th, 11th, or even 21st if I so choose and the rules should help facilitate that, not hamper.
As for a character dying and coming back, I've always quit groups that make me start at 1st level when they're far FAR more advanced that I was. It made things simpler on them to be honest and I didn't want to just sit around while they played. But this depends on what level the group is and how combat focused they are. If it's a group in the area of 7th level or higher and focused on a lot of combat, gee...no thanks. If it's a group in the 3rd to 5th level range with a stronger emphasis on story and non-combative elements, then I'd be ok with starting at 1st level.
For one, I think the whole idea is rather silly because if I'm playing with friends then there a good chance they want to see me enjoy the game too. It's hard enough losing a character one played for a year or more but to then punish them further by forcing them to make a character "survive" the long trek of leveling until they can actually contribute is just like saying "hey, were about to start a combat, run to the store to pick up more cheetos and Mt. Dew". If you can't help to defeat the enemy, you're essentially no good to the group, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 15:52:23
|
Hehehe...I love stoking the fire under arses. 
I do understand the opposite side in this (meaning opposite from my own opinion); but it doesn't change my mind.
It truly comes down to which Game of D&D do you like.
I like the old versions of D&D...where a high level wizard can indeed do much more than a fighter of the same level...usually. We have only to look at Fantasy Literature to see this isn't always the case though:
Vecna vs. Kas
Beowulf
Aragorn vs. Nazgul
etc.
I just am stubborn I suppose. When playing 4e, I do enjoy the game. It is a good solid game with lots of fun involved...BUT, it just doesn't fit my view of fantasy gaming I suppose. I just have my preferences.
Thanks for the eloquent stance others contribute; but some folks (myself included) just aren't going to be swayed from our stance short of a pry-bar or several shots of some Jack Daniels.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Rils
Learned Scribe
USA
108 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 16:48:59
|
So let me ask this, to those who favor the older edition approach to "balance" (ie fighters are better at low levels, wizards better at high levels): What, for you, is the incentive to play a fighter past the 5-7th level? As Dalor explained it, once you cross that threshold the fighter is completely irrelevant. If balance means "everyone can contribute", but past 7th level the fighter no longer contributes, what's the point of playing one?
I ask because I didn't start playing D&D till the tail end of 3.5e, and have mostly played 4e. I'm not a "fanboy" of 4e, in that I recognize it has it has its plusses and minuses. But from from everything I hear about 2e and before, I have no desire to play those systems. With level caps between 15 and 20 (depending on race), why would I want to play a fighter, which by the admission of the OD&D fans, becomes useless 25-33% of the way into his career? And why would I want to play a wizard, who's only role is to survive the first 5 levels, until he becomes a one-man-army? That doesn't sound fun at all for either class, and any notion of balance (as you described it) is completely thrown out the window...
So, I'm curious what you see the attraction of such a system is, because TBH, I don't get it. What you're saying you want (balance where everyone contributes) and what you like (significant chunks of class superiority/irrelevancy) don't add up, as far as I can see. As I said though, I didn't play the system, so I'm wondering in genuine and honest curiosity, what am I missing? |
Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 17:03:33
|
| I never agreed with that "all classes are equal" notion. All people aren't equal (as far as D&D abilities are concerned), so why should a high level warrior be "equal" to a high level wizard. Most wizards spend MUCH more time perfecting their craft than fighters. The all classes are equal concept sounds good on paper in an attempt to balance the game, but falls short in "reality." IMHO of course |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 17:24:56
|
@Karsus - you quoted me, but it doesn't seem you were responding to what I wrote (or perhaps didn't understand my point). 
I'm in total agreement with what you said, and made a similar point myself in another thread (the art one). My point was that balance =/= equality.
Dalor Darden made excellent points regarding the differences. You achieve balance by playing to your strengths, not by "making everyone the same". Players had to learn to "play smart or die"; leveling the playing field removes a major part of the D&D learning process. So does starting at high level. Without humility, you just become an A-hole with a sword (or wand, etc).
This game used to be about cooperation, now its about who owns the most splats (so they can create 'uber-builds'). Allowing players to create nigh-unstoppable characters hurts them in the long run - they will never know the feeling of overcoming adversity when the odds are stacked against them. I remember when completing a dungeon alive (with all your body parts) meant something.
*meh* |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 17:51:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Players had to learn to "play smart or die"; leveling the playing field removes a major part of the D&D learning process. So does starting at high level. Without humility, you just become an A-hole with a sword (or wand, etc).
I agree here. Starting at level 1 forces you to be creative or die, it's that simple. It also gives you the humility to appreciate that higher level character down the road.
*Every lich out there at one point had to decide on selecting that 1st critical spell other than Cantrip. Out of curiosity, did anyone NOT select Magic Missle as their first chosen spell when starting as a magic-user??
|
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:07:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Karsus - you quoted me, but it doesn't seem you were responding to what I wrote (or perhaps didn't understand my point).
I'm in total agreement with what you said, and made a similar point myself in another thread (the art one). My point was that balance =/= equality.
Dalor Darden made excellent points regarding the differences. You achieve balance by playing to your strengths, not by "making everyone the same". Players had to learn to "play smart or die"; leveling the playing field removes a major part of the D&D learning process. So does starting at high level. Without humility, you just become an A-hole with a sword (or wand, etc).
I couldn't disagree more. Playing smart or dying is something that's done at every level. There isn't a mystical level that, once obtained, saves you from stupid actions in D&D. If your a wizard and you charge an ogre then chances are you won't survive much longer unless you have pretty heavy magical spells active. Same with the Fighter who might jump onto a prismatic sphere, chances are he's not surviving. Leveling the playing field (at least, where 4E is concerned) was making sure each character had options that promoted what he did well within the framework of his class. Can a 14th level Fighter in 4E create a wall of Ice to block enemies? No. Can he stand there and stop 8 different monsters from attacking his friends? No, he might get one or three though. Can he, with a single gesture, help his teammates fly so many miles per day? No, not at all. So where does this level playing field come in?
Perhaps it's because the Fighter is still useful at 18th level, becuse without him the Wizard only has a few tricks up his sleeve to escape an assult from an Adult Wretch Dragon, a Frost Giant's axe, or a Nightwalker's killer claws.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This game used to be about cooperation, now its about who owns the most splats (so they can create 'uber-builds'). Allowing players to create nigh-unstoppable characters hurts them in the long run - they will never know the feeling of overcoming adversity when the odds are stacked against them. I remember when completing a dungeon alive (with all your body parts) meant something.
*meh*
It's been my experience that 4E is the first time in D&D where team work and cooperation were not only encouraged but almost expected to solve problems, slay monsters, and save the day. And I've never been opposed to more character options from Dragon Magazine or splat books because presenting characters via mechanics in interesting ways can be a lot of fun. I fail to see why that's a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:11:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Players had to learn to "play smart or die"; leveling the playing field removes a major part of the D&D learning process. So does starting at high level. Without humility, you just become an A-hole with a sword (or wand, etc).
I agree here. Starting at level 1 forces you to be creative or die, it's that simple. It also gives you the humility to appreciate that higher level character down the road.
*Every lich out there at one point had to decide on selecting that 1st critical spell other than Cantrip. Out of curiosity, did anyone NOT select Magic Missle as their first chosen spell when starting as a magic-user??
I didn't, thought the spell was rubbish unitl at least 5th level. I tended to favor Grease and Mage Armor and often Specialized to gain that extra spell per day, which then I choose Ray of Enfeeblement, Hail of Stone (I love that spell), or Enlarge Person if we had a 2-handed warrior in our group. But that was playing 3.X and 3E. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:28:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rils
So let me ask this, to those who favor the older edition approach to "balance" (ie fighters are better at low levels, wizards better at high levels): What, for you, is the incentive to play a fighter past the 5-7th level? As Dalor explained it, once you cross that threshold the fighter is completely irrelevant. If balance means "everyone can contribute", but past 7th level the fighter no longer contributes, what's the point of playing one?
The fun of playing a swordswinger. I never felt irrelevant playing a fighter or that I wasn't contributing. No class is ideal in all situations, so there was always something else to cut down.
A better question, in my mind: if fighters can do the same as wizards, where's the incentive to play either class over the other? If both classes can do the same amount of damage, to the same number of targets, in the same amount of time, then what sets the classes apart? You can say it's flavor, but if everything is the same, then the differences are purely cosmetic. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:29:22
|
| "Balance" in old-school D&D derived in part from the fact that the more kick-ass a class became at high level, the more XP it took to get to high level. Not every character advanced at the same rate. I always thought that was a fairly reasonable approach. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:35:20
|
Good question Rils!
But the over-simplification of others is not my own. I didn't say a Fighter becomes useless...never said that. What I said is that early on the wizard needs the fighter and later the fighter needs the wizard.
If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, look at the Majere brothers from Dragonlance. Raistlin is powerful even at low level simply because there aren't that many wizards! He does however still need his brother. Later, however, he does not because he has grown in power.
Fighters at higher levels in AD&D and 2e. AD&D are not weaklings by any measure at higher levels. They can still absorb massive amounts of damage, wield formidable weapons, and wade through hordes of evil!
My point is that at higher levels, a fighter begins to need the Wizard more to overcome obstacles such as Magical Walls that can't be penetrated. To summon other-planar creatures to consult with. Basically to unlock the mysteries of the universe sort of stuff. A wizard at high levels takes time to cast their most powerful spells...and a smart wizard doesn't try the most destructive spells while standing amidst a melee. He resorts to the same sorts of spells he used while less powerful, but he is now able to use them more often.
Some might remember a certain encounter in an R.A. Salvatore novel in which the casting of a Stoneskin spell kept the wizard from being hurt...for a while. And then everyone thinks that is too powerful. Nobody looks more deeply at the casting of that spell and realizes that the sheer COST of that spell probably made it prohibitive to cast except under the most dangerous situation. Material components alone are a restriction on spell casting...some of them so very expensive (both in Life Force as well as wealth) that a Wizard can't simply go around throwing his magical might about.
Another example, the simple Haste Spell that so many use now without thinking twice about it: that spell used to AGE EVERYONE under its influence. It was NOT a spell the party used very often because everyone would end up old!
The earlier versions of D&D had built in measures of containing a wizard that folks just don't talk about...I'll list some of them from 1st Edition:
Material Costs
-Find Familiar alone costs 100g.p. PLUS a Brass Brazier and Charcoal
-Identify alone costs 100g.p. PLUS the user has to imbibe a potion of an owl feather steeped in wine AND swallow whole a miniature live carp! That doesn't even include if you use a Luckstone (worth 25,000 GOLD COIN!) to increase the spell's power.
-Clairaudience costs a 100g.p. silver horn that disappears each casting!
Body Costs
-Casting Haste causes the user to age
-A wish could cause a mandatory bed rest of up to 8 days
Memorizing Spells
- 4 hours rest to regain 1st or 2nd level spells...up to 12 hours rest to regain a 9th level spell
- .25 hours per level of each spell to memorize
- If a caster simply wanted to replace a spell of each level, that would require 12 hours of rest and 11.25 hours of memorizing spells!
Learning Spells
- a wizard with a 9 Intelligence has only a 35% chance to learn a spell...and only can KNOW 6 spells of each level...while a caster with an 18 Intelligence has a 85% chance to learn a spell, and can still only EVER KNOW up to 18 spells.
If these sorts of limitations weren't enough for the game...I guess I'm confused at why they made it so easy for wizards later...only to bitch about it being easy! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:47:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
"Balance" in old-school D&D derived in part from the fact that the more kick-ass a class became at high level, the more XP it took to get to high level. Not every character advanced at the same rate. I always thought that was a fairly reasonable approach.
Exactly:
Fighter 20th level: 3 million xp
Thief 20th level: 2.2 million xp
Cleric 20th level: 2.7 million xp
Wizard 20th level: 3.75 MILLION xp
I won't even get into Rangers, Paladins and Druids...
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 19:27:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
A better question, in my mind: if fighters can do the same as wizards, where's the incentive to play either class over the other? If both classes can do the same amount of damage, to the same number of targets, in the same amount of time, then what sets the classes apart? You can say it's flavor, but if everything is the same, then the differences are purely cosmetic.
I don't think this has ever transpired in actual rules of D&D, even the balanced rules of 4E. A Wizard has Scorching Burst, 50 ft. range dealing fire damage to any creature in a 5-ft radius. OR perhaps you prefer Hypnotism, where the Wizard makes the target use a melee attack against a creature of your choice (even itself), with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll or you can choose to slide (move any direction you like except into the air) the Creature up to 15 feet, which can be over the side of a cliff, into the drink, onto the camp fire, back into a zone you created, or even back into the range of your Fighter's sword. A Fighter, by contrast, can't do ANY of this stuff. He's contained to the weapon he wields to make attacks against his foes. He get Cleave, the ability to damage two monsters who are adjacent to eachother with 1 attack or Resolute Shield, the ability to resist damage against the same create you hit this turn or Tide of Iron, hitting a target allows you to push it 5-ft and then step into the place the creature vacated.
In all honestly, even when 4E classes were of the same "role" and had powers that effectively had the same attack style (weapon or magic), the class's abilities worked differently or had different effects that further created a difference between them. Really, the only thing that remain constant was the sytem of delivery (Stat vs. Defense) and the damage of that level wouldn't exceed a certain number, meaning you weren't getting more powerful Magic Missiles that did more damage over that of say, a 5th level spell. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 21:22:55
|
One of the most serious drawbacks mages suffered in AD&D was awful hit points. 1d4 per level, up to +2 bonus per die from high CON (assuming he doesn't have a penalty from low CON) ... so a level 20 mage could realistically expect to have an average of about 35hp. Along with poor AC, hopeless THAC0, plus the inability to cast any but perhaps the quickest and simplest (lowest-level) spells while sustaining damage (or busy trying to not sustain damage) in combat. And although mages got fantastic Saves vs magical things their Saves were greatly inferior vs the more common and mundane things; poison can kill you just as fast as a spell.
Each subsequent D&D edition introduces hit point inflation. 3d6 damage from a 30' fall used to hurt a lot in 1E, while 3.5E characters with hundreds of hit points can hardly feel it at all ... assuming they haven't got feats, powers, or a dozen magical items in their pocket to negate the fall. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 21:56:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Karsus - you quoted me, but it doesn't seem you were responding to what I wrote (or perhaps didn't understand my point).
I'm in total agreement with what you said, and made a similar point myself in another thread (the art one). My point was that balance =/= equality.
-I was agreeing with you. Hence my saying what I said! |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 22:42:35
|
I forgot to mention the "Mid-Range" experience in AD&D:
All at 9th level.
Fighter: 250,001 xp
Cleric: 225,001 xp
Thief: 110,001 xp
Magic-User: 135,001 xp
At 5th Level:
Fighter: 18,001
Cleric: 13,001
Thief: 10,001 xp
Magic-User: 22,501 xp
At 2nd Level:
Fighter: 2,001 xp
Cleric: 1,501 xp
Thief: 1,251 xp
Magic-User: 2,501 xp
My FAVORITE bit is one thing most people over-look, for a "Wizard" to have access to all magic, he actually would have to have TWO classes.
To have all Illusionist Magic and all wizard magic available to him, the character would have to be a 14th level Illusionist (1.1 million XP) and an 18th level Magic-User (3 million XP) for a grand total of 4.1 Million (and TWO) Experience Points to be a 14th level Illusionist and 18th level Magic-User...which would then allow them to use any Arcane Spell.
So a full 1/3rd + more XP than a 20th level Fighter.
That seems fair to me though, because by then the character will have earned the right to level a damnable Orc Horde...and that is cool. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:24:57
|
Your argument about "access to all magic" is only valid under 1E rules, in 2E a character needs only be a mage (or perhaps wild mage) to access virtually all arcane magic. Another flaw: unless the character has superhuman (19+) INT score, or he intends to spend many centuries researching every possible spell formulae (like Elminster), there is a cap on the maximum number of spells he can actually learn/use.
Those XP comparisons don't seem especially meaningful, Fighters and Mages bounce around, sometimes one needs higher XP, sometimes the other, and Thief/Cleric classes aren't even relevant in this discussion. Again, these values only apply to 1E; in 2E the charts consistently indicate that Fighters require more XP than Mages at all the higher levels. In 3E they were changed again, and almost all characters deliberately became multiclasses anyhow. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 01 May 2012 23:26:18 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
High Level Fighter Equal to High Level Wizard?
