| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 04 May 2012 : 13:38:28
|
As I remember, a wizard/sorcerer, spellcaster, has always in any fantasy setting had powers that far exceeded that of mortal men. Thus any fighter, no matter skill or experience would fail misserable if he or she attacked a wiz/sorc.. or the likes.
I fighter is a common man picking up a weapon... a wizard is a person infused with magical blood, who has the power to manipulate the very fabric of the world they live in.
I feel it is only appropriate that a spellcaster is more powerful that "any" fighter... I don’t recall any fighter cutting of the top of a mountain with his blade and making it fly.
In short: A spellcaster is supposed to be more than mere mortal and he or she wield cosmic powers. Thus a spellcaster HAS to be more powerful. That’s part of the whole mythology of the wizard.
|
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 15:14:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
As I remember, a wizard/sorcerer, spellcaster, has always in any fantasy setting had powers that far exceeded that of mortal men. Thus any fighter, no matter skill or experience would fail misserable if he or she attacked a wiz/sorc.. or the likes.
But it's all situational. A fighter starting 100 feet away from a wizard who is prepped for combat -- that's a dead fighter. A fighter starting 6 feet away from a wizard who isn't prepped for combat? Well, that's wizard's robes will be good for wiping the blood off of the fighter's blades. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 15:48:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
As I remember, a wizard/sorcerer, spellcaster, has always in any fantasy setting had powers that far exceeded that of mortal men. Thus any fighter, no matter skill or experience would fail misserable if he or she attacked a wiz/sorc.. or the likes.
But it's all situational. A fighter starting 100 feet away from a wizard who is prepped for combat -- that's a dead fighter. A fighter starting 6 feet away from a wizard who isn't prepped for combat? Well, that's wizard's robes will be good for wiping the blood off of the fighter's blades.
A good wizard would have been prepared the day before he met the fighter. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 17:42:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
As I remember, a wizard/sorcerer, spellcaster, has always in any fantasy setting had powers that far exceeded that of mortal men. Thus any fighter, no matter skill or experience would fail misserable if he or she attacked a wiz/sorc.. or the likes.
But it's all situational. A fighter starting 100 feet away from a wizard who is prepped for combat -- that's a dead fighter. A fighter starting 6 feet away from a wizard who isn't prepped for combat? Well, that's wizard's robes will be good for wiping the blood off of the fighter's blades.
A good wizard would have been prepared the day before he met the fighter.
Heh.
There does come a point, though, where a wizard is not going to be prepared. Maybe he's been in combat all day, and his spells were exhausted taking out all of the fighters that were 100 feet away. Maybe he's asleep. Maybe he's surprised coming out of the loo. Maybe he's been doing research all day, and is loaded up on spells facilitating research. Maybe he is in the process of casting some other spell when Bahb the Fighter shows up with his blade drawn. And so on...
Most situations would favor the wizard, but not all of them. |
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! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 17:53:01
|
| But can we agree that a wizard at lvl 20-30 should be more powerful than a fighter??? in generel!? |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 18:59:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heh.
There does come a point, though, where a wizard is not going to be prepared. Maybe he's been in combat all day, and his spells were exhausted taking out all of the fighters that were 100 feet away. Maybe he's asleep. Maybe he's surprised coming out of the loo. Maybe he's been doing research all day, and is loaded up on spells facilitating research. Maybe he is in the process of casting some other spell when Bahb the Fighter shows up with his blade drawn. And so on...
Most situations would favor the wizard, but not all of them.
I agree that a wizard can't win every fight...but his arse should be able to get away!
When I play a wizard, I'm kinda selfish in one regard: if I don't have an out, I don't get in.
All the years I've spent playing "the bad guy" as the DM have helped me to see that a true wizard doesn't view "cowardice" the way a fighter does. Cowardice (read here as survival instinct!) is part and parcel of being a surviving villain...and for me the same stands true of being a surviving wizard.
Pride can get you killed more quickly than an orc horde.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36863 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 19:49:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heh.
There does come a point, though, where a wizard is not going to be prepared. Maybe he's been in combat all day, and his spells were exhausted taking out all of the fighters that were 100 feet away. Maybe he's asleep. Maybe he's surprised coming out of the loo. Maybe he's been doing research all day, and is loaded up on spells facilitating research. Maybe he is in the process of casting some other spell when Bahb the Fighter shows up with his blade drawn. And so on...
Most situations would favor the wizard, but not all of them.
I agree that a wizard can't win every fight...but his arse should be able to get away!
When I play a wizard, I'm kinda selfish in one regard: if I don't have an out, I don't get in.
All the years I've spent playing "the bad guy" as the DM have helped me to see that a true wizard doesn't view "cowardice" the way a fighter does. Cowardice (read here as survival instinct!) is part and parcel of being a surviving villain...and for me the same stands true of being a surviving wizard.
Pride can get you killed more quickly than an orc horde.
I would expect that some wizards would view cowardice the same way as a fighter... There's not one set template for personality types drawn to magic.
And while I agree that a wizard should leave himself an out, that's still going to be situational. |
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! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 20:50:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There does come a point, though, where a wizard is not going to be prepared. Maybe he's been in combat all day, and his spells were exhausted taking out all of the fighters that were 100 feet away. Maybe he's asleep. Maybe he's surprised coming out of the loo. Maybe he's been doing research all day, and is loaded up on spells facilitating research. Maybe he is in the process of casting some other spell when Bahb the Fighter shows up with his blade drawn. And so on...
Most situations would favor the wizard, but not all of them.
Except, how many times is a group of adventurers (people normally taking on a Wizard enemy) or even just one fighter going to come across a Wizard in that sort of capacity? That is, what DM would LET a BBEG wizard be caught in that sort of situation? It's been my experience that 95% of wizards are either A) prepared for an adventuring group via Scrying, Alarm spells, or reporting minions OR B) fresh for the day with their spell-list. A DM normally doesn't subtract from that pool as the hours of a day pass, espically in most "Adventuring situations".
And from that perspective, if a Wizard knows that his minions and subjects are dying then there is a pretty good chance he's going to prepare offensive, defensive, and combat-focused spells and not Identify or Locate Object. Which then ensues the problems of "breaking" mechanics with Wizards and other spellcasters disparity.
Now, I don't have a problem with wizard doing magical things. I don't have a problem with them lighting up a battlefield with Fireballs, reversing gravity, using magic to search the planes or uncover magial properties with weapons. Those are things Wizards are supposed to do. What I have a problem with are specific spell combinations that create nigh invincible foes. Spells coupled with Feats that even when a Wizard is dropped below 0 HP he instantly teleports away and in his place, empowered fireball explodes. Or when a Wizard PC can effectively end an encounter in 1-round with multiple spells in a round. The fact that he's casting spells in a round is fine, it's the implementation of those spells or, more importantly, the way in which they're worded which gives creative players FAR too much leeway. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11972 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 21:41:56
|
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.
One thing I noted under 3rd/3.5 edition rules was that at the upper levels the fighters actually started outdoing spellcasters. Basically, their Saves keep incrementing, but spellcaster DC's don't go up at the same rate. Being that I tend to use high level warrior-mages, this really caught my attention and made me wonder whether an eldritch knight type character wouldn't turn his focus from arcane and back to melee at epic levels. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11972 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 22:04:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
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!
Yeah, the "it takes forever to refresh all your spells" aspect of earlier editions was one of the things I noted, but back in 2nd edition I was doing a lot more with high level magic. The problem I saw was not many people realized it. I actually created spells that simply allowed you recover spells to memory that you had cast the previous day (provided you were rested) without having to laboriously re-memorize them. It was basically the archmage's tool to be able to have enough time in the day to be able to wash his clothes, etc... (and yes, I know someone's going to say that's what an apprentice is for, but not all archmages want to be so burdened).
Earlier editions tried to control magic through cost, but the problem was that noone really had a good handle on how much gold a party should have. To my mind, third edition went a much better path to depowering a lot of overly powerful spells by simply making them cost a lot in terms of XP, etc... They didn't remove the spell itself, but they made casting it something that you're definitely going to think about first. Simulacrum comes to mind as a particularly toned down one by such a simple change. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11972 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 22:14:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I LOVED the different experience progressions.
To me it made sense really. A College Education takes more time for sure than Graduating from Highschool...
-In four years, with two 15-credit semesters a year (from late August/early September to late May/early June) it actually doesn't. But, that's neither here nor there. What I would ask is: Does a physicist study harder to excel in his profession than a plumber? A statistician as compared to teacher? It's all relatively apples and oranges- aspects of learning to cast magic are more difficult than, say, mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow, but aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow.
I'll say this for comparison.... does an IT person have to constantly learn new things as compared to a plumber? Every 2 to 3 years, networking changes... entirely differently hardware, new command sets, etc.... Meanwhile, in general, not much changes for the plumber (notice, I said not much... yes, there are new products, etc... and no, this isn't a crack on plumbers). I'd equate magic and various magic rituals, etc... to something like that that's constantly changing as new advancements are made, world changes happen, etc... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 23:53:13
|
Given that magic isn't real, it's hard to make valid definitive statements about how difficult it is to learn. I would argue that the relative abundance of mages in the Realms indicates that it's not THAT hard to learn in that universe, or at least the first several tiers of spells are not.
One thing that's worth keeping in mind is that progress in a discipline is a result of application but also of aptitude. I'm book smart (at least in fields of study where high-level math doesn't come into it), and I cranked through college and grad-school coursework relatively easily. I'm not naturally athletic, and I had to work hard at fencing over a period of years just to get to a modest level of proficiency.
For the most part, people are likely to go where their talents take them. So jocks will follow the way of the Fighter, brainy guys will take up Wizardry, musical guys will study to be Bards, etc. And in all those cases, we might expect them to advance in their disciplines pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2461 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2012 : 09:05:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
Well, MMO is implied in this.
Because the idea that even two vastly different sets of abilities can be equally useful in ALL and ANY situations is obviously retarded. And once we release hold on that, we end up either in a standard gladiatorial arena or with "game balance" becoming rather vague concept.
IMO, as long as a warrior is more useful than a wizard in some non-contrived circumstances, power levels don't lose their meaning.
Beyond that, it becomes meaningless obsessive shoehorning - just like "oh, how to make Charisma useful in a monster-filled dungeon? ...Let's introduce the Cuteness Magick!".
The real problem is not "how to give warriors magic", it's how to make warriors played in a style other than "bash it more", which is not interesting gameplay. C&T did this, and even d20 did this at least halfway - it only needed slightly less crude combat options than "expertise" and a few effects like knockback useable from the start.
And fighters won't be poor orphans if d20 had its skill rank inflation (which IMO is a bad thing in itself) working on fighters as strongly as Concentration and Spellcraft work for wizards. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2012 : 11:28:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
I think it's important to note that while numerically 4E's classes might range on a general level consistant level (like 1st level at-will abilities ranging fom 8-15 damage), they're definitly NOT equal. I think a LOT of people overlook aspects of what each class brings to the table and NOT just in what spells/exploits/prayers they can conjur, but in their class features, feats, themes, skill-sets, and even non-combative qualities too.
I think it was here that I said that even two classes of the same Role will work distinctively different in both flavor and mechanics. The Fighter, who uses weapons and positioning to combat his enemies will use techniques and his allies during combat where as a Swordmage (a defender, like the fighter) will float all over the battlefield, applying his blade-magic where he deems it worthy because his "marking" technique allows him to range far afield from those he protects (via his Aegis ability). Just sayin' my experience with the game lends me the belief that even when things are "balanced" with the numbers, the classes range pretty far from abilities and powers to show huge differences in play and equality. |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2012 : 07:51:54
|
IMHO 4e is like a MMO. Somehow role-playing just stop being role-playing when the bigs started to think along the lines of profit and more profit.
I love 3e/3.5e. Its good, fun and really great to play. Yes its not fair, not balanced but then again trying to balance everything and make everyone equal...well now they are coming out with a new edition! What kind of thinking is that?! If the next one does not do it, do they come out with another one??and another??
The thing i love about wizards is the sheer power they have, yes i am being biased. A guy who spends his whole life swinging some sword should not be able to match someone who can bind devils and raise the dead. But they do match when the wizard runs out of spells. Because thats what it is about, balance with flaws. The wizard can do great things but only so much, even epic wizards need their spellbooks and once they cast every spell they have its gone and they need to hide behind someone's shield. A fighter is an equal to the wizard, has been like that in so many fantasy novels/films but that does not mean he is a constant equal. I could definitely wipe out my whole party but i dont because they are as important as my spellbooks!
Besides studying magic must be way harder than swinging a sword. Trust me i tried(the spellcasting!) I have always found a wizard to be like a doctor/scientist someone who studies and learns, a sorcerer likened to a poet/singer someone who does it innately. |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2012 : 14:31:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
IMHO 4e is like a MMO. Somehow role-playing just stop being role-playing when the bigs started to think along the lines of profit and more profit.
Well YMMV on this one, as there were a LOT of people who compared (negatively, I might add) that 3E/v3.5 was just WotC trying to cash in on the popularity of Diablo franchise with their game mechanics for D&D, even went so far as to make a supplement or two for Diablo (and World of Warcraft, I might add). But really, video game comparions to PnP RPGs are soo bad that it just doesn't translate well. Espically since video games are meant to be played in "solo" mode, something that would be very difficult given the Rules as Written with 3E or 4E (or really, any edition for that matter).
Now, I'll go so far as to agree that the presentation of 4E and the streamlined aspects of At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers for all classes does give it a MMO "look", but when I play the game, I just don't feel the MMO vibe. But I DM my 4E games the exact same way with 3E, so perhaps I don't do it right or that I just don't see that much of a mechanical difference to get all up in arms about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
I love 3e/3.5e. Its good, fun and really great to play. Yes its not fair, not balanced but then again trying to balance everything and make everyone equal...well now they are coming out with a new edition! What kind of thinking is that?! If the next one does not do it, do they come out with another one??and another??
The thing i love about wizards is the sheer power they have, yes i am being biased. A guy who spends his whole life swinging some sword should not be able to match someone who can bind devils and raise the dead. But they do match when the wizard runs out of spells. Because thats what it is about, balance with flaws. The wizard can do great things but only so much, even epic wizards need their spellbooks and once they cast every spell they have its gone and they need to hide behind someone's shield. A fighter is an equal to the wizard, has been like that in so many fantasy novels/films but that does not mean he is a constant equal. I could definitely wipe out my whole party but i dont because they are as important as my spellbooks!
Besides studying magic must be way harder than swinging a sword. Trust me i tried(the spellcasting!) I have always found a wizard to be like a doctor/scientist someone who studies and learns, a sorcerer likened to a poet/singer someone who does it innately.
Problem with this design method is that Wizards at higher levels DON'T run out of spells unless a DM specifically throws multiple (and by that, I mean 5, 6, 7) encounters at a group in 1 day without rest. Which, by my experiences, is pretty impossible given the length of Combat 3E takes at higher levels of play unless you have a wizard, cleric, or druid 1-shot the encounter with a spell or ability. And in a group that games for say.....3 hours, well who wants the entire time to be combat?
Additionally, the shift in balance from level to level is rarely seen becuase groups change campaigns or they change character or they stop all together for a time or whatever, but I've never seen a game that played from levels 1st through 20th in a year or two. That would require a consistant leveling every 2.5 weeks if you play once a week for 3 hours.
Also, while I think 3E wizards and other spellcasters are unbalanced and "broken" at high levels of play, I don't want them to be weak, crossbow men at low levels either. What I do in my games is give them cantrips at-will and the damage dealing ones deal max damage (yes, Acid Splash deals 3 damage. period) and that will at least carry them to 3rd level or until they can afford to grab a Reserve Feat.
So what I think D&D:next needs to do to make the Wizard awesome and fun is to NOT compare it to other classes. The wizard should be able to do extraordinary things, bend reality as it were, and to lay low a TON of monsters if he deems it necessary. Nothing wrong with that at all, but I think they should also give the Fighter some tricks, talents, traits, feats, power, whatever to allow them to plow through monsters with his sword. Allow him to hold a bridge of Ogres by himself, allow him to trip a Dragon or knock down a Frost Giant in one big swing. I see nothing wrong with any of these aspects for the Fighter. |
Edited by - Diffan on 08 May 2012 14:31:55 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 03:10:11
|
Not all level 20 wizards are equal.
So why on Toril would all level 20 fighters need to be viewed as being equal to level 20 wizards?!
I think it should come down to the specific cases, and specific conditions of a specific encounter. "On any given Sunday," as we say here in the States.
There should not be any automatic rule that over-simplifies things for us. Life ain't anything like that. Nor should the game or the fiction be. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 04:39:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Not all level 20 wizards are equal.
So why on Toril would all level 20 fighters need to be viewed as being equal to level 20 wizards?!
I think it should come down to the specific cases, and specific conditions of a specific encounter. "On any given Sunday," as we say here in the States.
There should not be any automatic rule that over-simplifies things for us. Life ain't anything like that. Nor should the game or the fiction be.
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?
It's simple enought to make the PC classes of Wizard and Fighter equal in regards to their own unique application in a fight. The answer: Don't use the same rules for PCs as you would in making an NPC or villian. |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 05:56:07
|
| Villains made in the style of the PC's are the best kind. My game has it. It gives everyone an equal chance and a sure footing to be able to determine a battle that can be remembered. Besides trying to play 4e was like playing an MMO. Role-playing games are supposed to be just that, role-playing games. Playing 4e was kind of a waste of money for me personally since it was more mechanical than anything else... |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 10:57:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Villains made in the style of the PC's are the best kind. My game has it. It gives everyone an equal chance and a sure footing to be able to determine a battle that can be remembered. Besides trying to play 4e was like playing an MMO. Role-playing games are supposed to be just that, role-playing games. Playing 4e was kind of a waste of money for me personally since it was more mechanical than anything else...
I'd have to argue that creating NPCs and Villians using PC methods gets.....redundant and limiting. Personally, I like the freedom to give my bad-guys all sorts of personal, unique, and interesting abiliites yet how can I do that when I'm limited to X amount of gold, Y amount of Feats, and Z amount of room due to level/class? If I wanted to make my Drow Fighter bad-guy minor teleport through shadows he requires either a PrC, a magical item, a specific class/spell, or template to do such a thing. I don't like that sort of straight jacketing.
As for the whole MMO style, if that's the way you played/ran 4E then there really isn't much help for it. I'm not really sure why some difference in mechanics instantly changes how you roleplayed but I've always been a firm believer that it's dependant on how much a player puts in to get a good RP experience, not the mechanics that facilitates what you do. I don't have any problems roleplaying using 4E, nor did I have any with 3E (really, the similarities between editions are pretty extensive) and were I forced to play AD&D/2E, I'm sure I could roleplay using those rules too even though I'd despise them. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 16:14:26
|
As we're on the topic of class balance and power, how do players measures a class's "power"? Meaning, what does it refer to when a player says "a high level wizard should be more powerful than a fighter."? Are we talking damage per round? Or perhaps the class's versatility? Or maybe we're talking about ending a combat encounter with one action/turn? Or the ability to mimic other classes speciality with a simple spell?
I ask because the open playtest is drawing near for D&D:Next, thus the rules come out soon and I'd like to know my baselines for game balance. |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 19:08:30
|
| Diffan, I guess this isn't nearly so true with 4e, but back when I started playing D&D (when it was three beige pamphlets in a white cardboard box), I did always tend to think of wizards as the most powerful class because of their ability to put down even hideously powerful monsters with a single zap. If my PC Ningauble could slip his trusty Polymorph Other past a monster's Save, that was generally that. However tough the beastie had been a moment before, now it was a trout flippety-flopping around on the ground. (I no longer recall why Ningauble decided that anything he transformed should become a trout, but it was a decision that worked out well for him.) |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 19:22:53
|
| Ningauble of the Seven Eyes was your character??? |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 21:27:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Diffan, I guess this isn't nearly so true with 4e, but back when I started playing D&D (when it was three beige pamphlets in a white cardboard box), I did always tend to think of wizards as the most powerful class because of their ability to put down even hideously powerful monsters with a single zap. If my PC Ningauble could slip his trusty Polymorph Other past a monster's Save, that was generally that. However tough the beastie had been a moment before, now it was a trout flippety-flopping around on the ground. (I no longer recall why Ningauble decided that anything he transformed should become a trout, but it was a decision that worked out well for him.)
That was sort of my understanding of "power" as well, being able to take down the biggest threat all on one character's own turn. And I have to say that I'm not sure if I think this is the best thing for D&D. I do think wizards should be able to polymorph objects and people into objects, but then where is the balance point? Or, if the general concensus is that this sort of ability is OK then what can the Fighter bring to bear that can equally be just as devestating?
So a 20th level Wizard can cast a spell and *poof* turn a seriously powerful monster into a toad in one turn. That creature-turned-toad now has the stats of a toad and is able to be crushed by practically anyone around it. What if there were mechanics in place for a 20th level Fighter to be able to slay a monster just as powerful with a weapon attack? Give them some sort of mechanic or ability that, instead of doing normal weapon damage, if the creature has X amount of HP then the Fighter just out-right slays the creature on the spot with a successful attack? It could be limited to once or a few times per day, just like the wizard is limited to X-amount of Encounter Ending spells per day.
Or, we just not make spells quite that powerful as earlier editions of Polymorph Object. Instead, we could do something more 4E-ish such as:
Effect: Creatuer polymorphs as a Tiny beast. The Creature is dazed, and the only actions it can take are to move its speed or take a 5-ft step. All of the target’s equipment transforms with it. If it takes damage from any source, this effect ends.
Basically, this performed the same exact function as Polymorph Object, except we gave the monster a few benefits of the doubt such as it's not permanently changed in this state. Additionally, any attack (if successful) negates this change. BUT we effectively removed it from combat for a time and we kept the flavor of the spell because it's just funny to turn creatures into snails, rodents, and trout.
BTW, the effect above is a 4E power (5th level Wizard spell) and I have to say, I'd rather have something flavorful and effective but not an instant-win button. There's gotta be something said for DMs who orchestrate those sort of End-Game, BBEGs with a cinematic plot and epic details that just get ruined with a simple casting of 1 spell in the first round. |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 22:07:04
|
| Dalor: Since the Gray Mouser and Fafhrd stories are my all-time favorite works of heroic fantasy, I named my wizard Ningauble, but he wasn't the same guy or creature or whatever that Leiber wrote about. My PC only had two eyes, and he went out and slew monsters and went on quests himself instead of leaning on agents to do it for him. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 22:47:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So a 20th level Wizard can cast a spell and *poof* turn a seriously powerful monster into a toad in one turn. That creature-turned-toad now has the stats of a toad and is able to be crushed by practically anyone around it. What if there were mechanics in place for a 20th level Fighter to be able to slay a monster just as powerful with a weapon attack? Give them some sort of mechanic or ability that, instead of doing normal weapon damage, if the creature has X amount of HP then the Fighter just out-right slays the creature on the spot with a successful attack? It could be limited to once or a few times per day, just like the wizard is limited to X-amount of Encounter Ending spells per day.
-Could you imagine the amount of bemoaning that would happen if Fighters got "save or die" type attacks like magicians have spells? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 23:53:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Dalor: Since the Gray Mouser and Fafhrd stories are my all-time favorite works of heroic fantasy, I named my wizard Ningauble, but he wasn't the same guy or creature or whatever that Leiber wrote about. My PC only had two eyes, and he went out and slew monsters and went on quests himself instead of leaning on agents to do it for him.
LOL...I figured as much; I was half-joking. The other half was wondering if you played Ningauble for fun...I have done the same with various fantasy characters just to have fun.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 01:21:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So a 20th level Wizard can cast a spell and *poof* turn a seriously powerful monster into a toad in one turn. That creature-turned-toad now has the stats of a toad and is able to be crushed by practically anyone around it. What if there were mechanics in place for a 20th level Fighter to be able to slay a monster just as powerful with a weapon attack? Give them some sort of mechanic or ability that, instead of doing normal weapon damage, if the creature has X amount of HP then the Fighter just out-right slays the creature on the spot with a successful attack? It could be limited to once or a few times per day, just like the wizard is limited to X-amount of Encounter Ending spells per day.
-Could you imagine the amount of bemoaning that would happen if Fighters got "save or die" type attacks like magicians have spells?
I'd have absolutley no intention of requiring a "Save or Die" mechanic for Fighters. The way I see (using 3E/v3.5 terms) is that both classes are balanced in terms of what constitutes an attack. The Wizard has two things to contend with. The first is Saving Throws. Some spells (powerful ones too) don't require it but many death-effect spells do. But there are ways via feats and spells that increase this number. The second one is Spell Resistance (again, certain spells don't have this) but it's more or less an Armor Class against magic. A wizard gets past these two aspects, and the creature's done for.
For the fighter, it's very similiar. An attack roll vs. AC is like a Wizard's check vs. SR. They also have to contest with Damage Reduction, which can lessen the effects of their attacks (like a successful saving throw). Yet the Fighter's attacks don't carry the same weight in combat as wizard spells do. Fighter attacks draw directly from a creature's HP, which grow substantially higher the more HD you give them. A wizard completley by-passes this factor, in which we get "instant kills".
So going by this understanding, we have two distinct ways of obtaining balance. The first is to give the Fighter something encounter altering. A per/day effect that allows them to drop enemies with 1 blow or disable them with status effects (ie. tripping, dazing, reducing their AC/attacks/damage). This would make the Fighter keep his uniqueness and flavor, not step on the Wizard's toes because he isn't bending reality, yet remaining pretty productive at later levels.
The second way is to reduct how effective or encounter altering a wizard's spells are. This might mean something like I mentioned earlier, by allowing say....Polymorph spells to render monster's useless for a short time (but when attacked, the penalty is revoked). Or perhaps the complete removal of Save-or-Die spells all together (like 4E did). They still do all sorts of crazy, magical things, but slaying a person of equal level is just not going to happen. Period. This would mean that their spells are equal to a round or two of a Fighter swinging his sword if he's allowed multiple attacks.
I think i'd vote for the latter, mainly because I hate how swingy Save-or-Die spells are in battle. Like I mentioned earlier, there are few things in the game that kills fun for a DM when the wizard PC goes first, casts two spells in 1 turn and ends the monster's life before anyone can react. Sure, it's fun for the Wizard PC and it might be shocking for the PCs who don't have to worry about dying on the end of a enhanced Frost Giant's axe but for the DM....it's sort of a bummer. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 04:41:16
|
Ah hells...let the fighters be able to kill things with one hit...nerf the wizard spells to the point of near nothingness...
Just give me a Charm Person spell at 1st level and let me make the Fighter kill things for me. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2012 : 04:42:41
|
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
High Level Fighter Equal to High Level Wizard?
