>First time playing a ttrpg
>Decide I want to make a druid
>Heard about how tabletops were not always about combat
>Wanted to make a wise know it all old dude that faded back in combat but had useful knowledge in healing salves and nature
>Invested points into all kinds of knowledge
>Chose bear companion because I didn't want to be a burden, so he could at least protect me
>Chose spells based on what sounded cool
>Have fun being all sage and wise
>"Here be dragons, there be wolves"
>Come first combat
>Bear is outdamaging the fighter
>I am useful as fuck
>Ok, eventually the fighter will get better gear and training while the bear will still be just a bear
>Come higher levels
>My spells are destruction incarnate
>The priest is an avatar of chaos
>Wizard is the reality unmaker
>No one even read the spells list
>Just picked what looked cool
>Bear still better than fighter
Tell me again /tg/, how can there still be people out there that don't think casters are that overpowered in 3.5?
It actually ruined the fun for me since I felt no acomplishment whatsoever.
>Tell me again /tg/, how can there still be people out there that don't think casters are that overpowered in 3.5?
no one thinks this we are all in agreement
"nice" "bait" though OP
A sect of people from tg has been coming to these threads to spread how casters aren't overppwered unless you read the rules wrong.
Also, 3.5 casterfuckery thread I guess.
Yeah. That right there is a big part of what's wrong with D&D; your pet outfights the fighter, your wildshape outfights the fighter and is more useful, and you still have spells, including Summon Animal if you need another pet that's a better fighter than the fighter. One druid is better than three fighters. I mean 3rd ed is a big step up from AD&D, don't get me wrong, but the game balance is all kinds of fucked.
>I mean 3rd ed is a big step up from AD&D
IDK man. AD&D worked, or at least worked for a larger level range than 3e. If I had to choose between a unified resolution mechanic and fighters that can get shit done, I'd go for the latter.
Unless you've got a pretty well optimised fighter. Trip+karmic strike+robilar's gambit+whatever that double damage ACF is called will fight way better than the bear or the druid, but that's at the cost of being a much more specialised build, and not being as good at utility.
That said, summon nature's ally doesn't make something stronger than the fighter unless the fighter seriously fucked up or unless you're taking greenbound summoning (maybe) in which case you fucked up.
That's pretty fair. There are, yeah, a fair few argument points. On the one hand, 3rd ed cost us, among other things, dual-classing and multi-classing that actually worked, fighters that got shit done, and magic items with style.
On the other hand, it brought us clerics that can be fun to play, druids that don't make our eyes cross when we read the class entry, humans that matter (because nobody used or cared about racial class limits), more ways to separate characters from other characters in the same class/archetype (even if feats did end up sucking hard in practice because of the paucity of good choices and power of a select few). Although the implementation wasn't always great (and things got worse with 3.5 and then Pathfailure) and the math-hammering to make the combat system work as intended rather than becoming save-or-suck dominated rocket launcher tag simply wasn't there, the ideas were a step forward.
>move to a new place and look for a gaming group
>find one, bunch of newer players looking to jump into RotRL
>ask about party make up and realize they have no crowd control or front line combatants
>make a level 1 God Wizard (conjurer)
> Warn DM that my character will get out of hand in about 7 levels or so, i'll seem good, almost OP until suddenly the character is handling everything for the group.
>looks at my spell list and keks "You don't even have Magic Missle anon, I'm sure the balance will be fine
>hfw I'm storming the bbeg's mountain lair with an army of mercenaries, powerful summons and the group PCs at level 10.
All of my adventuring gold went towards building a mercenary company and I'm running around naked gear wise. Zero fucks given.
>Where did it all go wrong, anon (we became good friends over the sessions)
>You let me play a wizard. I warned you DM anon. Let's play this new game instead. It's called 5th Edition.
>yfw we never bitched about OP casters again.
>It's called 5th Edition.
>never bitched about OP casters again.
If 5e had a single good idea it was the concentration system.
Frankly the concentration system is so effective at handling the caster problem that it makes a lot of the direct nerfs to certain spells feel unneeded. Like, why did summoning get shit on so hard when you can only have one summon at a time and it prevents you from using control and buff spells?
Concentration did a great job of bringing parity to the classes.
I'm pretty sure summoning took the hit due to how versitile summons are. The few summons this game has are pretty good as they are.
Another great thing they did was to limit the number of ways a player can gain extra actions. Action economy is what makes or breaks D&D combat, and every class has a way of using bonus actions to various degrees. Basically what I am saying is is that wizards aren't doing 15 things compared to the fighter's one sword swing anymore.
Moving before and after actions helped a lot too
Yeah, I gave the group a crash course in why blasting is bad and why save or die/suck spells are only good every once in awhile.
Stacking shit like fly, invisibility, summoning round after round and controlling the battlefield control with the occasional Fog or Create Pit or Shrink Object (I dropped rocks that became boulders) was what made that game easymode for us.
I was a good PC and always set the other players up to deal more damage and get the killing blow on things, so in the end everyone had a goid time at least.
Frusterated the DM to no end though.
Really, the ones that confuse me the most are things like Cloudkill.
Concentration solves the biggest problem with spells of it's kind, namely controlling enemies while forcing them to stay in it, but despite that they made the spell a damage spell that does pretty poor damage for it's level AND they force it to move every turn, effectively rending the spell useless even if you had another caster to set up a control spell.
And then there's spells like Circle of Death that plainly just weren't proof-read.
>First time playing 3/3.5
>Dude picks warlock because sounds cool and he's edgy as fuck
>Picks invocations at random
>Ends making lines and cones for bazillion D6s
>Another dude picks scout because sounds cool
>He already played 3/3.5 before so carefully picks feats and stuff
>Literally deals half as much damage in the best circumstance ever
>Warlock dude picked shit at random
Not only tier1-2s fuck shit up, tier5-6 also suck so much can't they keep up with tier3s.
That's why you do the simple thing and limit class choices by tier
the typical limit is only classes from two adjacent tiers, so 1/2, 4/5, that sort of thing.
Tiers 3/4 are my personal favourite
Which are the most fun 3.5 classes and why are they Binder and Warlock?
Also, just looked up the tiers to check and turns out that the original tier list puts Scout and Warlock both on tier 4, what a fucking joke.
That's so much bull. Travel devotion+tumble gives skirmish every round, warlock only gets as much d6s as a rogue gets sneak attack. Either the encounters heavily favoured the warlock (Large groups in cones/line formations, undead/constructs so skirmish wouldn't work) or the scout was building a lot worse than you think they were.
Scouts may be shitty, but they can easily keep up with an unoptimised warlock for damage
Scout is shit, has half sneak attack progression, deals precision damage and has to move to add damage, so can only make one attack unless high as fuck levels (multyshot), and at those levels the warlock is shooting cones or making chain lightnings that deal more damage and affect more targets. Srly, why the scout is tier4? because trap sense?
Manyshot actually doesn't work as of the Rules Compendium, but travel devotion does, as does sparring dummy of the master.
The whole point of a level based system is that two people of the same level are of equal power, even if only in different ways. Kill yourself
Scout is not a damage dealer, they only have that do feel relevant in combat, not to actually deal damage, meanwhile warlock is more focused in combat that scout, therefore makese sense it deals more damage.
Pick improved manyshot and split magic enhacement (+3) with exit wound magic enhacement (+2), it becomes less shitty, though at 20th level still deals less damage than meteor swarm.
Given exit wound only works on living things and gives +4 ac to each target beyond the first, I'd sooner grab a couple of 1d6 damage boosts.
1d6+2d6+str+1+7d6 (+1 splitting fiery shocking composite shortbow, let's say, on top of improved skirmish) damage with 6 attacks beats out meteor swarm by a lot for single target damage, and bear in mind you can use travel devotion+rapid shot for an extra 2 attacks.
>Limited spellcaster with access to things like Charm Monster, Fly, Dispel Magic, Invisibility, etc.
>More combat focused than a class whose only non-combat abilities is "Walk fast and hide good"
I used to think that too, but the other day I beat the shit out of a magician and the guy couldn't do more than throwing cards and colored napkins at me with ineffective results.
Anon, I hate to tell you this, but you have a very severe case of faggotry
Also known as Paizo Syndrome
In every fictional setting I've seen that includes magic it just trumps everything else.
Would you name some systems where this isn't the case?
That's illusion, not magic.
Then that point must have been missed by every level based system because magic is always clearly better.
This isn't an opinion guys, this is an objective statement: magic is always better.
You know, I agree re: systems and all that, but it's a pretty established thing in D&D that fighters level linearly and wizards level exponentially. I'm pretty sure there are even words to that effect in the AD&D handbook about how wizards are supposed to start off very weak and later become very strong. So, I don't think the whole "levels are supposed to represent 1:1 power level of characters across classes" argument really holds water. Better to say that it's unbalanced and leave it at that, because it's true.
>Let's play this new game instead. It's called 5th Edition.
>yfw we never bitched about OP casters again.
Magic is fictional, so it really doesn't have to "work" any specific way at all. You could have all the magic in your system be ritual based, for example, so it's very slow but very powerful. This is a hypothetical, as far as I know.
>We're talking about tabletop systems, guys.
First off, no we're not.
Secondly, what we're saying is even more true for game systems, not only does magic and martial achievement need to put side by side for narrative reasons but for gameplay reasons too.
Seriously, go jump in a pond with this "Hurr durr Magic has to be stronger!" shit. Magic doesn't have to be anything and if players have access to it then it's fucking shitty design to intentionally hamstring the martial classes.
>That's just how magic works.
IT'S FICTIONAL YOU GIGANTIC SHITHEAD!
This isn't even a "But if elves are giant spiders instead of long-eared humanoids then why even call them elves" issue. Weaker magic is still magic. There is nothing in the definition of magic that requires it to make every game system it is present in shit.
>D&D is the codifier of all tabletop and the only one that matters
>Muh Sacred Cows should always stand and exist, and there is no such way to design a game without them.
You sir, are a faggot, a grognard, and the reason why Pathfinder was created as a complete fucking mess
No... Just no, a monk can never match the sheer damage output rangers can put out. And rangers make better radiant abusers/frostcheesers than monks thanks to more attacks = more times for the vulnerability to add damage
Monks make fantastic controllers and off-defenders, but they can never match rangers as a striker
>Tfw playing a scout right now and feeling that feel right now
Then there's the GM fucker who doesn't allow me to go swift hunter to reduce the feat tax and to no be fucking useless in our undead centric game.
Either going to bail out or reroll.
That guy's posted image was about D&D, but it made a false claim about D&D. I corrected that claim. I'm not saying that exponential wizards/linear fighters is a GOOD thing: if you re-read what I wrote, I don't think you'll find any value judgments at all, nor references to any systems other than D&D systems.
So where are you getting the idea that I believe "D&D is the codifier of all tabletop" and that I think of exponential wizards/linear fighters as a good thing, let alone an essential sacred cow? You've got me wrong. I've never even played a 3.x system.
>there are people on /tg/ right now who will defend 3.PF by saying "but you just have to know how to handle the spotlight", "it's good if caster players let other people have the spotlight", and "I had fun once with it so it's a good game"
>In every fictional setting
Conan, Berserk, and Big Trouble in Little China disagree.
Nope. I get you're buttblasted about the idea of casters not auto-winning, but similarly formatted mechanics do not make them the same thing. In 4e, a barbarian is not a fighter is not a monk, and none of them are casters.
Also see >>44815042
Not every game has to be tier 3/4
Tier 1/2 games can be fun, with the sheer power of the PCs being matchedagainst stronger, more flexible foes.
Tier 5/6 games can also be fun, bands of nobodies trying to survive in a world out to get them
You DO realize that this "Wizards get more powerful at later levels" comes from a time when the different classes didn't actually require the same amount of XP to level up, right?
Keeping it into a system where XP is the same for all classes is fucking retarded.
>We've played 3.5 for years.
>Never had balance issues.
I don't believe you.
And even if it is true the statement is still equivalent to "Well, the breaks on this car may have a 90% failure rate, but I don't see why that means it should be recalled"
I hadn't considered that, actually. Doesn't 3.x have different XP per level requirements for classes? IIRC, AD&D, 4e, and 5e (the systems of D&D I've played with) all worked like that, but honestly it's been a while for some of those.
Maybe it a question of "you get XP proportional to how well you did in the fight"? That would mean that wizards and fighters would be at roughly the same power level for most of the game, even with the same amount of XP requirements per class (because early, weaker wizards would be getting less XP per battle and leveling up less. I've never liked this, though, because the bookkeeping for adjudicating who gets how much XP per fight sounds like a headache.
In either case, I honestly don't really like the idea that fighters and wizards should level up at different rates. It's always felt kind of arbitrary to me. But that's my opinion.
I don't care?
It works for us, but we play much differently than ( I guess ) others do.
We don't use MIC, or SC.
Magic is much more limited than what many here describe.
We tend to stick to more classic roles.
I know that many will say " no fun", but it works for us just fine.
My statement stands.
We play a simpler version, with focus on a good setting, great plots, and characters having fun.
Yeah, that's not from any casting ability though. More from the fact that a bear is a decent front line combatant and a Moon Druid can turn into one twice, and still gets his character HP.
Are you saying that you play Core only?
Because Core only is WAY more unbalanced than if you allow splatbooks.
>We play a simpler version, with focus on a good setting, great plots, and characters having fun.
So wait, what you're saying is "We ignore the rules when it suits us so that means the rules aren't bad"? Because in that case the statement "We've never had balance issues" is a downright lie, ignoring/not caring about an issue doesn't make it not exist.
>a good setting, great plots, and characters having fun.
You do realize you could literally apply this to a Freeform roleplaying game with no rules at all right?
Why are you listing things that have nothing to do with the rules as a defense of the rules?
Your statement doesn't stand.
The problem with 3.x though, is that fighters don't even level linearly. They level logarithmically, thanks to the insane HP and AC bloat in the system.
In 2E, a fighter stands a chance against a wizard because of his magic weapons, super health, and super saving throws. 3.x throws all that shit out the window and literally triples everyone's HP while keeping weapon damage identical.
Though the worst thing 3E ever did was somehow poison the brains of everyone who liked it to refuse to ever even try any system that isn't d20. 3E really did ruin a generation of roleplayers.
What rule is ignored?
Its your claim. Tell me.
Simple really. It won't work for mist groups.
1) our group is small. 3 players 1 DM.
2) we've gamed together for years so there are no that guy issues
3) we start at lv 1 always
4) we try to rp our classes and our characters ( we don't roll mages who act like fighters)
Its not that difficult.
>tfw I like 3.5 and this fucking faggot is forcing me to shit on it by insisting that it doesn't have big, obvious problems.
Fuck everything, these retards are why I can't get any good games anymore.
>My beefy frontline luchadore is literally exactly the same as the skinny nerd in the back throwing fireballs
>Literally the same thing
>Zero difference between them
>Why are you guys laughing? I'm being serious
>Stop laughing at me you guys
>What rule is ignored?
The rule that a fighter is objectively worse at fighting than a wildshaped druid, who can casts spells on top of that?
The rule that Wizards have access to several spells that can directly replace a fighter and do his job better?
The rule that Monk even exists as a class?
I'm not sure what to say other than that you must be illiterate if you can read through the Player's Handbook and actually come to the conclusion that fighters can put up a fight against a wizard.
>1) our group is small. 3 players 1 DM.
That has nothing to do with balance problems
>2) we've gamed together for years so there are no that guy issues
Again, nothing to do, accidentally outclassing martials is a thing, you make a druid, turn into whatever with whatever as animal companion and spells and you're better than a fighter, a monk or a paladin without even trying. You don't need to even try, why people still think this is a conscious thing? I've seen more "accidentally broke the game" than any other.
>3) we start at lv 1 always
This has nothing to do balance problems, CoDzilla works from 1st to 20th level.
>4) we try to rp our classes and our characters ( we don't roll mages who act like fighters)
Its not that difficult.
This has nothing to do with balance problems, wizards acting like wizards, clerics acting like clerics and druids acting like druids break the game
>we don't roll mages who act like fighters
Oh, you are one of those who think a wizard trying to hit shit is what breaks 3.5.
This is 100% bait, you got me hard, 11/10.
Not bait bro.
They asked how. I tried to explain.
We don't have the issues. IMO, its due mostly to not treating magic as "common". Its rare. Its powerful. It isn't passed out like candy.
So you limit magic with homerules I assume, outside of the book rules that use your group that make harder to cast or learn spells, because if you ever imply that the book as writen and intended isn't broken as fuck, you're wrong. Then you aren't actually playing 3.5, you're using 3.5 as a base and build stuff on top of it, I can do that with FATAL too, won't make FATAL less of a huge shit game though.
>its due mostly to not treating magic as "common". Its rare. Its powerful. It isn't passed out like candy.
What the fuck does this even MEAN?!
Do you not allow people to play Wizards? Do you limit their spellcasting?
Because giving out fewer magic items hurts fighters MUCH worse than it hurts wizards, Wizards don't need items to do their thing, fighters do.
>We banned core and totally allow ToB instead of weak martials and psionics instead of casters
Allow the limited casting classes like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer and it would be perfect.
You read it wrong.
Totally allow... psionics instead of casters =/= we force you to play psonics instead of casters
You can still play Beguilder and Dread Necromancer if you want.
Oddly enough never someone wanted to play a fighter instead of warblade or a monk instead of unarmed swordsage, odd, right?
Limiting magic items hurts the non-casters so much more than it does the caster, a caster doesn't fucking need any magic items while a fighter will be so, SO much worse without a magical weapon.
And actually, you basically are homebrewing, because the DMG explains that the game is balanced around Wealth by Level, the game assumes that the characters have a certain amount of gold worth of magic items for any given level, if they have less than that then encounters calculated for their level will be harder than the designers intended.
>Something tells me, you haven't ever started at lv 1?
>"The game is arguably kinda balanced for the first 2-4 levels! So that means there isn't a problem!"
And that's not even bringing up the fact that Clerics and Druids, especially druids, are still much stronger than fighters in the earliest levels.
Let me guess, you think the cleric should be healbot, right?
Please show in the rules where ALL casters are able to cast shapechange.
Please show in the rules where all casters must cast shapechange.
Oh , I see...you're playing some shitty homebrew for faggots. Got it.
Wbl doesn't mean you MUST spend coin on items.
We tend towards buying land, building castles. Instead of powering up on magic shit.
>wbl means you have to buy magic stuff
>if not, u r home brewing!!!!!
You're literally that stupid?
I think cleric should "be" what clerics are meant to be.
Yea, clerics should heal. We use clerics as healers and undead specialists. Thus, we don't have the Czilla issue.
You don't use them that way. And you have issues if balance.
>play the game the way its not intended for
>game is imbalanced
>omg bad game!!!!
What a fucking argument!
>"The casters can choose to intentionally be bad so that means they aren't stronger"
A fighter can also "choose" to only fight with his bare fists and lose combat to a commoner.
You really are fucking illiterate.
The game assumes that you have a certain amount of magic items, the challenge rating of monsters is BUILT around this assumption, if you do not have the items then the monsters WILL be more challenging than the game intends them to be. This is a fact.
You could put all your gold into a hole in the ground and claim that means you're complying with what the WBL rule was intended to do, wouldn't change shit.
Again, you're intentionally choosing to ignore options and claiming that this means there isn't a problem
Do you also think that Clerics of Kord with the Strength and War domains were intended to be healbots? Or do you just think that they put a war god in there for giggles?
/tg/ will always bite the 'guy who is too stupid to understand what's wrong with 3.5 and insists everyone else is just playing it wrong/powergaming/ignoring rp' bait. ALWAYS.
It's like a law around here.
>Be evil witch
>Take the Sleep hex on a whim because it sounds useful
>Accidentally force the GM warp every encounter around the fact I have a reusable save or die
No one said it doest have "wrongness".
Anon said his group doesn't have the common problems because (x) style if playing.
I can see that.
But some people don't like to play like that. And some do.
I'm the one arguing with you you fucktard.
Pretending a game has no problems is not the same as recognizing and steering around the problems.
>>if you don't pick (x,y) spells, then you suck and you're playing it wrong
This might be the literal height of intellectual dishonesty.
Literally the ONLY PERSON who has claimed anyone is "playing it wrong" is you. You did it right fucking here: >>44816535
You claim that because anyone that uses the powerful options is "playing it wrong" that means that the options being there isn't a problem.
No fucking shit the game will be balanced if everyone intentionally comes to the agreement not to use them. That doesn't mean the unbalanced options don't exist.
Limiting options is, in fact, the right way to play 3.5, because without doing it the game becomes a mess, when I play 3.5 we limit options too.
The difference is that we recognize that there's a problem in the first place, we don't use fluff and other shit unrelated to the rules to justify ourselves.
The game doesn't inherently become balanced because "roleplaying" a druid playing the most generic druid possible will still shit all over a fighter at every level, from 1-20. A Wizard who picks spells literally at random will still be a fucking god after level 7.
Its been stated several times that if your setting isn't (x), or if your chacters aren't (y), then you're just playing some homebrew.
I can give you a simple fix to the balance problems, but you wouldn't get it. Because you can't comprehend a setting where everything isn't high powered.
The only thing that anyone has stated as being homebrew is ignoring WBL, and that's because it is.
>inb4 your genius idea to fix the balance problem is to nerf martials even more by limiting magic items
And you continue to prove your illiteracy.
>"No no, this rule was TOTALLY included because the writers wanted us to spend it on real estate and prostitutes!"
I think I'll live without hearing your GENIUS rephrasing of the sentiment "Just pretend the options aren't there"
>Its about a balanced setting.
Again, if your "balanced setting" doesn't actually limit the options of Spellcasters then it isn't balanced at all.
Unless you're claiming that it can NEVER be flavorful to take any spells like Glitterdust, Polymorph, Summon Monster, Wall of Force, Fly, Haste, Reverse Gravity, Finger of Death, Acid Fog, or any of the other innumerable spells that Wizards can use to trivially outstrip the martial classes.
Or are you going on about fucking magic items again as if you still don't understand that the weak classes are the ones that need magic items the most.
Not that guy; the spell differs for different classes.
Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
You note; wizards/sorcs can take it, druids can take it, and clerics with the animal subdomain can take it.
All primary spellcasters can get shapechange.
>Also, just looked up the tiers to check and turns out that the original tier list puts Scout and Warlock both on tier 4, what a fucking joke.
JaronK is probably wrong about the Warlock. When you look at their range of ability, they seem to have the same breadth of tools as Bards. Should have been Tier 3.
/tg/ has always taken bait. I hypothesize it's because most posters:
>are desperate for any sort of conversation/attention
>believe that other posters will think they're clever
>don't care about the argument and just want free bumps
>don't care about the argument and just want free shitposts
>can't you just take away a wizard's spellbook?
I mean, you COULD.
You could also just tell that player "I'm gonna make you play as a commoner with a few more skill points for the rest of the campaign"
I don't see why you would want to though.
And that still leaves Cleric and Druid who are both just as powerful as Wizards, and Sorcerer who is almost as powerful.
>or limit what spells he has access to?
Easier said than done and usually results in the class being not a lot of fun to play.
The problem is less the high end than the low end, the high end gets to be powerful and use all sorts of fun toys, while the low end gets to do not much at all, if I had to remove one of them I'd sure as shit remove the low end.
Of course the best solution is to cut off both the high AND the low end by allowing splatbooks and making sure that everyone in the campaign is playing classes of middling power.
So basically, just ban all the classes in the Players Handbook.
It only really works if you start at high levels and your players might get bent out of shape a bit.
What's more it doesn't REALLY make up for it, unless you dump absolute ASSLOADS of magic items onto the martials the casters will still come out ahead, a lot of what magic items do is basically just copying the effects of spells too.
Straying too far from WBL also tends to make the game goofy as shit.
The cleric's god isn't literally standing right there in the party, and couldn't just as easily pass his powers to anyone else.
It's going to take about 30 seconds for the fighter to realize that he could just hand all the magic gear off to a commoner, and the commoner would be almost as good of a fighter as he is.
I don't think it's a great solution.
I breaks the game at early levels and doesn't do enough to make up the difference in the late levels.
It arguably helps in the mid levels, but it's still really hard to pull off because it doesn't make much sense unless the characters are only starting out at those level, if the characters are adventuring and finding all this loot together then the casters are gonna feel severely cheated that the martials get to keep all the spoils for an out-of-game reason.
>magic gear off to a commoner, and the commoner would be almost as good of a fighter as he is.
I would argue this is untrue, but
>The cleric's god isn't literally standing right there in the party, and couldn't just as easily pass his powers to anyone else.
If the cleric is communing with his god every day, which he must for his spells, you could make it so the god practically is right with the party. Not to mention, he could pass the powers off if he wanted
>I would argue this is untrue, but
More accurately, a level 1 fighter with level 20 gear will kick the shit out of a level 20 fighter with level 1 gear. Not quite the same thing, but demonstrative of the problem.
>If the cleric is communing with his god every day, which he must for his spells, you could make it so the god practically is right with the party. Not to mention, he could pass the powers off if he wanted
I think you are vastly overestimating the degree of the god's presence required for communion. And, no, he can't, not with the same ease that the fighter could hand off his sword. He'd have to give the other guy as many levels in cleric (which costs the god several rounds of effort) as need be, and he still hasn't actually taken away the other cleric's prowess; the cleric can continue on using his own faith to power his spells or find a new god.
then do it at he later/mid levels
You are forgetting down time.
A wizard must spend months researching spells.
A cleric should be spending months tending to the faithful.
A druid should be spending months tending to the forest.
A fighter has free time to go an adventures and get more magical loot.
>Straying too far from WBL also tends to make the game goofy as shit.
WBL, I think, is one of the things that screwed up DnD from 2e. I realize it's highly integrated into 3.x, but it really devalued magical items in the game.
>Came in hoping that it would be a prog thread, as it is certainly the most /tg/ genre
>It's just shitflinging
Can't we just agree that ideally every class should be equal in power, and that some systems are farther from that ideal than others?
But the reason the level 20 fighter has all the gear is because they went and found it.
>I think you are vastly overestimating the degree of the god's presence required for communion. And, no, he can't, not with the same ease that the fighter could hand off his sword. He'd have to give the other guy as many levels in cleric (which costs the god several rounds of effort) as need be, and he still hasn't actually taken away the other cleric's prowess; the cleric can continue on using his own faith to power his spells or find a new god.
This not only seems setting dependent but up to the GM's discretion. So if the GM WANTS caster supremacy, he could make this all true. Or he could have the God talk to the cleric every night, be able to grant 15 cleric levels to a commoner in one second and the other gods not willing to take on the cleric.
>a level 1 fighter with level 20 gear will kick the shit out of a level 20 fighter with level 1 gear.
What the fuck? Unless specifically built for the task, the level 1 fighter's going down. 4 arrows, or 1 full attack from the level 20 is more than enough to take the level 1 down, and if the level 1 goes anywhere near melee they're dying anyway.
I get that 'fighter is useless without equipment' is an old 3.5 meme, but come on, that's a dumb scenario. If you're gonna argue otherwise, tell me exactly how the level 1 is gonna beat the level 20.
>Can't we just agree that ideally every class should be equal in power, and that some systems are farther from that ideal than others?
I've actually never thought this and the reason isn't because I believe in some bullshit like system mastery and the like, but because there are different phases of play and being able to quantify "power" level in the different phases to the point where you can get such equal all the way around requires making everything either the same or feeling the same (like 4e felt to me).
I think this is generally a problem with how the GM runs the game (not balancing the different phases of play allowing those who are better at not-combat phases to get their share of fun) and not of the game itself.
Note, I'm speaking in general. I'm not about to claim that 3.x wasn't highly unbalanced in every facet of play.
I'm talking about the story.
If you want the story to be fairly long and still have a sense of urgency then this system can't be used.
Like, take a module like Red Hand of Doom. It goes from level 5 to level 11, starting the fighter out with way too many magic items right at the start will severely fuck up the early parts of the adventure and the way the adventure is written there is absolutely no time for him to go out fucking around on his own finding magic items. The adventure simply couldn't work with that sort of system.
Then its weird that, specifically for the wizard, it says that downtime is spent in-between levels researching spells. How is the wizard 'magically' getting more informed and doing this research?
Of course, this wouldn't apply to the cleric or the druid, whose gods could grant them extra powers in an emergency, but by this same logic that fighters shouldn't get a bunch of new magic equipment while doing this scenario, neither should the wizard.
I think that's been justified by Wizards as the wizard just doing his research as a part of his rest or some fucking crap. Doesn't really make much sense.
It wouldn't be too big of a problem in RHoD, where despite the adventure being urgent there is still time and resources available for shopping trips so the Wizard could just get his spells from scrolls.
>>So paladins cast it?
Holy shit you are grasping at this point.
>Also, show in RAW where a caster must cast it.
Aaaand we're right back to "If I ignore these options then it means they aren't imbalanced"
then you could also have super awesome magic items being sold as well.
Or limit the scrolls on sale.
Still doesn't fix the druid or the cleric, but then
>running pre-established scenarios
Go all the way back to the original thing you responded to
>Yeah, because it's totally my "opinion" that using Shapechange to turn into an Ancient Red Dragon is better than having 3 auto-attacks per turn.
Nobody ever said full casters *must* outclass fighters, just that it's piss-easy for them to do so
>then you could also have super awesome magic items being sold as well.
Why would the martial have more gold than the casters?
>>running pre-established scenarios
Ey fuck you, Red Hand of Doom is fucking awesome.
Why would the martial have more gold than the casters?
Just make stuff cost roughly the same?
You could always just alter the story ever so slightly to allow for months of downtime or sub-plots, as most pre-established scenarios say you should and can do to make it work.
Only like 5 times in this thread bro.
Again. Options are just that options. No one HAS to take a certain spell ( with a few exceptions).
But read it again. The anon claimed it was a rule, that casters had to take that spell.
First, it was one of the first RPGs so it has historical weight.
Second, the AD&D era put out a shitton of products with a whole lot of different appeal.
Third, WOTC used a lot of marketing to make sure people knew that it existed and that new editions were coming out.
What if cleric's gods were particularly dickish and only granted certain spells or "all your second level spells for today are gonna be Bull's Strength and if you argue I'm gonna take away all your bitchin caster abilities for the day." Thinking about doing something like this in my campaign, would the players hurt me?
Nah, the wording was obtuse, but he said it's a rule that they can take that spell
>The rule that Wizards have access to several spells that can directly replace a fighter and do his job better?
I'm with you when you say people don't have to break the game, and indeed that you shouldn't play with people that try to. I'm happy playing 3.5/PF because of that. But it's a broken system.
DnD is simple as hell. The GM can just build a dungeon and doesn't have to worry about weaving any sort of a narrative, and the players can just fight shit for hours and don't have to worry about roleplaying or character development. The primary reason it's popular is just because it's so effortless for everyone involved: it might be fairly complex and odd as a system, but it's pretty much more "miniature wargaming" than "roleplaying".
Then there are a lot of poor fools who are really genuinely into story and roleplaying and shit rather than hours-long combat sessions and dungeon romps, who just play it because it's what everyone else they know plays.
>alter the story ever so slightly to allow for months of downtime
The story is about an impending Hobgoblin invasion and a portal being opened to hell.
Without the urgency there is no story.
Again, your idea fixes some of the problems D&D has some of the time, but it's so very inelegant and would need to be tinkered with so much that I just don't see a lot of potential in it.
Going "I'm banning classes below tier 4" is so, so much easier and accomplishes a lot of the same things.
>Why are characters who can bend reality with physics raping magic more powerful than a dude who can swing a sword?
This is the main problem of "generic" fantasy.
Either everyone has reality raping powers or nobody does. "Balancing" magic involves retarded shit like very few magic uses per day or some crazy dangerous backlash. Limiting magic isn't a way either since caster player can completely dominate an encounter or two then do nothing for the rest of the game.
>The anon claimed it was a rule, that casters had to take that spell.
You're literally retarded.
The game is unbalanced because casters have an assload list of things they can choose to do, many of which are obscenely powerful, while classes like the fighters don't have any choices at all, their ONLY feature is "Gain an extra attack every 5 levels" Which is worse than all but the very VERY worst options that the caster have which the casters would then have to pick on purpose.
I guess this is the real answer. It also explains why so many DnD players are completely fucking horrible at roleplaying. They are used to rolling dice and killing things for hours and think this is roleplaying.
>Invasions take time to set up
>Portals to hell need to open on very specific important dates
As a long time GM, that's easy as fuck to make take years.
Banning classes has the unfortunate case of banning certain styles of play.
Some people want to be the Gimli fighter guy.
Most would say direct damage spells. Casters do stay balanced if they restrict themselves to nuke spells like magic missile or fireball, but they break the game over their knee the moment they pick up some utility like sleep( or other save-or-suck), fly, polymorph, or any summoning spell( which lets them get a minion that is comparable in strength to a martial PC, but far more expendable)
Let me just replace the word elaminster with Gandalf, since I don't know tolkien.
So yeah, Gandalf was stronger than Gimli in terms of 'power level' in the movies, but the threat the group was facing was always large enough to require both of them.
To relate it to Avengers, Black Widow is probably the weakest member of the team, but she's still got important jobs to do while other team members are doing other shit.
This is one other way to balance the system, as long as your players aren't little faggots that need to be better than each other.
So I'd do a combination of giving martials/weaker classes better magical equipment and having the threat always be big enough that there is some important, game-changing role for them to play even while the casters are fighting giant armies of monsters or whatever.
>>Invasions take time to set up
>>Portals to hell need to open on very specific important dates
I could mention how these open up their own plot holes* but it would basically be besides the point, the sense of urgency and constant movement is the entire thing that makes that adventure feel awesome, without it there wouldn't be a point to using the same story at all.
*("Okay guys, we've just foiled the first stage of their invasion, they're gearing up for more and the big bad is still out there working to have Tiamat swallow the world. But we have a couple months so why not go sit on our asses for a bit instead of continuing to work to stop him")
>Some people want to be the Gimli fighter guy.
I really don't see why you couldn't refluff a Warblade or a Crusader a little bit and still have the basic feel of being the Gimli fighter guy while also having actual power and versatility.
But DnD is about combat. It's what the entire system is built around, 100%. The system is balanced around the party fighting 4-5 fights a day, you only gain levels by fighting shit, nearly all class abilities are completely combat related, etc.
Many other systems can get away with this. In Legend of the Five Rings, you can have a completely non-combat character who specialises in courtly etiquette, and he might even be more useful on average than the guy who rocks at combat.
But in DnD, it really does feel like you're not even contributing if the druid's animal companion is more useful than you are at fights.
>But we have a couple months so why not go sit on our asses for a bit instead of continuing to work to stop him")
Woah, that's implying that doing the necessary shit to earn new powers is sitting on your ass.
And yeah, you're right there are probably better classes out there, but i only own pathfinder core rulebook :(
>you only gain levels by fighting shit
This is the only thing I houserule away. Wizards get better by studying. They adventure to save the day. You still need to sit your ass back down and study harder if you wanna get better.
I think a lot (by no means all) of the problem with 3.X was how it was generally ran.
Being a little crunchier with things like camping/random encounters while bedded down/having hard time limits to completing tasks takes a lot of the utility out of casters because it reduces their basically infinite toolbox to a still powerful, but more limited one making spell choice a much bigger deal. Making time a nonfactor by not having some sort of consequence for spending two weeks in a dungeon that could be completed in a day (extreme example) so once a days and spells can be reset does a retarded amount of damage to balance.
yes, I do realize there's shit like pocket dimensions and the like where they can take that time while main time isn't moving, but that's easily nerfed.
If you're going to talk about DnD in general, no. You're wrong. It's about dungeon crawling (which combat is minimal, mainly puzzle solving and beating traps) and the Hero's Journey.
Combat is not "minimal" in dungeon crawling. Show me one published dungeon where there aren't a ton of combat encounters to be fought against.
And random encounters that you mentioned illustrate DnD's problems perfectly. The system balance simply doesn't work unless you toss a lot of fights at players daily. Even if the fights have nothing to do with the story. So you end up with random encounters to expend the players' money and to get them XP like in some goddamn Final Fantasy game.
In no (decent) fantasy books are there just random fights that have no bearing to the story.
The fact that a +5 sword worth of X elemental enchantment will one-shot any fighter kinda proves the point. And there's no way a level 20 fight her could ever get past +5 adamantium full plate and a +5 dancing adamantine tower shield in any of their attacks. Face it, the fighter is the worst class in all of D&D
Maybe instead of just a generic polymorph into whatever, it's polymorph into JUST REPTILES. It might kick in when you advance beyond temple priest and your god starts actively noticing you and looking at you like a minion of theirs.
I'm considering other ways to nuke and reflavor other classes so they don't outright suck as much, but I'm hitting a wall.
But they can. That's AC 23, piss-easy to hit for the level 20, meaning they'll land at least 2 hits a round given their base full attack routine is +20/+16/+11/+6. Say the level 20 has a greatsword, that's 2d6+1.5 str a hit, two attacks is 4d6+3*str, call it 26 with 18 str. The level 1 fighter has 10+con mod health, and DR 3 from the armour. You do the maths.
Meanwhile on the other end, the level 20 fighter has an average of 114+20*con mod health, more than enough to survive however many rounds of 4d6 elemental damage+str they need.
My mistake, forgot to take the shield AC into account. AC 31, still easily hittable for a level 20, and 1-2 good hits is all they need. About the only chance the level 1 has in straight combat is a vorpal weapon, and then it's just luck they're relying on.
Well, flying and teleporting aren't that useful since he'd still need to end his turn next to the 20th level fighter if he wanted to actually attack him.
DR 6/- isn't really that much, since a greatsword is still gonna do something like 13 damage on average per swing.
Nope, DR 3/-, since DR doesn't stack and a tower shield isn't heavy armour anyway. Sure the level 1 fighter can be flying (in fact I assumed they were in my first response, hence longbow), but if they're going melee anyway it doesn't make a difference. The long and short is, the level 20 can take a bunch of hits (elemental burst only triggers on a crit, thus unreliable), while the level 1 can take 2 at most. I have no idea where you're pulling that amulet crap from, but even if it exists, the level 20 can just ready action to attack when the level 1 does. Level 1 dies in two hits, level 20 doesn't. And if the level 1 teleports out of reach, the level 20 can drop their sword, draw their bow and shoot the cunt anyway.
No, you can't ignore this one.
Retards like this caused literal braindamage in a whole generation of gamers. They have to be rebuffed and shown to be wrong, otherwise newbies might assume they are correct. Never again.
Except the notion of a level 1 being on-par with a level 20 is an entirely dumb one, as we've just been though.
Actually, let me try it. A level 1 fighter could beat a level 20 wizard.
Nothing in the books indicates this, his magic is powerful but not for something as mundane as combat. That's why he always fights with a sword instead of just annihilating all of the orcs for everyone at the start of every battle. The point being that there are well respected settings where magic is extremely powerful and yet not nearly as useful in combat as a well trained warrior.
Except that he forgot a wizard does not lose their memory after casting their spells for a day and just need to sleep to recover them. So that level 1 fighter is fucked if the wizard still has anything like a magic missile or better memorized.
Exactly my point. A level 1 fighter can't beat a level 20 fighter, and a level 1 fighter can't beat a level 20 wizard. Saying the opposite says nothing about either class, since it's just an incorrect statement.
>Can't we just agree that ideally every class should be equal in power
We probably can't even agree on this. It's possible that everyone would agree that every class ought to have their own "niche", or thing that sets them apart and makes them desirable to play. I think generally people would agree that class balance has gone bad when you can say things like, "Why would you play a Fighter when the Druid does that job better AND does other things besides?"
(Note that Tier-based 3.X arguably meets this criteria.)
It has the best "default session". I don't know of another RPG that works when the referee and the players are out of ideas on how to drive the game forward.
>tfw two of my friends are dead fucking convinced that the caster imbalance doesn't exist
>to the extent that they have nailed it into the head of a third friend that's never even played 3.PF
>these two friends' favorite classes are wizard and bard, respectively
>the person that plays bard decides to play one in 5e and complains about how whining martial players have made them underpowered
>bards are the best class in 5e
>complaining about this while my fighter and the rogue are in single digit HP in a battle while everybody else is around 30+ HP
It's a rough time.
>Combat is not "minimal" in dungeon crawling. Show me one published dungeon where there aren't a ton of combat encounters to be fought against.
Big ask. I racked my brains and came up with the little-known indie module "Tomb of Horrors" by some fellow named "E. Gary Gygax". Dunno if he ever did anything else in RPGs.
STR- 18 (24)
DEX- 14 (20)
CON- 14 (20)
+5 Adamantium FullPlate (+15)
+5 Dancing Adamantium Tower Shield (+9)
+5 Ring of Protection (+5)
+5 Amulet of Natural Armor (+5)
+6 Belt of Physical Perfection
Right there my Level 1 Fighter has 10+5+15+9+5+5=49 AC. The only way the level 20 fighter could touch him is if he rolled two 20s in a row
Can bards in 5e give everyone Inspire Courage (At +3 or so from normal) in the form of d6s to damage, while attacking themselves with +cha to attack and +1/2 level in sonic damage on their own attacks? Bards were the shit in 3.5.
I assumed we were talking 3.5, not pf. Even in that case though, that's only actually 10+14+9+5+5+1=44 AC, because max dex bonuses to AC and full plate is base +9, not +10. Meanwhile the level 20 has 20+7(str)+4(weapon training)+2(feats)=+33 to hit, so he actually hits on a 11+ on his first attack. In fact thank you for reminding me, I completely forgot weapon training, so he 1-hits the level 1 with a greatsword (2d6+10(str)+4(weapon training)+4(feats)=28 damage)
That isn't even half of the wbl you would have at level 20. And why wouldn't a fighter want high AC items?
None of that includes other wondrous items, so if you add in flight then that badass lvl 20 fighter can maybe get an arrow hit on my level 1 for 1d8 damage
It's really frustrating to deal with.
Especially when the only time I brought up the caster imbalance, my argument was that each class she exceed in its respective roles, and not step into other classes'. They then proceeded to ignore everything I said and argue against a strawman that looked nothing like what I offered.
At least Fighters are fun in 5e.
WBL (WLB being a typo) refers to Wealth By Level, or the gold a level x character should have in 3.5/pf
Try a readied action to hit the level 1 when they come in for an attack, probably 1 shotting them. Or just full attack with a bow, since the level 1 can survive only 3-4 hits with 16 hp, while the level 20 has hp to spare.
A bard can 'steal' a Paladin's end-game iconic spell and use it 4 levels earlier than the Paladin.
A bard is the best Grappler in the system.
A Bard can take the Ranger's Gate of Babylon spell and use it better than a Ranger.
Bards are fucking terrifying.
My friends are also convinced that 4e sucks, as far as I know. I've never really talked with them about it.
I'm actually totally fine with the balance of 5e. I think it's pretty good, since every class fills its role competently enough, with some archetypes lagging behind others. I feel like Rangers are the only redheaded stepchild, and Hunter's not even that bad.
3.5 bards can buff the party to an insane degree, fight with damage on par or greater than an equal level 'normal' frontliner, all while still being a 2/3 spellcaster and having skills to spare. What exactly does a bard in 5e do at high levels that's comparable with giving everyone (including the duel-wielding rogue/ranger) +7d6 fire damage on every attack, or 7d6 at level 20?
That's more like it, but what exactly would those two spells do? Forgive me, I'm not too familiar with the system.
They don't know shit and they're wrong on all accounts. If you're going to fall for butt hurt false propaganda about 4e then at least try 2e, it will probably appeal to some sense of elitism or hipsterism that ttrpg nerds love to cultivate. Plus it's actually good despite that.
The Paladin's iconic spell is literally his Smite but with extra goodness added on.
The Ranger's lets you spend one ammunition and attack almost everyone in sight with copies of it for one attack.
These are both 6th level spells, the cap of spells for Rangers and Paladins. They have extra-bennies for spending higher slots on them.
Bards not only get the two spells earlier, by the tame the Paladin and Ranger get access to them, the Bard can use them better and more often.
Casting Wish and other high level spells, including ones from the Druid and Cleric books.
But you are convinced damage actuslly matters that much jnified an edition with Shock trooper Frenzied Berserkers with Valorous weapons running arounf, and that is not even a high water mark for martial dpr in 3.4e, so I'm g I ingredients to ignore you now because you are clearly an idiot.
I'm aware that 4e is good in its own way. And older editions are, too. This is the only group I'm playing with or likely going to play with, and we'll probably be doing 5e for a while. Which I don't mind, because I like 5e. The Bard's the one getting upset about being "underpowered".
It's just annoying to hear their filthy caster black speech all the time. I'll deal with it because they're
Shock trooper depends on being able to charge, which is far from a given. The bard's damage boost meanwhile is given to everyone, can be kept up all day if necessary and isn't situational beyond being fire damage, which can be changed. Also 'there are stronger builds around!' is a shit argument anyway, since we're arguing 3.5 bard vs 5e bard, not 5e bard vs 3.5 bard vs 3.5 barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker. That's ignoring as well that the shock trooper build is one rarely played, and that the bard has both the damage, the bfc from spells, the social skills outside of combat and frontlining ability through snowflake wardance.
Also if you're going down the personal attacks route, check your spelling. Don't call someone an idiot until you can spell at least 90% of the words you're using correctly.
Oh cool, didn't know about that one. My vote's still gonna be for the 3.5 bard simply from the sheer versatility, but that's pretty damn nice.
>A wizard must spend months researching spells.
He gets spells for free as he levels, just like the other casters. He can CHOOSE to go and research more spells, but isn't required to.
A cleric and druid don't have to spend months doing either of those things and -shouldn't- be depending on what type of druid and cleric they are. The only way a priest of Erythnul would tend to the faithful is slaughtering them, for example.
Imagine Jimmy Olsen and Superman, they're Best Pals. Jimmy Olsen doesn't intentionally go on adventures with Superman, he's either a victim of some plot and needs Superman to save him or is simply hanging out with Superman eating ice-cream. Imagine if Mutants and Masterminds pretended that one PC should be playing Jimmy Olsen while the others were expected to play Super-man, Green Lantern and the Martian Man-Hunter.
That's what Generic Fantasy is like. Superman and Jimmy Olsen need to take down Darkseid.
Actually, this metaphor is terrible. It'd be more like if Superman had to work with Commissioner Gordon. Still, if you had to take down Darkseid, who would you invite, Commissioner Gordon or Batman? Would you even invite Gordon if you have Superman?
It's doable with something like Fate or the system they used for Buffy and Angel - you just give Jimmy Olsen's player more powers to influence the game without making Jimmy himself more imposing.
But that's not what I was arguing for. I'm entirely of the belief that if one player can rape reality then the other should be able to, and I don't see any why any of the measures proposed in >>44819791
are retarded. It's not like fantasy fiction is short on depictions of magic that is subtle or limited or unreliable, or even magic that is actually awesomely powerful but still not much help if someone comes at you with a knife unexpectedly.
I think the best description of (arguably good) Fantasy magic is "the less limitations it has, the less problems it can solve. It can cause problems, but the amount of problems it's permitted to solve is directly proportional to the amount of limitations it has."
Which means that for a good story, bullshit magic can cause problems but not solve them and limited magic with hard rules can solve problems but is inherently limited by those hard rules. The rule exists mostly though for the narrative health of a story.
>>Talking about black widow usefulness
No, comics and novels are ruled by the writer, if the writer wants Batman can be faster than Flash, better fighter than Wonderwoman, beat superman with only martial arts and pressure points, survive being punched by gods and eat more oreos than Martial Manhunter (he did all of these), but this is because a writer is writing that and he literally can throw as many asspulls as he wants. A rpg is not a comic or a novel, and Gandalf will always outclass Gimli at fucking everything in an rpg.
>tfw your gm gives you the most subpar option advices ever
>tfw you follow them because, well, he's the gm and might know what he's saying because he knows the campaign
>tfw this totally accidentally your pc
Thanks obama, I'm stuck with a dead weight now
It specifically mentions in pathfinder that to get the two free spells from the next level the wizard has been doing spell research. I don't know why you don't interpret that as taking up free time to do.
>Try a readied action to hit the level 1 when they come in for an attack, probably 1 shotting them
He'd have to roll two 20s in a row. Assuming that much luck isn't helping since the level 1 Fighter could get equally lucky, or the level 20 fighter could roll two 1's and impale himself.
Honestly, 4e has the best balance of the WotC-made D&Ds(I won't speak for 2e or earlier since I have zero experience with them).
Throw in that it's also the easiest edition to DM for and it makes it a great system.
Had that problem once.
Dude was convinced that martials were OP that he basically centered the entire campaign around keeping them down, and the BBEG himself was only a threat to them because he had a bunch of bullshit homebrew items that made him virtually immune to everything but magic.
Then I rolled a Wizard, cast one non-buff spell which basically killed his BBEG, and he kicked me out of the group.
Later, something similar happened and he got thrown out of the door for nearly hitting the owner in the face with the DMG.
If you go kensai (fists) and the decisive strike ACF and do crit fishing shit with the Maiming enchant and then get permanent greater mighty wallop and the like you can get some pretty hefty damage. Hitting for 1200 is a pretty awesome feeling.
Assuming you go before the wizard so he doesn't just unmake the BBEG before you can, of course.
Or not giving the magic users access to the good stuff. Make the reality-raping the domain of villains, and make player mages only able to leer at it suggestively and maybe when they're high-level fondle it occasionally.
Similar happened to me.
>Enter a game
>Ask if a can be a wizard
>"Sure, they're weak as fuck, but if you like that"
>Ok, he must be joking, better be sorcerer in case he's joking and he goes all damocles' sword on me
>Pick use spells and some sleep, color spray, etc
>Literally making any encounter easy as pie
>By 7th level I'm ending encounters on my turn, and I always go first
>DM "How are you doing that with non damage spells?!!"
Even though they have played for a decade, they didn't fucking know shit about the system, I had to retire the PC and roll a new one, Bard, then I still was running the show, so I just went Monk, and still was probably the best martial.
They thought stuff like power attack and improved trip were shit and that dodge and mobility were the best thing since sliced bread.
My best damage dealer was a Monk2/Psychic Warrior 14 with decisive strike, karmic strike, agile risposte, double hit. I dealt something like 1050 damage in one round, all of that outside my turn, then the GM metagamed as fuck and made every enemy ever avoid me.
>Even though they have played for a decade, they didn't fucking know shit about the system, I had to retire the PC and roll a new one, Bard, then I still was running the show, so I just went Monk, and still was probably the best martial.
If that's true, you're an asshole.
>Went from tier2, to tier3, to then tier6
Would you prefer that I stayed on tier2? I dunno, what else could have I do? not pick the bonus feats the monk gave me? I can't do that.
If you can't figure out how to not jump in and "run the show" then I don't know what to tell you. If you think this is a problem of your characters, then you're so far lost it's not worth even trying to bring you back.
>I love playing basketball with toddlers.
not what I meant, just saying generally speaking the idea is not to have a player death per encounter on average but rather to ensure everyone is having fun (unless the fun comes from player deaths but why the heck are you playing D&D if you want that?)
that said care should be taken to ensure the wizard can't end an encounter in a single spell
there's a basic tension in RPGs that the PCs are playing to win and the GM is both opposition and referee. I've never really seen a good solution, though 4e's build-to-xp-budget encounters was a start
>But read it again. The anon claimed it was a rule, that casters had to take that spell.
No one has said that and I am fairly convinced at this point that you are actually SKR because this is his level of retardation.
What people HAVE said is that there are literally dozens of spells (many in core, many more in every splat) that do the job of the fighter better than an actual fighter, or any non-magic class. And it's true. You'd literally have to try to pick spells that made you worse at combat than a fighter and you might still "accidentally" pick up something that just flat out wins fights.
whatever encounter you design the wizard and druid are going to be better equipped to handle it than the fighter and monk.
unless you declare a blanket anti-magic field, which amounts to a passive aggressive way of banning casters.
Agreed. ( mostly).
Let's approach from a slightly different angle tho.
Let's say wizards are so powerful. What prevents them from global domination at lv7?
The correct answer is balance. If PCs are walking fonts of pure reality warping power, they'll trigger the settings version of homeland security.
The best thing a DM can do...is give players consequences for their actions.
My question is HOW are GM's suppose to know to balance encounters against OP casters and HOW are they suppose to do it effectively?
Because the fucking game doesn't tell you casters are OP. It presents them as base classes the same as monks and fighters. The natural assumption is that they're on the same level, hell the mechanic for their power is literally CALLED "level".
The only way for a GM to know this imbalance is if they're told it directly through 3rd party means assuming they don't get exposed only to fucktards who don't know anything about the game. And even if they do know about it there's no way to actually balance Wizards without turning the whole game into Mother May I.
"Would this spell in this situation completely negate this encounter and make the mundane classes feel powerless? Then you can't cast it for little to no in-world reason" becomes the name of the game.
There is literally no way to actually deal with caster supremacy in 3.5 especially considering most people's advice is "shut up just do it".
problem with that is by lv 7 more often than not the homeland security that can threaten a mage can outright annihilate a martial type
generally speaking the most efficient way to prevent runaway caster syndrome is by taking the player at risk aside and asking him politely to tone it down
The difference is
>He's been told they know how to play
>Realizes they don't know the meta
>He gimps himself
>Still on top
>Gimps himself even more
>Still on top
>Playing now lowest tier ever
>Still on top
From that there's only leaving, this is not kitchen table magic level, this is kids eating crayons and shoving mtg cards up their noses level of gaming
Tone it down how though?
At that point the illusion has already been dispelled. If they encounter anything "too tough" they'll just ask the wizard to take the kid gloves off and kill this thing instantly.
Spells literally make up 70% of the written material for 3.5. Removing or moderating something of that scale with any amount of precision is impossible.
This migth not work because:
>Rng fighter, barb, ranger, cleric or druid
>Rng power attack
Now he has to start all over again because that might be stronger than what those fuckers play by far.
Simple, don't allow classes from drastically separate tiers in the same group.
If your group has a wizard, a druid and a psion in it, don't let the fourth guy play a barbarian. Similarly, if the group has a rogue, a monk and a paladin, don't let the fourth guy play a cleric.
This doesn't fix everything, CR is still a broken pile of shit that needs sifting through to actually build encounters for them to fight, but it does take caster supremacy out of the picture
What? Are all DnD GM's simply retarded or something?
Every single not horrible GM I played with wasn't acting like the enemy for the players. Instead they tried to make a good story that's fun for everyone.
I guess that's why people who play DnD a lot are utterly fucking horrible in every other system. TTRPG's are not some board game where GM fights the players.
Where do the official books talk about class tiers? Or even mention that classes may not be balanced?
Why are people still playing this horrible system when there are so many alternatives?
what I was saying was, its not about not being able to send badass hunters after the party, its to ensure that the badass hunter who can fight the mage 1 on 1 doesn't just casually kill the fighter by spitting in his general direction at the same time
They aren't official, because they official product is shit.
That said, it can be jury-rigged into a good, fun system, and since it's been very popular for a long time, people have gotten pretty darn good at doing just that.
People are still playing it because it was marketed very well at the perfect time, and had this thing called the Open Game License which helped it's popularity boom even further, but since it's such an obtuse system with so many rules twisting and turning over each other, it instills its players with the notion that every system is just as obtuse and difficult to learn, thus preventing them from wanting to try new systems
You don't need a "perfect spell". Since a lot of spells can do practically anything if applied creatively a smart wizard can get by with just a couple standbys:
Flight: Renders 90% of obstacles harmless.
Invisibility: Keeps you from being targeted 80% of the time.
Glitterdust: Really low level spell that blinds and ruins invisibility. Blinding fyi makes most opponents suck.
Grease: another low level spell that's basically a mass trip. Enjoy giving everyone free AoO
Summon Monster: a good chunk of creatures you can do with this are comparable if not better than a fighter.
Those 5 spells alone can carry a wizard easily. And if you think "Oh you just gotta get around it" well GUESS A FUCKIN' GAIN cause you know what else a wizard can do?
Make scrolls for any and all spells he knows. Didn't prepare one spell that'd be really useful? Don't worry since during downtime you most likely make 3 copies of all your other spells in scroll form you can just cast instantly.
Ad&d gamers moved into 3.5, made it work and had fun.
They would have went on to 4th..but it sucked on every level.
Some may move on to 5th...if they release more.
But they had year after year of buying 3.5 stuff..
They'll continue on 3.5, till 5th catches up.
Well said my fellow xD
Have another upvote
>4e was complete trash and almost killed DnD.
>The fact that it outsold 3.5, and was outselling Pathfinder even after it stopped producing material is irrelevant
Well considering it's generally agreed wizards are stupid OP past level 7...
Seven rounds? Minimum. And keep in mind every round after the first time it's been cast the Wizard can just cast anything else. Either way he's a lynchpin to this fight since anything he can do is far more effective than what the fighter or monk can.