I hate game balance!

[MerricB]

Will do, Merric.

I'm definitely not throwing flames at 4E.
Merely reminiscing, really. Honoring older concepts that I liked, in older versions of D&D.

Oh, I like older editions of D&D myself. I think the balance used in AD&D is quite special - although I really, really wish Gary had employed a better Rules Editor. Tim Kask, you failed utterly to make Gary's text in the DMG regarding initiative in combat be understandable or even work.

The magic-user in AD&D 1e is also quite limited when you take all of the spell effects into consideration. Fireball? Best way of toasting your own party I've ever seen. Amusingly so, at times.

There are also a bunch of assumptions about AD&D play that are foreign to the modern mindset. (Or even the old mindset, if you weren't actually experiencing Play With Gary). I'm pretty sure that Gary would run more than one PC at once... when you control the entire party, it doesn't really matter if the 12th level fighter is somewhat overshadowed by the 12th level magic-user.

Oh, and AD&D was basically balanced for 1st-12th level play, after which you retired. (See demihuman multilclass level limitations).

However, I also don't think you should keep the old assumptions about how people will play the game when that's no longer the case for everyone.

Cheers!

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Before I go, I would also say: An honor to meet you, Merric. Cheers to yourself, sir.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Doug McCrae]

The early fighter/fighting man and magic user are balanced, in a way, but in order to achieve that balance you have to start at 1st level, continue playing until around name level and then stop. If you start higher than 1st level, the system breaks. If you keep going beyond name level the system breaks. If you play oneoffs, or short campaigns, the system breaks. If you only have one encounter per day, the system breaks.

That's a pretty broken system you made there, Gary.

 

[wally]

Actually no. It is in their best interest to shoot their load early and rest.

Because that's the best option.

Seriously, unless things are time sensitive, why would you not use all your spells every fight if you could?

That is where I was refering to play style. If you know your DM is only going to give you one encounter a day, then sure, go ahead and use up all of your spells.

If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.

Or you could use all your resources to build wands and scrolls to cover your using up all your spells, but then you wouldn't be able to spend money or time on building other things.

Do you mean to tell me that if you know that you are going to have two or three combats within a game day, that you will still use up all your spells and then argue that you should be allowed to sleep to get your spells back before the next combat?

-wally

 

[Psion]

Oh! Okay. I see now. Sorry, I've been having a hard time parsing things all day.

That... is an interesting observation. I think that the argument to that would be that the casters were the primary source of dealing with those new things that cropped up at higher levels, which only contributes more to casters overshadowing the rest of the group.

I consider that accurate (that casters counter casters), except for the overshadowing bit.

Indeed, that "mighty magic" feel is central to a fun high level 3.x game AFAIAC. That doesn't mean the fighters and thieves are rendered irrelevant. Against a properly constructed challenge, a wizard would be foolhardy to operate alone.

I do believe CoDzilla is an authentic problem in this vein that resists treating with simple careful selection of challenges. This is because, especially in 3.5, the means for the cleric to overtake the fighter's niche were too many. Violating niche protection makes environment driven balancing untenable because you can't effectively target one class (the cleric) without also targeting the impaced class (the fighter).

I'd also say that casters aren't the only route to counter casters. There are a flurry of creatures that counter casters, so much so that in my last 3.x campaign, I felt that I had to search harder to find creatures to counter the fighter types than the casters. You'd think that every designer out there had campaign wrecking wizards in their games, there are so many creatures out there designed to mess with wizards.

Some of them really cool.

 

[Remathilis]

That is where I was refering to play style. If you know your DM is only going to give you one encounter a day, then sure, go ahead and use up all of your spells.

If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.

Or you could use all your resources to build wands and scrolls to cover your using up all your spells, but then you wouldn't be able to spend money or time on building other things.

Do you mean to tell me that if you know that you are going to have two or three combats within a game day, that you will still use up all your spells and then argue that you should be allowed to sleep to get your spells back before the next combat?

-wally

Considering how long it took to play a high level combat, I'd say 2-3 combats a session (with a rest at the end of the game) would be about right. (Obviously not counting fights well below your CR. Those fights that don't provide challenge rarely do more than slow them down a bit and waste little of their resources. 2-3 good CR or higher fights thought, then its nappy time).

 

[Rechan]

If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.

I don't understand "Your DM giving you" encounters.

Does your DM not let you move where you want?

If you have a combat encounter, and then retire to an inn... he's going to attack you in your sleep? Well, he can't quite send assassins after you every evening, now can he?

Rope trick: it's a beautiful thing. You cast it, crawl in, rest. BAM, done. Bring on the encounter the DM gives you.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I consider that accurate (that casters counter casters), except for the overshadowing bit.

Sure, you can tailor encounters to deal with the party, and to ensure that everyone gets their chance to shine.

...doesn't that strike you as a little weird, though? I personally, as a character (say a fighter) in such a world, find it very strange that all the encounters we run into seem to foil the casters in such a way as to make me useful.

I have this same sort of issue with how crafting BBEG's was approached, in high-level play in 3.5. In order to avoid the scry/buff/teleport trick, as well as myriad other caster tricks, the BBEG needed to have a place that was protected against all that. For a caster-type, that makes total sense - but for any other, does it really? Doesn't that start to feel trite, after awhile, how every villain in existence seems to have exactly the tools to foil you?

I like having encounters that make sense in the world, not necessarily tailored to the characters. "Here there be dragons," and such. That doesn't jive well with tailoring encounters specifically to fix the imbalance between casters and non-casters, and that irks me a bit.

 

[wally]

I don't understand "Your DM giving you" encounters.

Does your DM not let you move where you want?

If you have a combat encounter, and then retire to an inn... he's going to attack you in your sleep? Well, he can't quite send assassins after you every evening, now can he?

Rope trick: it's a beautiful thing. You cast it, crawl in, rest. BAM, done. Bring on the encounter the DM gives you.

The DM giving you encounters refers to the fact that he has to come up with whatever you run in to in the world.

If you are leaving town, having a fight, going back to town to spend the rest of the day doing nothing so you can sleep. Then waking up the next day, leaving town having a fight and so on, then you aren't getting anywhere.

The idea that many people have posited is that arcane casters at high levels were much more powerful than the rest, but as I said, it depends upon your playstyle. If your characters can rest at will, then yes you are making casters more powerful. If you are traveling through the wilderness and could encounter many different things before you can rest, you shouldn't be casting all your spells at once, or everyone outshines the caster in the second, third and consecutive combats.

-wally

 

[Psion]

Sure, you can tailor encounters to deal with the party, and to ensure that everyone gets their chance to shine.

...doesn't that strike you as a little weird, though? I personally, as a character (say a fighter) in such a world, find it very strange that all the encounters we run into seem to foil the casters in such a way as to make me useful.

I didn't say all the encounters. Casters have to have their moment, too. And I believe the inherent balance of limited high level spell slots keep wizards from dominating in a way that numerous critics in this thread suggest.

I have this same sort of issue with how crafting BBEG's was approached, in high-level play in 3.5. In order to avoid the scry/buff/teleport trick, as well as myriad other caster tricks, the BBEG needed to have a place that was protected against all that. For a caster-type, that makes total sense - but for any other, does it really?

As I mention in one of the spin off threads, my guiding principle in setting design is that no power remains in power without possession or aid of magic. So in my setting, this is not a problem. There is no marauding orc warlord without a shaman or a wizard or demon manipulating him from behind the throne.

Doesn't that start to feel trite, after awhile, how every villain in existence seems to have exactly the tools to foil you?

Again, use selectively. This is a trick that Cordell and Cook stressed many times in their tenure. Design adventures to REQUIRE special capabilities, not to foil them. Above you alude to the classic scry/buff/teleport. I wouldn't let that always work, but when it does, is the wizard going to go alone? I hope not. Let's not pretend this is just the wizard's game.

I like having encounters that make sense in the world, not necessarily tailored to the characters.

As mentioned above, having encounters make sense is a guiding design principle to me. You aren't violating this principle if you let opposition leaders use magic. You are violating it if you are not.