I didn't mind Vancian magic in earlier editions. It didn't seem to reflect the way spellcasters worked in the fiction I read, but then I wasn't playing D&D to simulate any particular fiction. With 3e, spellcasting was made easier, saving throws didn't improve as far, saving throws were made relative to the power of the spellcaster rather than absolute, casters got more spells, item crafting was made trivial; it's hardly a surprise that people think spellcasters are too powerful, when so many of the balancing factors were thrown out. I ran a 2-session adventure with the Rules Compendium around Christmas, and you should have heard the whining from one player who hadn't played before 3e, about how spellcasting had been nerfed and this wasn't proper D&D.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Has the Vancian Magic Thread Burned Down the Forest Yet? (My Bad, People)
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
- Status
I didn't mind Vancian magic in earlier editions. It didn't seem to reflect the way spellcasters worked in the fiction I read, but then I wasn't playing D&D to simulate any particular fiction. With 3e, spellcasting was made easier, saving throws didn't improve as far, saving throws were made relative to the power of the spellcaster rather than absolute, casters got more spells, item crafting was made trivial; it's hardly a surprise that people think spellcasters are too powerful, when so many of the balancing factors were thrown out. I ran a 2-session adventure with the Rules Compendium around Christmas, and you should have heard the whining from one player who hadn't played before 3e, about how spellcasting had been nerfed and this wasn't proper D&D.
re
It was an opinion. Pretty easy to see that.
No. You don't. Period.
No. They did not.
I want my games to simulate fiction. We differ on what we want.
If I feel like playing Thulsa Doom, I will play him. Thulsa Doom was more about a goal than being an NPC. Nothing is to prevent me from playing an evil priest worshipping a serpent god who wants a lot of power as long as I can find a group to play with.
Merlin is still a wizard archetype. He used magic to support the knights and manipulate the game world. Because of reasons simulated by role-playing like people not wanting to follow a strange wizard that wasn't human.
It's fairly obvious you play with DMs that don't plan for the characters they are dealing with. Luckily for me your chance of derailing my carefully laid plans would be pretty much impossible since I I have imagination and tactical skill and will design an encounter to appropriately challenge you and the entire party. I have access to the entire plethora of monsters and classes as well.
I guess because DMs were throwing Moe, Larry, and Curly at parties the system had a problem eh?
I guess you've played against a bunch of creatures with weak fort saves that easily get polymorphed. Or perhaps you were doing the one day adventuring day that so imbalanced previous groups. Something I don't do at all.
You know what? The one day adventuring day is pretty much what makes players like you able to abuse so much. I decided that all those intelligent BBEG coming after you, well they don't let you rest. And guess what, they have vast resources when it comes to evil minions. And they know all the little tricks adventurers like yourself use like rope trick and the like for hiding. They have counters for such.
They are also smarter than those foolish wizards who memorize save or die spells. They often amp up their melees and minions to levels to crush what they face.
I'd love to have you come to one of my campaigns. I know how players think. It is the module designers that have to create modules for the standard four man, 15 point stat adventuring group. I don't have to. I don't. I design encounters according to my players.
Which is what DMs are supposed to do.
And "imaginative and tactical" players like yourself find out the hard way that a prepared DM has as much and more in his arsenal than your wizard.
The game is about fun. And you can have fun with any system. You go with your preference. My preference is hyped up, powerful magic. I have little trouble challenging my players.
Please, you had trouble with Silent Image and Alter Self? I never had any trouble with either of those spells. My biggest problem was amped up melees with haste.
Why are you having trouble with these types of spells? Are you a DM that is unhappy if your players mow down trash? I don't care if my players mow down trash.
What I care about is designing a few key encounters that challenge my players. The players are supposed to mow down most of what they face with ease. A DM is supposed to allow them do it so they are slowly using resources and aren't sure when they are going to run into the BBEG encounter who has power similar to them and will challenge them.
My job as DM is pacing. I don't let my players use the "one encounter adventuring day" or the like. Which is probably why I didn't have all these problems I read about on the board with the 3.x system.
Those problems are for DMs that run by the exact rules. That allow cheese from players. That don't breath life into the game and expect the players to develop and play consistent personalities. As well as don't make their BBEG encounters with personality or tailor them to challenge their particular group which may not be the standard four man, 15 point build characters.
I don't have that problem. I've been playing too long.
The goal of strategy is to defeat your enemy. Why try to paint it as anything else.
I use walls and such to help defeat the enemy. At the end of the day that is the end goal of any strategy against an enemy.
But the enemy can use the same strategy right? This is a group game, right? It isn't for the fighter to accomplish the task alone. Or the wizard. Or the cleric. Or the rogue.
If the wizard's spells and arcane might weren't necessary, then why even have them around?
Team game, once again.
But you somehow think the wizard was above the team because one on one when prepared he could destroy the melee classes. Yet if he wandered into an encounter with most BBEG's alone, he would be destroyed.
Yeah. The bard is good at boosting the party. Best class in the game.
No. They can't.
You say "smart wizards" can destroy the game. I say "smart melee" are far, far, far better than animal companions or crafted golems. If you take your golem/animal companion force against a wizard with a bunch of "smart melee", you''ll get your clock cleaned.
Melee do tons of damage. Especially in Pathfinder where so many more creatures can be crit and sneak attacked including golems and most undead.
Or maybe the BBEG has good saving throws, defenses, and a well-designed strategy and is resisting what the wizard wants to do? Or did you forget about that part?
Sounds to me more like your DM wasn't any good. He designed encounters that weren't capable of challenging you. Wouldn't happen in my campaign. You would be challenged. You would be scared for your character's life. I guarantee it.
I've been gaming a long time. Several system.
Bottom line rule for good DMing "Know Thy Players". I haven't found a system, Not 4E, not GURPS, not any system, that players couldn't exploit. Not a single one. And players always try to give themselves the biggest advantages they can.
Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion. That doesn't mean every trash encounter should be challenging. Your players should destroy trash often. They are heroes and deserve to feel like them.
But a DM should incorporate a few key encounters into any module where the players are going to feel challenged or at least like they are in an epic, memorable fight. If your DM is letting your wizards "cheese" the encounter, then they are designing the encounter poorly.
Now that being said, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was way out of hand in its first incarnation for 3E. It was fun for the power mongers. But it was a nightmare for the DM. And the Spell Compendium added some ridiculous spells that shouldn't have made it in. And the original haste was pretty ridiculous. When you have clerics drinking haste potions and casting double destructions that's a little much do deal with.
But as I said Pathfinder has curtailed much of the problem in 3.x. I'm not sure what spells you think they missed, but I don't see much. Alter Self and the polymorph line are good, but not overpowered. There are no real save or die spells. All hold spells or crowd control usually grant a save every round.
And as far as eliminating every means for a wizard to take an enemy out. Are you serious? That wouldn't be very impressive magic would it? Not a game I would want to play.
It was an opinion. Pretty easy to see that.
No. You don't. Period.
No. They did not.
I want my games to simulate fiction. We differ on what we want.
If I feel like playing Thulsa Doom, I will play him. Thulsa Doom was more about a goal than being an NPC. Nothing is to prevent me from playing an evil priest worshipping a serpent god who wants a lot of power as long as I can find a group to play with.
Merlin is still a wizard archetype. He used magic to support the knights and manipulate the game world. Because of reasons simulated by role-playing like people not wanting to follow a strange wizard that wasn't human.
It's fairly obvious you play with DMs that don't plan for the characters they are dealing with. Luckily for me your chance of derailing my carefully laid plans would be pretty much impossible since I I have imagination and tactical skill and will design an encounter to appropriately challenge you and the entire party. I have access to the entire plethora of monsters and classes as well.
I guess because DMs were throwing Moe, Larry, and Curly at parties the system had a problem eh?
I guess you've played against a bunch of creatures with weak fort saves that easily get polymorphed. Or perhaps you were doing the one day adventuring day that so imbalanced previous groups. Something I don't do at all.
You know what? The one day adventuring day is pretty much what makes players like you able to abuse so much. I decided that all those intelligent BBEG coming after you, well they don't let you rest. And guess what, they have vast resources when it comes to evil minions. And they know all the little tricks adventurers like yourself use like rope trick and the like for hiding. They have counters for such.
They are also smarter than those foolish wizards who memorize save or die spells. They often amp up their melees and minions to levels to crush what they face.
I'd love to have you come to one of my campaigns. I know how players think. It is the module designers that have to create modules for the standard four man, 15 point stat adventuring group. I don't have to. I don't. I design encounters according to my players.
Which is what DMs are supposed to do.
And "imaginative and tactical" players like yourself find out the hard way that a prepared DM has as much and more in his arsenal than your wizard.
The game is about fun. And you can have fun with any system. You go with your preference. My preference is hyped up, powerful magic. I have little trouble challenging my players.
Please, you had trouble with Silent Image and Alter Self? I never had any trouble with either of those spells. My biggest problem was amped up melees with haste.
Why are you having trouble with these types of spells? Are you a DM that is unhappy if your players mow down trash? I don't care if my players mow down trash.
What I care about is designing a few key encounters that challenge my players. The players are supposed to mow down most of what they face with ease. A DM is supposed to allow them do it so they are slowly using resources and aren't sure when they are going to run into the BBEG encounter who has power similar to them and will challenge them.
My job as DM is pacing. I don't let my players use the "one encounter adventuring day" or the like. Which is probably why I didn't have all these problems I read about on the board with the 3.x system.
Those problems are for DMs that run by the exact rules. That allow cheese from players. That don't breath life into the game and expect the players to develop and play consistent personalities. As well as don't make their BBEG encounters with personality or tailor them to challenge their particular group which may not be the standard four man, 15 point build characters.
I don't have that problem. I've been playing too long.
The goal of strategy is to defeat your enemy. Why try to paint it as anything else.
I use walls and such to help defeat the enemy. At the end of the day that is the end goal of any strategy against an enemy.
But the enemy can use the same strategy right? This is a group game, right? It isn't for the fighter to accomplish the task alone. Or the wizard. Or the cleric. Or the rogue.
If the wizard's spells and arcane might weren't necessary, then why even have them around?
Team game, once again.
But you somehow think the wizard was above the team because one on one when prepared he could destroy the melee classes. Yet if he wandered into an encounter with most BBEG's alone, he would be destroyed.
Yeah. The bard is good at boosting the party. Best class in the game.
No. They can't.
You say "smart wizards" can destroy the game. I say "smart melee" are far, far, far better than animal companions or crafted golems. If you take your golem/animal companion force against a wizard with a bunch of "smart melee", you''ll get your clock cleaned.
Melee do tons of damage. Especially in Pathfinder where so many more creatures can be crit and sneak attacked including golems and most undead.
Or maybe the BBEG has good saving throws, defenses, and a well-designed strategy and is resisting what the wizard wants to do? Or did you forget about that part?
Sounds to me more like your DM wasn't any good. He designed encounters that weren't capable of challenging you. Wouldn't happen in my campaign. You would be challenged. You would be scared for your character's life. I guarantee it.
I've been gaming a long time. Several system.
Bottom line rule for good DMing "Know Thy Players". I haven't found a system, Not 4E, not GURPS, not any system, that players couldn't exploit. Not a single one. And players always try to give themselves the biggest advantages they can.
Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion. That doesn't mean every trash encounter should be challenging. Your players should destroy trash often. They are heroes and deserve to feel like them.
But a DM should incorporate a few key encounters into any module where the players are going to feel challenged or at least like they are in an epic, memorable fight. If your DM is letting your wizards "cheese" the encounter, then they are designing the encounter poorly.
Now that being said, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was way out of hand in its first incarnation for 3E. It was fun for the power mongers. But it was a nightmare for the DM. And the Spell Compendium added some ridiculous spells that shouldn't have made it in. And the original haste was pretty ridiculous. When you have clerics drinking haste potions and casting double destructions that's a little much do deal with.
But as I said Pathfinder has curtailed much of the problem in 3.x. I'm not sure what spells you think they missed, but I don't see much. Alter Self and the polymorph line are good, but not overpowered. There are no real save or die spells. All hold spells or crowd control usually grant a save every round.
And as far as eliminating every means for a wizard to take an enemy out. Are you serious? That wouldn't be very impressive magic would it? Not a game I would want to play.
I haven't seen a bard yet that can beat a well-designed melee in battle. Might be able to mind control him, but kill him straight up. Love to see you pull that off against an Invulnerable Rager or Two-hander fighter.
Yeah. So what?
Balanced how? One on one against each other? Damage output? Versatility?
You are never going to be able to balance two classes with extremely different capabilities. Impossible.
Fighters do melee damage far better than wizards. Which is what they should do.
Wizards cast magic, which is inherently more dangerous, far better than fighters. Which is what they should do.
Wizards should be the most dangerous class in a given world. The part that isn't simulated well and should be is that it is extremely difficult to become a powerful wizard. While it is extremely easy to learn to fight. That part is supposed to be role-played and part of the world design.
You know, because D&D is first and foremost a role-playing game designed to be used for cooperate story telling.
Did we forget that? It isn't first and foremost a game perfectly balanced for all characters to be somewhat equal in battle so no one feels like anyone else is better than them.
D&D is all about cooperative story-telling. The illusion the DM is supposed to create is that all characters have an interesting and useful part in said story. Even if the wizard could take all the other character's in one on one battle. That shouldn't matter. Because if he is doing something like that, then he is a bad guy and needs to be taken out by some adventuring group with a wizard interested in helping a party rather than being cheesy, "I do everything myself" player.
Or maybe because your DM wasn't designing challenging encounters for you go against.
That only leads to party death. We had the most inexperienced players playing the cleric and wizards. It usually lead to their death and the death of the party. Not knowing spell strategy can get an entire party killed.
Even with an experienced wizard, it is usually a pain to survive. Most of my designed enemies kill wizards on sight as soon as they determine who the arcane caster is, they go out of their way to kill that person. Like any intelligent enemy would do.
Probably why I didn't have the problems that so many on this board post about with 3.x casters. I made enemies in my game react according to the world in which they were in. Which meant their strategies were built around killing the arcane and divine casters if they showed their hands too early. There aren't many wizards or even clerics that can withstand an dedicated onslaught by the BBEG and his minions.
This is total hogwash. Not my experience and nothing more than opinion by someone who wants to overhype the wizard. Please stop spreading the lies. They're totally ridiculous and not at all a true statement.
There were plenty of challenges for wizards in any version of D&D.
Wizards and arcane casters were powerful and versatile, but hardly unbeatable or god characters. I get tired of hearing flat out untrue, ridiculous statements.
How it should be. And the problem is not too powerful to live, it's too much of a wild card to overlook.
I guess there were no counters to your hold spells or save or die spells eh? Yeah, ok. Continue with that fallacy.
I guess no one has a bow or any ranged attacked. So now we're assuming "stupid" melee. I guess melee can't do a single thing to counter a flying mage but sit there and die. Yeah, right.
He should be stuffed. Why should a fighter be able to take on a wizard straight up? Why should that be? Game balance?
I wouldn't want to play a game where the wizard is designed to be balanced one on one against the fighter. That is ridiculous.
I use a sword.
I use magic.
We should have an equal fight. Are you serious?
You are correct. A fighter hunting a wizard should be sweating. He should bring friends. He should be frightened. You know, like he would be in a story.
How many stories you read where the fighter and wizard square off and they are equal? I can't think of one.
Every single story, no matter the author, always has regular melee oriented frightened of the wizard types. Whether it is the king who has all wizards killed to control arcane power. The king who has wizards working for him to maintain the balance of power. The king who is a wizard. The melee hero trying to take out the wizard tyrant. I could go on for ages.
This is a role-playing game first. It should simulate fiction, not be written with balance in mind.
The only reason I play D&D is because it is cooperate story telling. If I wanted a game built around balance, I'll play an MMORPG where story is secondary and primary is balanced characters because they are going against each other all the time.
Not interested in my role-playing game being like an MMORPG focused on balance. I play D&D and the like to tell stories and participate in a story, not to stroke my ego by accumulating items and power. If D&D didn't provide an experience like being in a story, I wouldn't even play it. Which is why I went with Pathfinder. It better simulates how I like to tell stories.
Why is anyone trying to argue that wizards and fighters are equal. They aren't. They shouldn't be in any role-playing game that is trying to simulate fiction. Shouldn't even be a close call one on one.
The discussion should be centered around whether fighter-types have a useful and fun role in a D&D campaign. The answer is yes they do.
You can make an interesting and fun melee character that can be a strong, interesting, and useful participant in a D&D adventure aka story. Players do it all the time.
D&D isn't about a fighter being able to go toe to toe with a wizard. Never has been about that. D&D is game where people get together and make an adventuring party to participate in cooperative story telling. The DM's job is to make that story fun for all. Partly by creating an interesting narrative and partly by designing challenges for the entire group.
This talk of one vs. one balancing is rubbish.
Why? We could go back and forth all day about what classes and builds would win.
Like a high level fighter is almost always going to murder a rogue.
An invulnerable rager with come and get me is almost always going to murder almost any kind of fighter. And the rogue is going to be murdered by both.
A well-designed battle cleric will almost always murder a mage due to the mage's weak fort save.
There are all kinds of trumps and dangers out there for every character to face.
That's why D&D isn't designed with balanced combat in mind, but useful role. That's how it should be designed. It should try to capture the elements of storytelling that drew the first players to the game. D&D wouldn't even exist if it weren't a game that attracted the lover of fantasy stories first. I still remember when D&D first came out. Most of the people DMing and buying the game were people that loved fantasy books. The main attraction was a chance to be the type of fantasy hero we all loved to read about. Game balance wasn't first and foremost on anyone's mind. The best DMs were those that did the best job drawing you into your character and making you feel like you were part of a story.
D&D isn't a one vs one game. No idea why there is some strange argument that a fighter and wizard should be balanced. They shouldn't be. It would take all the flavor out of them.
A wizard should inspire fear in the mundane fighter. It's part of fantasy tropes in almost every piece of fiction I've ever read. But that doesn't mean the fighter doesn't have a useful role or a means to victory. All it means is that the DM is going to have to come up with an interesting means by which they fighter can win. In otherwards, it is DM's job to create a story that provides the means for the fighter to achieve victory, even if mechanically the victory seems impossible.
That's how D&D is supposed to work. It is not supposed to be a game focused on the game designers perfectly balancing all classes until all the fantasy flavor is removed in favor of a catering to players that want every class to be able to go one on one and have a fair chance of winning. Never seen an ounce of fiction written with that in mind.
But I have seen MMORPGs highly focused on that type of game balance. It is in fact one of the highest priorities of MMORPG game designers known as class balance. It used to be lower on the list of pen and paper game designers because they were more focused on how well a game system could be used to simulate fiction.
No, I've basically already posted on how you're more or less 100% incorrect regarding wizards.
Neonchameleon
Legend
It was stated as a fact.
You are changing your claim. First you said most. Now you're claiming it's all. Right.
Except you want to play NPCs. You are claiming that wizards should be more powerful because Gandalf and Merlin are. When one's an NPC and the other's a quest giver.
So you want once more to play the uberpowerful NPC. Some "simulating fiction" you're doing there.
Goal and methods. And his methods made him an NPC.
OK. And there's nothing preventing you playing a half dragon half drow wizard wielding two scimitars and calling himself Drizzle Do'Elminster.
He is also an NPC very clearly. You're arguing the case that wizards should be powerful but NPCs.
Point 1: You seem to believe that the entire world should be set up to reflect the party.
Point 2: People claim that 4e is encounter based?
Point 3: This is not what you say you do below.
If the game told the DM that that should be a decent challenge, then yes. The game has a problem. This can be fixed by an experienced DM - but the designers failed.
The problem with Polymorph is not and never has been Baleful Polymorph. It's alter self, polymorph, polymorph other, polymorph any object, shapechange.
So all your bad guys have to run plans to really tight deadlines?
That you've houseruled into the system. Just because you can DM Fiat something out of the game doesn't make it a problem. It means that you've got round it.
Which is when you teleport out.
No you don't. You point this out very clearly below.
And the system should support them.
Of course they do. DMs always win the DM/PC arms race. They have license to cheat after all. But by the point the wizard is running the arms race, the fighter has stopped being any more use than a grog in Ars Magica.
Sounds as if you are running a seriously combat heavy game
I wasn't DMing it. I was the PC.
You mean it's a system problem. And that you don't play D&D 3.X. You play Celtavian D&D. Congratulations. You have just proved my point. You need to house-rule to nerf the wizard.
Cheese that's allowed in the system. Again a game design problem.
Which says good things about you. Not about 3.X
If you even need to ask it would take too long to explain.
But the fighter's swordplay isn't necessary. The cleric's works against mooks. And the cleric has better defences and a deeper reserve of hit points for mook trashing (he has the healing spells). Plus the cleric can really bring it in 3.X against the BBEG.
The problem isn't that the wizard is above the team. The cleric and the druid are both on the same sort of power level as the wizard. As is the artificer. The Fighter is not.
One PC vs 4.
Of course. But there's a vast difference in the level of exploits available between WHFRP 2e and 3.X. However you point out below that you don't follow this rule.
Polymorphs got worse with every subsequent MM. But was bad enough in core. Haste was core 3.0. Glibness is core 3.5. So is Sculpt Sound.
Off the top of my head, Flesh to Stone (duration: Instantaneous) is a save or die.
And that is another damning point about 3E. The level of system mastery required. Feats for the fighter included Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, EWP: Bastard Sword, two levels of weapon focus and two of weapon specialisation in the bastard sword, and toughness. Not the best fighter or even close - but all things recommended by the system. One of the many flaws of 3E.
Overall contribution.
So the wizards get to send in the angels...
Actually, in a balanced system, that is probably the single easiest thing to simulate. If it is hard to become a wizard it takes a lot of experience points and wizards are high level only. From levels 1-10 you are an apprentice wizard. From levels 11-20 you are a journeyman wizard. You only actually qualify as a Wizard at level 21. This is because it is extremely difficult to become a wizard. And makes wizards the most dangerous people in a given world. There just aren't many of them.
Your man. It is made of straw.
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. You've just described the whole problem here. Not that the wizard does but that he can unless he holds himself back - and everyone knows it.
Oh! So you weren't designing challenging encounters for your players to go against! You were designing killer encounters and mulching the inexperienced. I thought you were advocating the DM pitching encounters to the party as part of the DM's job. Not simply turning the difficulty level up to 11
"Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion." You weren't challenging your players, you were setting up a scary game world and mulching the wizards when they failed to measure up. The two are very different.
Does calling someone a liar count as a PA? I haven't reported this but considered it. Especially when you yourself acknowledge that you don't play D&D as written because you need to pressure the wizard.
Of course there were counters. But to make counters you needed to know how the wizards were loaded out.
I guess that wizards can't cast protection from arrows or otherwise protect themselves... It's the arms race. But the wizard has more tools in his toolbox.
Because he's a goddamn fighter. Taking people on is what they do. If the fighter can't take a wizard on straight up, and the wizard is tricksier than the fighter then you're playing Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
And non-existant. There are two ways of balancing them - AD&D chose the non-overlapping competencies in which if the fighter ever reached the wizard, the wizard's head would get separated from his shoulders before he was half way through casting a spell. 4e chooses the shared spotlight where they each have different things they do well.
The swordsman should win in arms length. Easily. A single thrust straight through the heart and the wizard is dead. Meanwhile the wizard is incanting. That takes time and time is the one thing you don't have in combat.
And the wizard should be sweating and preparing traps and summoning guardians. He should be making the place as scary as possible. You know, like he would in a story. Because he knows that the fighter can run him through as fast as he can blink if the fighter ever reaches him.
Hint: The fighter normally wins. Or the wizard uses a sword (e.g. The Grey Mouser. There are two basic paradigms; the AD&D paradigm where the wizard wins for as long as he can prevent the rubber meeting the road (he's basically a grand vizier), and the 4e paradigm where the wizard can blow up enemies by the horde - but head to head will lose against an equal level fighter. 3e gives the wizard tactical combat without cutting his strategic assets - turning him into angel summoner.
Find me the fiction where Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit are protagonists together. I find 4e simulates a style of fiction far more than 3e ever did. High action pulp, admittedly. Using Holywood Physics. (No, it doesn't do gritty - if I want that I break out WHFRP 2e which has a magic system that simulates magic in gritty stories as spells fail to cast at random and blow back, making magic scary even for the wielder).
See: CoDzilla.
Yes.Things can threaten Angel Summoner. But most of them make BMX Bandit irrelevant.
And with its focus on spellcasters, 3.X Fails. In sword and sorcery, the heroes are normally the swordsmen.
I have noticed how much you hate wizards in DnD and no matter what anyone says they are wrong and you are right.
People tell you over and over that they have not experienced the uber overpowered wizard who does everything in their game and you deny that their experience is as valid as yours.
If wizards are as over powered as you claim to the point that no other class can keep up with them then why are there not arguments at the table about who gets to play them? If all the other classes suck why do people seem to enjoy playing them. Is it because they are to stupid to realize that they are not really having fun?
People point out ways that clever DMs can use the rules as written to challenge a wizard and you find fault with that basically saying well they don't have to do that with other classes.
It comes down to finding a system you and your players enjoy and using it. If you don't like a class then don't allow it in your game.
But don't try and tell people who don't agree with you that they are wrong.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Robilar is quite genuinely the exception that proves the rule. His player was running solo sessions with Gary Gygax much of the time. And no one argues against the premise that fighters can keep up with the rest of the party when there is no one else in the party.
Indeed. AD&D Vancian isn't what I'd choose. But the casting times are long enough that high level spells are not combat viable. 3.X removed the checks and balances on spellcasters.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
But this is why the non-limited spellcasters are quite so devestating. For everything there is a counter - but spellcasters get to change what their "Everything" is on a daily basis. Fighters get to change it ... never. All you can say watching a wizard cast spells is that on that day he had the following spells prepared. And he can change that the next morning for a completely different range of attacks and counters.
But adding BMX Bandit to the team won't help. Adding a cleric will.
It depends on the advantage. A boxer fighting by boxing rules vs a MMA fighter fighting by MMA rules? Yes, I'd take the MMA fighter's advantages away. Don't care which way. Or a cyclist in a race with a motorbike rider? Not much of a sport.
Strawman. The problem is linear fighter, quadratic wizard. The fighter gets better at swinging his weapon. The wizard gets better at spellcasting - and more spells, and more versatile spells.
I don't play 3.X. There are damn good reasons I don't play 3.X.
Players Handbook 2 (first printed in the Book of Exalted Cheese and I hoped it would stay there). Reduces ASF by 10% as a +1 enhancement. Meaning that there is literally no penalty for wearing a Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt even if you aren't proficient because it has no ACP and no ASF. (Mithral also reduces ACP by 3). So wizards can wear it without penalty.
Fine. The equivalent would be to run the fighter out of hit points. Four first level wizards vs a fighter on 1hp.
A smart wizard finds good uses for 1st level spells.
Of course it can. It means that the fighter is leaching yet more spells in order to be able to do his thing.
I agree. Armour SR sucks. But it is what it is.
Yup. And that boost casting stats. The fighter needs them. Badly.
There's advantages and overpowering advantages. 10% edges are nice. Doubling your effectiveness is something else entirely.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Can we ditch this straw man once and for all? The whole Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is so contrived an example that it illustrates virtually nothing.
Raven Crowking
First Post
And now I am sure some literature major is going to come in and tell me how wrong I am.
Well, I for one give your answer far more credence than "Magic is never the answer to anything in fiction and mythology". That suggests a rather spotty reading of fiction and mythology!
OTOH, that story tellers work to achieve audience identification with their protagonists is hardly controvertial.
Me too.
Stories are what happened in the game, to me. They should not be plotted out before the game even begins. Indeed, doing so suggests a level of control over the protagonists (PCs) that I would rather avoid.
RC
- Status
