Class Balance - why?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Honestly? It's so you can deal with whatever the DM throws at you.....Using an example of wizards fireballing a door to open it. Maybe your DM just doesn't think that's a viable way of opening the door and now you're boned.

And so is your DM. If your DM throws things at you that he knows you can't pass...or discovers in the middle of play that you can't pass. And then when you come up with a solution to it, denies it.....

Well, at that point, either whatever is behind that door isn't important and you shrug and go a different way or you come up with a different way to open the door that your DM will allow.

If the rest of the DMs adventure is behind that door...trust me, he'll come up with a way for you to get past it.

 

[Aldarc]

Honestly? It's so you can deal with whatever the DM throws at you. Sure, some DMs would look at your party and avoid throwing stuff at you that your party can't deal with, but some DMs won't. Now, you might go about solving some of those problems with "creative" solutions that doesn't rely on hardcoded game rules, but then you're hoping your DM would share your vision of how your creative solution would work and now you're back to the old school method of bargaining and arguing with the DM.

You should be able to deal with whatever the DM throws at you without requiring certain roles or particular abilities to get through them. A particular spell is not a "hardcoded game rule," so much as it is a band-aid to fix a larger problem of the game's role assumptions.

Using an example of wizards fireballing a door to open it. Maybe your DM just doesn't think that's a viable way of opening the door and now you're boned.

So basically there should just be spell for every situation and possible permutation that ever arises? But if your DM does not think that the players do not have a viable way of dealing with opening the door, then I have to wonder why the DM put such a door there in the first place.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And just who has an issue with this the other players or the DM? If it is the other players well since they have to be willing to be teleported they can simply refuse. If the DM is the one with the issue he can accept that it can happen and plan for he can take it out of his game. But the dM needs to accept that players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters.

But that's the thing. The player's won't find ways around my carefully crafted encounters if I don't let them. There is nothing left in 4e that allows a party to completely break anything I have planned.

Whereas the entire time I ran high level 3.5e it felt like a constant metagaming arms war. If I want them to have to talk to the bridgekeeper and convince him to let him pass...I needed:

The bridgekeeper to know magic enough to be able to ward the area against teleportation, flying, charm spells, the ability to shape the earth into a new bridge, the ability to create a bridge of force, and probably a number of other things I'm not even thinking of right now.

Why does the bridgekeeper know all these spells? Also, how did you either make them all permanent or make sure they were all active when the PCs show up? How can he cast that many spells in a day? Or do I just metagame and create a brand new spell called "Ward against players" that is a protection spell against all of them at the same time? If I make him a wizard in addition to whatever race and abilities I've already given him, it means that he now has more hitpoints, better saves, and a better CR, so if they PCs fight him, they'll lose. Maybe I wanted them to be able to win in a fight. Well, then he can't have any other abilities other than being a Wizard. And therefore, all the enemies end up being Wizards or friends with Wizards.

On the other hand, that exact same situation in 4e means I have to plan for...nothing. The PCs have no way across unless the bridgekeeper lets him(as long as the gap is wider than 50 feet). It's really nice to feel in control of a campaign.

Also, if you remove the Wizard and Cleric out of the party in 3.5e....then you don't really have to worry about them finding a way over either. It's the casters that are the problem.

And this scenario comes up with almost every hazard you use to try to hinder the party.

The first time a party realizes that if they have a basic description of the BBEG, they can scrye on him, find his location and teleport directly to him past any defenses he has set up and take him out directly. Then teleport out again is the first time you want to strangle someone and ban half the spells in the game to make it easier to run.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It is your opinion that web trivializes fights, my groups opinion is that web can make a combat more manageable and I am often asked my other members of the group to cast it and I have asked wizards to cast it when I am the fighter. It can be a very effective tactic to help the entire party deal with a lot of numbers of enemy combatants.

If your group does not like it then simply don't use it ask the wizard not to cast it. DMs can take out any spell they want which I prefer far more than what they did in 4E which gave people who don't agree that they want magic to mirror the way it is to either accept , do major house rules to fix it or the easier thing stay with 3.5 or go to another system that works the way we prefer our magic.

I said before that I think the item creation is to easy in 3E and needs to be reined in. I think the fact that you can so easily make items that get you around the limitations imposed on casters is the reason that some people find 3E magic to be over powered. Take those away and you will find a lot less issue with it.

Most of the DMs I game with have house rules for handling this.

There is a big difference in playing a loner type character who tags along with the party and taking spells just to screw over another player's character. One is role playing the other is being a jerk.

You say manageable, I say trivialize. Two sides of the same coin.

If I were to ban / nerf every spell in 3e that I thought was problematic, it would involve a very significant percentage of the PHB. More work than I'm really willing to put into it in all honesty, which is a big part of the reason that we no longer play 3e. If it were one or two spells, I certainly wouldn't say that all casters are broken. The problem lies with a lot of spells, which is why it's a systemic problem rather than a simple matter of errata.

It's not about playing a character who goes out of his way to screw other characters over. It's about the inexperienced player, or the guy who simply doesn't care one way or the other, who is drawn to spells (like Invisibility) because they're very effective and end up doing so without outright intending to.

It's nice that you have an experienced group, however, that's no reason that inexperienced groups should have to blunder through trial and error. The system should have eliminated the worst of such offenders, have advice for the rest, and then groups only need to deal with issues that are unique to their own table.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think you missed the third option here. Have the world end, and the game continue in the now ended world. Demons wondering around, cities are unsafe, and extraplanar spaces now try and eat you

Well, because I don't really like that kind of game. It wouldn't have been fun for me to run. And the god in question wanted to unmake reality. Not demons wandering around the world...but there being no more world. And he was powerful enough to do it.

 

[drothgery]

Contrary to popular belief, in 1e the magic-user isn't all-powerful at high levels and the fighter still has a major role in the party.

At high levels, 1e M-U's have very few hit points. They are very fragile. At 20th level they have 37 on average and 75 with max Con and max rolls. On top of that, magic resistance and good saving throws mean that many of their attacks either fail completely or do reduced damage.

Fighters at 20th level, on the other hand, have great hit points, heavy armor, great saving throws, and can dish out huge, reliable damage with a combination of multiple attacks, magic weapons, and a great natural to-hit chance that makes missing very rare. There is no weapon resistance % or saving throw vs. longsword.

I don't know how many people here actually played 1e at high levels, but the idea that fighters are useless and M-U's are all-powerful is largely a myth.

I haven't played 1e at high levels, but I have played 2e and that's not a lot different. And there are certainly ways -- and somewhat trivial ways at that -- for a wizard to be almost immune to mundane attacks at that point. Spells can take the wizard beyond any effective attack range (fly and related spells), make it impossible for mundane characters to target the wizard (invisibility and related spells), make physical attacks ineffective (stoneskin, protection from normal missiles, etc.).

One of the great improvements from 2e to 3.x was that it made high-level play merely time-consuming for the DM and somewhat unbalanced (in favor of full casters, especially druids, wizards who weren't blasters, and clerics who weren't healers) instead of nearly completely unplayable.

 

[hanez]

Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around?

The bard has traditionally been a versatile class, but he pays for that flexibility by being arguably less powerful than other classes. I've certainly never heard of a bard being accused of being a power house, and it's one of my favorite classes.

If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.

he ultimate key class? Really? Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most. If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a bar on the other side) it doesnt even open the door.

How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways? Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.

I agree that no class should replace anothers main area completely but lets try and keep a grip on reality. If your wizard is bent on replacing the rogues functionality with spiderclimb, lock and invisibilty and all the utilty spells, Such a wizard sure isn't going to have ANY damage spells or ANY protection spells, hes going to be a peon who can easily die, cause no damage, and is usless after about 10 actions (aka spells). The wizard is a lot more powerful in nostalgia, by people who dont realize you have to PICK THE RIGHT SPELL, or in very bad DMs campaigns.

Cant believe we are still pretending the wiz was broken. If I'm going to memorize knocks and stuff like that for the party, Id better be appreciated because I dont wanna be all alone when Conan comes to get me with my measly dagger and d4 hitpoints. (or are monsters targeting wizards the oberoni fallacy?) Think Conan would quickly remind Gandalf how awesome it was to have a d12 hit dice, multiple attacks per rounds and psycho rage. (remember I can't fly away or cast a fireball because for some reason Im hellbent on replacing the rogue, not that a fireball would slow raging Conan down anyways)

 

[Deadboy]

he ultimate key class? Really? Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most. If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a bar on the other side) it doesnt even open the door.

How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways? Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.

I agree that no class should replace anothers main area completely but lets try and keep a grip on reality. If your wizard is bent on replacing the rogues functionality with spiderclimb, lock and invisibilty and all the utilty spells, Such a wizard sure isn't going to have ANY damage spells or ANY protection spells, hes going to be a peon who can easily die, cause no damage, and is usless after about 10 actions (aka spells). The wizard is a lot more powerful in nostalgia, by people who dont realize you have to PICK THE RIGHT SPELL, or in very bad DMs campaigns.

Cant believe we are still pretending the wiz was broken. If I'm going to memorize knocks and stuff like that for the party, Id better be appreciated because I dont wanna be all alone when Conan comes to get me with my measly dagger and d4 hitpoints. (or are monsters targeting wizards the oberoni fallacy?) Think Conan would quickly remind Gandalf how awesome it was to have a d12 hit dice, multiple attacks per rounds and psycho rage. (remember I can't fly away or cast a fireball because for some reason Im hellbent on replacing the rogue, not that a fireball would slow raging Conan down anyways)

Why would the Wizard use any of his spell slots for Knock? Utility spells like that are what Scribe Scroll is for. Scroll scribing and item creation allow Wizards to trivialize their spells per day limitations.

 

[Fanaelialae]

he ultimate key class? Really? Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most. If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a magical seal) it doesnt even open the door.

How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways? Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.

I agree that no class should replace anothers main area completely but lets try and keep a grip on reality. If your wizard is bent on replacing the rogues functionality with spiderclimb, lock and invisibilty and all the utilty spells, Such a wizard sure isn't going to have ANY damage spells or ANY protection spells, hes going to be a peon who can easily die, cause no damage, and is usless after about 10 actions (aka spells). The wizard is a lot more powerful in nostalgia, in theory, or in very bad DMs campaigns.

PS - The bard sucks. His power should be boosted quite a bit.

Yes, really. How many locks is a DM realistically going to throw into a single adventure before it starts to get a tad ridiculous?

The rogue has to roll for success, unless he takes 20 (requiring 2 minutes) and even then he fails if the DC is higher than his skill + 20.

The wizard, on the other hand, succeeds automatically requiring only one action. It doesn't matter is the DC is over 9,000, or Arcane Locked, he still succeeds.

Also, you forgot about bonus spells. By 9th level the wizard can likely memorize around 6 Knock spells. That doesn't even take into account that the wizard could pretty easily craft a wand of Knock and thereby cast Knock nonstop.

Is the wizard better than the rogue in every scenario? Not necessarily. Is he better in some / many scenarios. Yes, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. A party shouldn't ever have to wonder whether they're screwing themselves because they let the rogue (who might potentially fail) pick the lock on the death trap rather than just letting the wizard cast Knock, and getting the heck out of there.

Now if you want to argue that the wizard should be allowed to be a sub-par rogue, I'm certainly open to the idea. Never a superior rogue though, which due to auto-success abilities like Knock and Spider Climb, he can be. The rogue should be the best rogue there is.

That doesn't even consider how he can replace the fighter, which he can. Casters are all, to one degree or another, skeleton keys but the wizard is arguably the best at it. If anything, that really ought to be the bard.

 

[Elf Witch]

Casters, wizards in particular, are amazing skeleton keys. Non-casters, not so much (unless you make them pseudo-casters using UMD).

A wizard has tenser's transformation, polymorph, stoneskin, and iron body to be a better fighter than the fighter

A wizard has improved invisibility, disintegrate (which makes sneak attack look meaningless by comparison), and knock to be a better rogue than the rogue. He doesn't need Disable Device for most traps when a simple Unseen Servant can set them off, or they can be bypassed with Levitation / Flight.

A wizard can't out-cleric the cleric, because the cleric is a caster too.

The cleric is arguably better than the wizard at out-fightering the fighter, with spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might, but casters can dominate.

Invisibility should not be a better stealth option than the rogue has at 3rd level. Knock should not be an automatic one round effect when the rogue can potentially fail while trying the same thing. And no caster should be able to stack buffs so as to out fight the fighter.

No one's saying the wizard shouldn't have a niche. That niche, however, should never include even potentially doing the job of another class as well or better than that class. Worse may be acceptable, but under no circumstances better.

It's nice that you have a gentleman's agreement at your table. I don't think anyone should need to be hobbled by such an agreement in order to play the game. Sure, the game should encourage people to play cooperatively (while still allowing for playstyles outside that norm). However, if folks aren't complaining about the fighter's ability to step on the wizard's toes, the wizard shouldn't possess the capability to step on the fighter's toes either.

Yes those spells let him raise his AC for as long as the spell lasts but it does not give him a lot of choices for martial weapon choices or the feats, hit points and BAB that fighters get. A wizard playing a front line fighter is doing so out of desperation not because they are good at it.

There is no way a wizard will ever match a martial character when it comes to going toe to toe or swing a weapon.

As for using unseen servant he has to memorize it and then he uses it once then he has to cast it again a rogue can disarm traps all day long and not have to worry about running out and since an unseen servant only has a force of 20 pounds that is often not enough to set off pressure plate traps. Again it is a nice tool if the party does not have a rogue so know to accomplish what a rogue can do it takes two wizard spells and one cleric spell.

As for disintegrate lets look at that a wizard can cast it at 11 level he again has to memorize it he does not just get it free as a class ability. He has to hit and there is a save involved. Rogues get sneak attack at first level they can do as often as they are in a place to do it. They never run out of sneak attacks and by 11 level a rogue hit with a disintegrate who makes his save and takes no damage and this goes for every spell that has a save so basically as long he makes his save the wizard has a hard time hurting him with magic and when he fails a save he only takes half the damage.

As for niche protection I agree with that but so far nothing you have said has made the wizard better at things then the rogue.

Take invisibility yep pretty powerful which is why most rogues I know want the ability to on a magic item. Sure the wizard is the one who gets to cast it but the rogue is the one who can use it more effectively because move silently is class for them and a cross class for wizards. Just because you are invisible does not mean that you don't make any noise and that opponents don't get a listen check.

Again I don't see it as a gentleman agreement it is playing as a team member with the other players and making sure you are not doing anything to ruin their fun. What kind of people do you play with that you view not being a jerk is some kind of agreement that is not found at many gaming tables?