Stats scaling past 18/19

[Alzrius]

I am confused. If you are right, then how come two very experienced players/DMs and myself (actually, there are quite a few members of the boards who, though they have differences of opinion on the exact details, who disagree with you and agree more with me) come to completely different conclusions about the game based on their actual gaming experiences?

...you do realize that I've posted the answer to that question across many different posts, right? based on my actual gaming experiences (italics included for your pleasure).

Just because you play the game one way does not mean you can objectively state that someone doing it another way is doing it wrong.

When the majority of spells are expended, a caster Rope Tricks or Teleports home to rest for a day.

You state this like it's some sort of objective. If the spellcaster doesn't have those spells, they don't happen. If the spells are countered or dispelled, they don't happen. If the enemy follows them, then the above situation won't happen, etc.

Resting for a day allows a caster to summon an angel/unicorn/whathaveyou to heal them - one spell for full hit points.

Presuming none of the above happens to stop that.

Spell books are not consumables.

The issue at hand is if you've lost all of your gear, then how quickly can you recover. Gear includes spellbooks.

You can usually ascertain creature weaknesses by looking at them or examining their lore - both of which are possible with divination.

Right...because demons are well-known for being immune to electricity. I mean, c'mon, they're demons, that just screams "can't be zapped."

You're very stuck on "casters run out of spells". How many combats does it take to use 36 spells, when one or two end an encounter?

You're very stuck on "one or two spells end an encounter." What do you do when that doesn't happen and/or you have more encounters than you expected?

Saving throws are almost never an issue - always target weak saves or use no-save spells. Memorize versatile spells instead of singular use spells.

If you think saving throws aren't an issue, then you need to use more actual dice in your dice-based RPGs. You can have a good save and still fail saves enough that it isn't something that happens only once in a blue moon. Likewise, most spells have specific effects, so "versatility" is a loaded term.

When Silenced (which is an easy save to make), the caster can pull his metamagic wand out or walk 10 ft. in any direction (and still cast that turn). Unlike Grease, Silence doesn't hinder movement or require saves to be able to move at all.

Presuming the caster even makes the save, or has a metamagic wand, or can walk away...actually, those are all some pretty big presumptions, which shows how weak your post is.

While you may be right about rarely needing to teleport into a combat, the fact that wizards have the option of teleporting away and bombarding the area with Range: Long spells is superior to the Fighter needing to be in melee.

Not particularly, no. Mostly since the fighter doesn't need to be in melee; it's called ranged attacks. Likewise, the fact that plenty of enemies can teleport also is just one way of showing the flaw in this assumption.

Spending 36 spells doesn't happen in one day. With same CR encounters, that's 9 spells per encounter. With a variety of CR encounters (before using consumables), you can safely throw 3 spells per encounter.

Again, you're stating this like an objective truth. I've had characters expend all of their spells in the same day (mostly because they don't always face same-CR encounters). That you think you can flat-out state "a variety of CR encounters means using 3 spells per encounter" is laughable.

A Fighter with no gear and a weapon is still more or less as useless as without a weapon (in fact, probably more so). He runs into combat and gets killed with no defenses.

That's true of a wizard that has no spells. The difference is that the fighter is able to at least attack effectively by disarming a foe.

RE: Diversity
Scenarios are predictable with divination - casters prepare generally useful spells - Wizards (with the fewest total spell slots) have 36 spells per day (Sorcs have 54, Clerics have 50, Druids have 41), many of which are single-spell encounter enders - summons last for 20 rounds (or longer).

Fighters hit things. As they run out of resources, they hit things. As he loses hit points, he hits things. When he's out of hit points, he dies. His versatility is having a variety of weapons (crafted by casters) and potions/items (crafted by casters) to help him overcome any monster after CR6.

The idea that scenarios are predictable with divination is, quite simply, wrong. You can't scry on the encounters you don't know are going to happen, you may not have scrying spells or items, the enemies might make their saves, they might notice the scry, they might have counter-measures, etc.

See above for why summons can quickly fold under even a single spell.

Likewise, the fact that magic items are created by NPC spellcasters is irrelevant in the debate over how "god-modded" spellcasters are (unless your wizards are crafting in the middle of a fight; do they do that in your game?).

RE: Batman
Given a day, Batman is omniscient and omnipotent.
Given a day, Fighters are probably drunk.

Re: Batman

Given a day, Batman is crying about how is parents were killed.
Given a day, a fighter has killed a lot of monsters while a wizard failed his check at independent spell research.

All of your posts have been cop-outs, deflections, and unsubstantial drivel. I'm very done putting any effort into talking to you

Spoiler

(because you're either a person who can't rectify preconceived rhetoric or a troll. )

The simple fact of the matter is that all of your posts have been easily dismissed as wrong (because they are), attempts to change the subject (which failed), or simply repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring the flaws I pointed out (because you can't handle being proven wrong in public).

Trolling isn't in the spirit of these forums. Stop doing so.

 

[Dandu]

...you do realize that I've posted the answer to that question across many different posts, right? based on my actual gaming experiences (italics included for your pleasure).

Forgive me, but my nemesis is the other guy, and I haven't been paying too much attention to your posts. I do occasionally see gems and respond to them, though, which may have given you the impression that I read everything you have written.

For example:

You're very stuck on "one or two spells end an encounter." What do you do when that doesn't happen and/or you have more encounters than you expected?

I find it funny that you assume the fighter spends money on magical gear for weapons/armor/flight/wish/etc, but the wizard doesn't obtain pearls of power/scrolls/wands/etc.

 

[James the Newbie]

Then the enemy spell casters cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction

And there are 3 encounters left in the day.

 

[Dandu]

Just to be clear, what was that a reference to?

 

[James the Newbie]

Fighters can use magic items to make up for their lack of destructive power/versatility.

They have healing potions to deal with HP loss.

And they can last through more encounters.

 

[Dandu]

Fighters can use magic items to make up for their lack of destructive power/versatility.

Well, James, that assumes that a spellcaster can cast Disjunction, which is by no means assured since he could have run out of spells earlier in the day.

Assuming he does have the spell slot for it, he will still have to go before the fighter, which is by no means assured since the Fighter could have Improved Initiative or have snuck up on the spellcaster, or have spotted him first - remember wizards do not have Hide, Move Silently, Listen, or Spot on their spell lists.

Then the spellcaster has to make sure he is outside of the Figher's reach, which can be up to 50 feet in all directions. If he is not, he will have to pass a Concentration check to cast defensively or else he loses the spell, and it is entirely possible that he fails the check.

Then he has to rely the Fighter failing a will saving throw. Success and failure on saving throws is unpredictable; even if we assume that the Fighter has a low Will save, he could end up rolling very well. Remember, rolling a natural 20 means that you automatically pass your saving throw.

Even if the Disjunction goes off properly, the Fighter could still be effective by disarming the spellcaster of his magical staff and beating him to death with it. As a fighter, you are never out of options when it comes to combat, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[James the Newbie]

I should have been more clear, I was assuming an enemy caster cast it, and following that 3 more encounters would come. Generally monsters get atleast one turn, even those who are casters, if it got it off, the fighter would be in a lot of trouble.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I am confused. If you are right, then how come two very experienced players/DMs and myself (actually, there are quite a few members of the boards who, though they have differences of opinion on the exact details, who disagree with you and agree more with me) come to completely different conclusions about the game based on their actual gaming experiences?

The problem is that gaming experiences are unique. The context of those experiences matter. Everything from the make-up of the party, the number of players, the level of optimization of the characters, and the strategic/tactical/logistical decisions made by the players will affect how useful any given character class is (perceived?). Add to the fact that as a DM I can have an incredible effect on the outcome of any given encounter/adventure/campaign through how I frame the scene(s), how I design the challenge(s), how optimized I build the enemies, how I play those enemies at the table, and how I distribute treasure, etc.

For example: If I, as a DM, increase the amount of mindless undead in my campaigns I am increasing the utility of any class with Turn Undead and decreasing the utility of Illusion and Enchantment spells. If I do this with a party containing a Cleric, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Wizard (Enchanter) I will likely have made the Rogue and Wizard less effective compared to the Cleric and Fighter.

Note: I am not sure why the idea of PvP is relevant to determining how balanced two classes are with each other. Even in an edition as ostensibly balanced as 4th Edition is, PvP is viewed as a poor method of determining that class balance. Any striker is going to beat any defender, leader, or controller the majority of the time. And yet, people generally don't complain about 4th Edition characters being unbalanced.

I think a better method for determine character class balance/utility would be to build two parties and run them each through the same encounters. The only difference between the two parties would be one would contain a fighter whereas the other would contain whatever class you wanted to compare the fighter to. Then you can go back over the notes of the campaign and determine if, where, and when the fighter was more/less useful than the class it is being compared to.

 

[billd91]

I am confused. If you are right, then how come two very experienced players/DMs and myself (actually, there are quite a few members of the boards who, though they have differences of opinion on the exact details, who disagree with you and agree more with me) come to completely different conclusions about the game based on their actual gaming experiences?

The same reason that if you line all the economists in the world end to end they'll all point in different directions. Everyone's experiences differ because we use and view the system in different ways based on our own preferences and not in some deterministic way.

 

[Dandu]

Of course, some of these economists are demonstrably right and wrong. For example, the Austrian school of economics believes that... hold on, let me quote Wikipedia.

Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology.

Furthermore, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible. They argue that modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions.

The whole Communism thing didn't pan out either (note: Communism is not quite the same thing as Socialism, which can work.)