xigbar said:
If you think that was the start, you need to go back and re-read the
entire thread.
xigbar said:
You aren't aware of what "powerfully built" means, but if the caster is as such, they will not, at the least, down on hit points. Wizards don't need a lot of consumable materials, since most "consumables" are replicating spell effects that they can just cast with low level slots. Additionally, there are a lot of ways to make things like scrolls that make these effects so cheap, that they might as well be, or in some cases, actually are, free.
You don't seem to realize that "powerful" in any context of measuring different classes is going to be largely decided by the circumstances of play. You're just parroting the idea that you can somehow create a spellcasting character who'll have enough spells and items that they can somehow master every possible situation that could ever arise during game-play, even though that idea is completely lacking in feasibility.
xigbar said:
No, it doesn't. Wizards don't need to be optimized for dealing with melee classes. So many of their spells are so profoundly multi-purposed, there are some that single handedly take down any non-caster outright.
Yes, it does. The entire point that you're making is that 1) spellcasters need to be optimized, and 2) that in doing so they can deal with any situation that could ever come up during the game.
The debate that's going on here isn't "who'd win in a spellcaster vs. non-spellcaster fight." It's "spellcasters are so much better than non-spellcasters that the latter are useless in a fight."
It's that latter point that I'm responding to. If that's not what you're talking about, then we're having two different conversations.
xigbar said:
See above. Also, melee classes could one shot a Balor with little to no effort when it's a level appropriate encounter. But they to spend on a way to chase the Baalor when it's flying, and then deal with it's spell like abilities which also allow it to outmaneuver and outclass the melee build.
See above. You're again assuming far too much; as though the one hypothetical encounter you've built
specifically to prove your point somehow is a universal truth.
xigbar said:
Errrr, no. Asking for a build is a logical to display how a given character can deal with a day with game situations to run the gamut from combat, social problems, or stealth.
Errr, yes. Asking for a build is a completely illogical way to try and showcase the idea that actual builds are comparatively unimportant compared to the circumstances of what's going on in the game itself.
xigbar said:
I would like to see what you mean by competent. Also, if the monsters are played to their full potential, then blasting can work, since defensive abilities working against them might not have been though of.
I explicitly defined what I meant by "competent" in the post you quoted. Also, you're again making some vague statement - "monsters played to their 'full potential' means that 'blasting" can work" - as though it were somehow universal for play experience. It's not.
xigbar said:
Thanks for the condescending lecture, pops.
Anytime, kid.
xigbar said:
Then, why not try multiple and varied encounter against the same build? They don't all have to be combat encounters, that would truly show versatility.
I think that's already self-evident that if you throw
potentially anything against the same build you'll find more than a few things where said build isn't as useful as you thought - not even taking into account that if the GM wants to, he can find something that can neutralize any kind of character - to the point where I don't think the work of building multiple suites of NPCs just to throw against your characters is worthwhile.
Like I said, I already have a group that I play with. What you're talking about is essentially running an entire campaign just to prove a point...one that I think is fairly clear to begin with. For example, I throw eight or nine encounters at characters in the course of a day, and the spellcaster will likely be low on spells. Or something else again. How is it not easy to just
imagine circumstances that show that spellcasters aren't the uber-useful characters you think they are?
nogray said:
Fighters only make choices only two times. At creation/leveling and in the moment. Wizards and clerics make choices three times. At creation/leveling, in the moment, and at the beginning of each day. That's a clear advantage for the caster. (Note that I consider gear acquisition part of leveling, whether the gear is chosen by the PC or the DM.)
Leaving aside that I disagree regarding gear selection, not to mention the choices of what levels to take, feat selection, skill point selection, class features with multiple choices (e.g. rogue talents), etc., I think this post summarizes what I see as a disconnect between a class's potential strength in its build versus its actual strength during game-play.
nogray said:
More times to make choices means more opportunities to adapt. More opportunities for adaptation means it is more likely that you have an appropriate resource that can be spent at the moment to solve (or make easier to solve) the challenge. That means more "power."
I disagree. Versatility is, first, not the same thing as power. Secondly, preparatory spellcasters are hindered by having to choose their spells beforehand, which means that their "adaptation" to the circumstances that arise is virtually non-existent (and the idea of leaving some spell slots open to prepare later takes more time than is often granted to them).
nogray said:
Casters have limited spells per day and hit points. Fighters have only hit points. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, but the casters have spells per day to ablate, too. In fact, the purpose of several of those spells is to reduce incoming damage, whether relatively directly (spells that boost AC or give temporary hit points) or indirectly (by damaging enemies or removing them from play or consideration) or both at once.
Spells are too diverse to say that their collective purpose is to "reduce damage," particularly by defeating enemies that then can't attack. In that regard, all offensive abilities are defensive.
nogray said:
While it is inherently obvious that spells are limited in quantity, what is less obvious is whether that limit is meaningful. I tend to believe that not to be the case.
That's a more difficult claim to follow up on, simply because it's going to vary wildly between sessions and between groups.
There's also the situation of a spellcaster running out of spells that they consider to be "useful," finding themselves falling back on lower-level spells that they prepared with different circumstances in mind after they've used their higher-level and/or more directly applicable spells.
In other words, it's not just about how many spells they've used that matters in regards to a spellcaster's "usefulness." It's also the circumstances they're in currently (which has been my point all along).
nogray said:
The fact of encounters tends to be that many things are being spent. Casters are casting spells (some more judiciously than others) and the whole party (especially the fighters, if they are doing their jobs) is taking damage. All this talk of limited spells per day seems to ignore the fact that the fighter's hit points are limited, too, and they are likely (in most adventuring circumstances) to run out long before spells do. In fact, without a healer (i.e. a caster, usually), the fighter will run out within a scant few encounters, or even during a single encounter.
In most of the resource-intensive situations I've experienced (from both sides of the screen), what prompted a withdrawal or rest was not the wizard running out of spells, but rather the healer. They will tend to spend a spell or two in combat, whether buffing or blasting or whatever other flavor they favor, then more spells in combat to heal whoever is taking damage, then (until they have wands or whatnot) more spells after combat to heal the group up to a reasonable level. No one wants to press on at half hit points when the healer is out of spells.
That may or may not be true on a per-encounter basis, but even that that won't necessarily be the case if you measure encounter per day, simply because it's much easier to regain hit points during the same day than it is to regain spells.
If the party is high on hit points but low on spells, they're often still viable for another encounter. Which is relevant, as what foes they encounter isn't up to them, but to the GM.
nogray said:
There was also a point or two made in this thread about denial of gear or resting. The simple fact of the matter is that non-casters are generally more disadvantaged by this than are most casters.
As to denial of rest, while it is true that can stymie a caster's ability to refresh spells (well, an arcane caster's, anyway), it also prevents a fighter from recovering their only resource -- hit points. It is also somewhat true that a caster (here, I am really thinking of wizards) can more easily provide a secure place of rest in the field.
I disagree with you regarding who's more disadvantaged regarding gear loss, simply because I think that (like most other aspects of what goes on at the table) are situation in nature.
Even leaving that aside, a spellcaster that doesn't get to rest for a night gets no spells back; as nobody gets hit points back in that case, the spellcaster is likely worse off simply because they've missed the chance to replenish two aspects of their character (spells and hit points).
Moreover, the issue of rest seems (to me) to be more notable between encounters in one day, as noted above.
nogray said:
The spells for this range from Rope Trick, to Secure Shelter, and on to Mage's Magnificent Mansion. (The first and last of those are invisible to the normal world, while the middle will just be hard to enter without alerting the occupants. All can, theoretically, be dispelled, but a non-caster has no option for providing even near the level of security as those spells (absent gear that mimics them in some way).
Wizards also provide a means of resting in relative comfort at a known safe-house via (possibly greater) teleport. Clerics can get in on that action with word of recall, too. In higher levels, two spell slots per day can virtually guarantee safe rest. While it is true that, possibly, the safe house is no longer safe (and this is a really unlikely event for a decently chosen safe house), it will be much safer than resting in the field (barring rest-places like the extradimensional ones, above).
This goes back to the issue I was talking about above, as its straying too far into the issue of "which class is better than the other" versus "which is more useful in a fight."
The idea of a fighter not being able to
dispel a
secure shelter is less relevant when you're facing a demon who can
greater teleport into it. Similarly, the idea of
teleporting back to safety after a fight ends is, as I've mentioned before, a nice idea that doesn't always work out. The size of the group alone can often quash this idea ("sorry, I can teleport everyone but you. You can survive a night here on your own, right?").
In the event that you aren't attacked during the night, the entire issue becomes moot anyway. Again, situationality trumps attempts to make something universally "better."
nogray said:
The caster at least has the option to have those spells and resources available, where the non-caster simply doesn't. Also, the spells mentioned (Rope Trick and Teleport, along with the others that are in the same category and are used at end-of-adventuring day to rest) won't be cast while in combat. There won't be an enemy immediately present to counter or dispel them, and following is only possible until the door is closed from the inside, or by some odd circumstances if teleportation is involved. (Okay, so the Rope Trick might, if detected at all, which requires some means to see invisibility, be dispelled, but it is still more secure than any fortification that a noncaster can provide.)
To put it another way, it seems like your post is saying that the presence these options for safe recovery of spells, because they might under rare circumstances possibly be countered in some off-the-wall manner, are weaker than their absence. That is the opposite of true.
That option is only good if it's actualized, and even if it is, then it's worth is only measurable by how applicable it is to the given situation. Safely resting inside a
rope trick is meaningless if there are no encounters during the night.
Further, even leaving aside the issue of "these spells won't be cast in combat" (which isn't true in my experience; if a party is losing a fight badly they'll attempt to use things like that to retreat). The idea of those circumstances being "off the wall" is, at best, one's personal opinion - how another game goes down might differ wildly.
Moreover, this again misses the larger point that simply having an option available somehow means that the person who has that option is universally "better" than someone that doesn't. That's the real opposite of what's true.
