Fighter, Rogue, Blaster, Healer . . . Balanced?

[delericho]

The latter would be a good point, but the thread assumes neither. The Wizard's entry presents just a few of the countless examples to beat a dragon.

A couple of things about his examples:

- He pits an optimised wizard against a non-optimised dragon, gives the wizard an arbitrary amount of time to prepare, lets him choose the time and the place of the confrontation, and grants him a free ambush. Of course that skews things in the PC's favour! And what's more, doing so skews things further in the favour of spellcasters than it does non-spellcasters, because they benefit more from preparation.

- That's a planned assassination, not an adventuring encounter. It would be just as valid to have the dragon ambush the party, use a quickened maximised breath weapon attack plus a bite in the surprise round, followed it winning initiative in the first round and launching a full attack... and then declaring that the barbarian and the rogue are clearly the most powerful classes because everyone else is dead.

- The shivering touch spell is hideously and spectacularly broken. I mean, disgustingly so - it should never have been published.

(Incidentally, it also appears that he's ignoring the limit on controlled hit dice for animate dead. And his interpretation of explosive runes is ludicrous.)

And on that, you haven't played with optimizers a lot, have you?

No. And, honestly, I don't care to - it seems to be a massive mental effort in order to make the game actively less enjoyable.

The thing is, as soon as the PCs started to pull that sort of one-upmanship, I would feel duty-bound to have the game world respond logically. That is, every BBEG in the land would sit up and take note, conclude that the PCs were (a) a threat and (b) uncontrollable. At this point Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and the Evil Overlord List all agree - they must be eliminated. And that doesn't mean some happy fight against level-appropriate assassins; it means the successful BBEG takes off and nukes the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

The problem with playing one-upmanship against the DM is that the DM always has a bigger stick.

Besides, it's inevitable that there are problems. Although 3e pretends to a high level of mathematical rigour, it's now quite obvious that at least three areas in the core don't actually possess that rigour (those being the multiclassing system, item creation, and high-level play in general). Additionally, everything outwith the core is at least suspect, on account of simply not receiving even as much playtesting as the high-level core materials.

If I said I couldn't get a magic item due to material or XP cost, my old group would laugh their ass off.

It's not that you can't have a specific item, but because of the Wealth-by-Level guidelines, you can't prepare for every eventuality. Buying a wand of spider climb means you can't then apply those funds to a headband of intellect, a ring of evasion, or whatever else you want. I'm not convinced that it ever becomes the better investment.

And while you're free to disregard Wealth-by-Level in your campaigns, doing so means you're not engaging in a like-for-like comparison. If your character has significantly more gear than WbL allows for, then the comparison is not between him and characters of the same level; it's with characters with several more levels under their belt - your 6th level Wizard with 100,000gp worth of gear is actually equivalent to a 10th level character... and that comparison is much less kind.

 

[delericho]

Which, funnily enough, almost always results in a PC with higher than 28 point buy stats.

The average for 4d6-drop-lowest is equivalent to 30.5 point-buy.

I mean, how often did you see a 16 strength fighter in a group that rolled its stats? Sure, there might be that one or two, but, almost universally, it was an 18 in the prime stat.

The odds of rolling an 18 on 4d6-drop-lowest are about 1.6% (per stat). That means that some 90% of fairly-rolled characters will not have a single 18. (Granted, that doesn't factor in rerolls, but the by-the-book allowance for rerolls makes these quite rare.)

 

[Empirate]

Uniformity? Bleh. I don't feel inclined to follow any of the stereotypes, and anyone who does dug his own grave. Don't blame the system when it gave you a choice and you f?cked it up for yourself. I'll have you know, I always played arcane Casters and never had my Strength below 10 or Charisma below 12. But I'm not doing it in a raving urge to look original. It just fits my playstyle. And so do the stats you listed fit those who use them. Seriously, of all things you can introduce an element of originality into in a roleplaying game, you'd choose your stats? The six numbers on your character sheet that give you some fancy modifiers? Because I'm yet to meet a person who looks at a row of numerics and say:

'Oh, wow, I've never seen that combo before! You must have artistic talent and be able to deny all conventions! Please, teach me how to avoid conformity by screwing my imaginary self over by giving him capabilities which are completely irrelevant to his lifestyle and job!'

Tell me if you're one of those so I can sell tickets. But either way, I'm going to define my avatars by something other than a bunch of doodles, so long you don't mind. I'm not saying that having a low or high ability score can't be roleplayed out, but stats are tools, not straightjackets you have to wiggle free from. The players don't choose the usual selections to mimic each other, they choose them because they work, and not doing so in a high combat campaign can range from Chaotic Stupid to downright suicidal. It's the tabletop RPG equalient of jumping into a well because someone told you not to.

Just posting to say this made my day! Unfortunately, can't XP you right now.

And I do believe your point was all about point buy, right, not about rolling? Because in point buy, you have actual freedom to play any character you want (including very suboptimal choices), while rolling just produces some numbers that you're compelled to run with, like it or not. "But I wanted my Wizard to be strong and handsome!" may or may not work out with rolling stats, and there's nothing you can do about it either way. With point buy, you can at least make sure that you get your vision fulfilled to the degree your points last you.
"I wanna be awesome at everything!", while possible in the real world with its billions of different people, won't cut it for an RPG. But point buy at least allows you to pick and choose who you're gonna play.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Really? Granted, I haven't done 3d6 in order in a very long time, but, 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste means that I pick my class first.

In my experience, when using the 4d6 method -- or any other roll then assign method, really -- class choice occurs in between rolling the ability scores and assigning the ability scores. Due to the existence of MAD classes (monk, paladin, etc.), it would be rather silly to pick one's class first and then roll to see if you get it. You are strictly better off determining your class after you roll.

 

[Hussar]

It's not that you can't have a specific item, but because of the Wealth-by-Level guidelines, you can't prepare for every eventuality. Buying a wand of spider climb means you can't then apply those funds to a headband of intellect, a ring of evasion, or whatever else you want. I'm not convinced that it ever becomes the better investment.

And while you're free to disregard Wealth-by-Level in your campaigns, doing so means you're not engaging in a like-for-like comparison. If your character has significantly more gear than WbL allows for, then the comparison is not between him and characters of the same level; it's with characters with several more levels under their belt - your 6th level Wizard with 100,000gp worth of gear is actually equivalent to a 10th level character... and that comparison is much less kind

Umm, you do realize that, say, a 6th level wizard spending 10% of his wealth by level has about 100 scrolls at his disposal right? Why would you bother with a wand of spider climb? That's just stupid. Stick it on half a dozen scrolls and you're more than good to go.

It's not about disregarding wealth by level. It's about actually taking the time to figure out what wealth by level means. Most of the really situationally handy spells, like spider climb, are very low level, meaning that scrolls are easily done. Between scrolls and wands for the stuff that you cast a lot of, it's a trivial expense for a wizard to basically end run around the Vancian restrictions in 3e.

In my experience, when using the 4d6 method -- or any other roll then assign method, really -- class choice occurs in between rolling the ability scores and assigning the ability scores. Due to the existence of MAD classes (monk, paladin, etc.), it would be rather silly to pick one's class first and then roll to see if you get it. You are strictly better off determining your class after you roll.

In my experience, players say something like, "I want to play a ranger." (for example) and then roll until they make a ranger. I've never played at a table where the DM will force you to play something you don't want to play just because the dice told you to. And that goes all the way back to AD&D. Sometimes people rolled first and looked at what they might want to make, but, most of the time, people had a concept first and then rolled until they could fill that concept.

Which is why I do like point buy. Telling someone, "sorry, you can't play the character you want to play for the next thirty or forty hours of game play" just because I happened to roll badly on chargen is not something I would ever do to a player. Nor would I want to play at a table where that is enforced. Not interested in playing characters that I don't want to play. My unnamed fighter would be falling on his sword at first opportunity and I'd be rolling up a new character ASAP.

 

[delericho]

Umm, you do realize that, say, a 6th level wizard spending 10% of his wealth by level has about 100 scrolls at his disposal right? Why would you bother with a wand of spider climb?

Because the Wizard casting spider climb once isn't a problem - at worst, he's going to steal the rogue's spotlight once with that trick. In order to make the rogue obselete, he needs to cast the spell many times, and the most cost-effective way to do that is with wands. Problem is, wands are expensive.

Still, it's true - the item creation rules in 3e are problematic to say the least. As I mentioned in the post you quoted (although, admittedly, it was a tiny comment in a long post - you may well have missed it).

Edit to add:

In my experience, players say something like, "I want to play a ranger." (for example) and then roll until they make a ranger.

Yep, that's been my experience also.

 

[Dozen]

Is this the rolled character?

No, this refers to unusual stats for the class, not considering if they were rolled or handpicked.

Well this thread has been well and truly derailed.

I apologize for the inconvenience. I do believe this is my fault.

He pits an optimised wizard against a non-optimised dragon, gives the wizard an arbitrary amount of time to prepare, lets him choose the time and the place of the confrontation, and grants him a free ambush. Of course that skews things in the PC's favour! And what's more, doing so skews things further in the favour of spellcasters than it does non-spellcasters, because they benefit more from preparation.

Note that every other character had the same amount of time and levels, as well as optimized to the point of ridiculousness. The point of the examples was to compare Tier to Tier, not to show how can you beat a Dragon if you have the advantage.

That's a planned assassination, not an adventuring encounter. It would be just as valid to have the dragon ambush the party, use a quickened maximised breath weapon attack plus a bite in the surprise round, followed it winning initiative in the first round and launching a full attack... and then declaring that the barbarian and the rogue are clearly the most powerful classes because everyone else is dead.

So what you're saying is that the Barbarian and the Rogue are better at not dying when the Dragon fights on their own grounds? Astute!
But if the Dragon has a grasp of combat he'd cast his spell-likes to fool the Barbarian, or cripple/grapple the Rogue so he can't defend himself instead of attacking them where they're strong by flinging blasts around. I'm starting to think you didn't bother to read the whole thing, just picked out the bits that seem to support your first impression.

The shivering touch spell is hideously and spectacularly broken. I mean, disgustingly so - it should never have been published.

I can't argue with the truth in the above statement. But like I said, it's only one of many ways. One's broken, the others not so much. Also, you could say broken against broken is a fair game, and Dragons are famously underCR'd.

(Incidentally, it also appears that he's ignoring the limit on controlled hit dice for animate dead.

Command Undead. End of story.

And his interpretation of explosive runes is ludicrous.)

It's not his fault you lack the fantasy. Explosive Runes are scribbles that explode when somebody tries to read them, and thanks to the wording of the description(that is, not defining the word 'similar') let's you cast it on anything 'bearing written information'. You can write on pretty much any surface, a stone, a piece of paper, the dragon's next meal, an item in his hoard, whatever. The DM may limit the uses, but then the DM is a prick because he stops you from being creative by screwing up his own game's premise. A spell that can be only cast on written text that is written on thing you supposed to write on makes no sense. But if you abide by every word of the books rather than your logic, be my guest, you had half a valid point hidden in a page worth of bullcrap. I could think of a miriad of ways to damage the Dragon with a piece of paper with Explosive Runes on it. I dare you to challenge me.

No. And, honestly, I don't care to - it seems to be a massive mental effort in order to make the game actively less enjoyable.

That's a matter of taste. I'm also perfectly okay with messing around in a low-combat RP-heavy adventure without optimizing anything. Both have their own good sides.

Just posting to say this made my day! Unfortunately, can't XP you right now.

Thank you! I do try^^

 

[Li Shenron]

Are they now? I've never heard of such abuse. Maybe I'm not thinking of the rituals you're thinking of. Can you share a link? I'm eager to learn about any kind of mechanic abuse! For... <.< ... >.> ... reasons!

I was referring to 5e rituals, that post of mine may not apply to 3e or 4e rituals. If you have the 5e playtest material, you probably already know how they currently work, and they are practically equivalent to 3e scribing but in a much shorter time (e.g. 10min) and without the XP cost. The limitation is that you are then casting the spell immediately, so you can not keep it and cast it later in the middle of a combat.

Because, sans your most important stat, most characters look exactly the same.

...

There's never a strong charismatic fighter or a strong wizard or any variation. Every melee fighter looks damn near the same, and the same can be said for every other archetype.

I have to say that this happens also with rolling stats. It's not the stat generation method that makes look-alike characters, it's look-alike players.

For instance, the "combat as sport" player will always, invariably try to design a "standard" character, optimized as much as possible (tho different players have different ideas on how an optimized result will be), unless there exists more than one standards for a class that he believes strong enough, such as having a high Con rather than a high Dex for defense. If creative, such player may also find a "build" with high Cha that is "effective", but in this word there is the catch: he'll only do it if he believes that he has the means to make it into a powerful PC. For a "combat as sport" player, "efficiency" is paramount, and he'll never ever design a character that has something less than he or everyone else can (except in the rare case when he has to play with others he considers not so good, and decides to purposefully have anything else not to dominate the game). This kind of player will generally hate rolling for stats, but if he has to, he'll still end up making the most obvious stat choices, whether he generally rolled high or low.

Now if you really want unorthodox characters, the only way to be sure is rolling stats in order. I actually like doing that, although it almost never happens because I'm one of the few, but I'm definitely a "combat as war" type. I can still have fun with "inefficient" characters, although not every system supports them well, in some system where balance is assumed too much, "inefficient" may be too close to "incompetent".

So stat generation is a playstyle choice, not one of right and wrong.

The truth is as simple as this.

Personally I have fun with rolling stats because I see handicaps as an opportunity for challenge. If I am a Fighter and I stumble upon a monster with DR not bypassable by my weapon, if I am a Rogue and I stumble upon undead immune to sneak attack, if I am a Wizard and I stumble upon a foe immune to magic, my typical reaction is "damn monster! now see how I'll find another way to kick your bus!", not "damn gamemaster! you're unfair, I don't want to play mother may I". To each her own, just make sure you sync with the rest of your gaming group.

 

[delericho]

So what you're saying is that the Barbarian and the Rogue are better at not dying when the Dragon fights on their own grounds? Astute!

No, my point was that if you give the Wizard free time to prepare then of course that's a major advantage to him. Turn the ambush around, and the Wizard is dead.

Honestly, I didn't think he meant animate dead. Zombies or skeletons can't do a lot more against a dragon than setting off his traps. There are plenty of other ways a Wizard get an Undead army. Off the top of my head, I'd say he cast Create Undead a few times, and then Commanded or Controlled the excess.

The limit isn't unique to animate dead. Whichever route you prefer to take, it still applies - and is still being ignored.

It's not his fault you lack the fantasy. Explosive Runes are scribbles that explode when somebody tries to read them, and thanks to the wording of the description(that is, not defining the word 'similar') let's you cast it on anything 'bearing written information'.

Well, actually that wasn't the part I was objecting to. But, if we're going down that route, I'll point out that the game doesn't need to define 'similar' - the English language already does that for us.

However, the real issue was his apparent claim that you could cast the spell repeatedly on the same object to stack up massive damage - hence the references to 600d6 'bombs'. The problem is that the effect here doesn't stack, it overlaps - cast it 100 times and you get a grand total of 6d6. (Why? Because one interpretation is broken and game destroying, and one isn't. Which do you think is correct?)

The DM may limit the uses, but then the DM is a prick because he stops you from being creative by screwing up his own game's premise. A spell that can be only cast on written text that is written on thing you supposed to write on makes no sense. But if you abide by every word of the books rather than your logic, be my guest, you had half a valid point over a page worth of argument.

And that attitude there is why so-called 'optimisers' have no place at my table.

 

[N'raac]

Umm, you do realize that, say, a 6th level wizard spending 10% of his wealth by level has about 100 scrolls at his disposal right? Why would you bother with a wand of spider climb? That's just stupid. Stick it on half a dozen scrolls and you're more than good to go.

OK, 100 scrolls, 6 of which are Spider Climb, so you can have another 15 or 16 spells to round out your 100 scrolls.

Of course, 100 scrolls will require 25 scroll cases if you want to retrieve a scroll as a move action, rather than a full round action. That's 12.5 pounds, a significant chunk of a typical Wizard's encumbrance allowance. But carrying capacity items can always fill up some of the rest of that wealth by level.

In my experience, players say something like, "I want to play a ranger." (for example) and then roll until they make a ranger. I've never played at a table where the DM will force you to play something you don't want to play just because the dice told you to. And that goes all the way back to AD&D. Sometimes people rolled first and looked at what they might want to make, but, most of the time, people had a concept first and then rolled until they could fill that concept.

How often do we see a 4d6, drop the lowest character whose stats are sub-par? No, we throw that sheet away and roll again. Has anyone ever seen a 4d6, drop the lowest character with a "3"? 1 in 1,296 rolls on 4d6 is double snake eyes, and we roll 6 times for each set of stats - that should mean one in 216 characters has a 3. So where are those characters? In the wastebasket, I suggest.

We may as well say "just pick your stats so you don't have to roll hundreds of times to get the character you want". Point buy equalizes player resources - you can have the stats you want for the character, but no one gets the benefit (detriment) of exceptionally lucky (unlucky) rolls. For someone who truly values that randomness of "4d6, drop the lowest, leave them in the order rolled" (and not the lottery effect that maybe they get lucky and have a "better" character), you can still roll, after which you stat that out on point buy. If your stats are too high, you must drop them down to campaign standards. If they are too low, you have the option of bumping some up. Maybe that means your character was sickly as a child (poor CON roll), but has worked hard through his character training years to build up his endurance and health through diet, exercise, magic, etc. (devote those extra points to higher CON). It also gets rid of those fiddly "you can trade stats, drop some for a bonus elsewhere, etc" rules designed to get closer to the desired character while still pretending those stats are random.