Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Nagol]

In most games I've seen, experienced myself, or heard about the real problem is that the NPCs never really use the "full" rules in those situations. A DM never has to calculate material component costs to see if their NPC could actually cast any spell. The spell is just assumed to be there and all components are accounted for. Teleport for NPCs is actually Teleport without Error(Greater Teleport), since they never, ever, ever miss their mark.

It's silliness like this that has soured me on games where the DM insists on doing this kind of shenanigan. I totally agree, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. But the gander always has a leg up when it's the DM doing it.

Many years ago in 1e, the PCs were trying to recover the run-away Mayor's daughter. She had taken up with a psionic teleporter of questionable pedigree. They burst in and he grabs her and jumps. I think for a second and say "He'll just use the minimum power points. He's going to a very well known location." And... I roll 00 on the teleport chance. The pair end up tens of feet into solid rock and are never heard from again.

I find the opposite a bit. The players can apply substantially more cognitive power to any single scenario than I can muster while juggling all the NPCs, events, and input from every player.

 

[Hussar]

To some extent this is true. However, in practice, there are still some considerations. They usually can only cast a few of their highest level spell. And at those levels, their special things are pretty special, but they start failing more, because that's when SR and dispelling and such come into play.

And this is why we talk about you not being all that mechanically inclined. SR? Who casts resistable spells? Never mind that the most problematic spells virtually all bypass spell resistance and generally ignore damage resistance types. There's no spell resistance against Summoning or Polymorph self after all. And dispelling? Unless your opponents consist regularly of casters, virtually nothing in the game can dispel.

Do I think casters get too many spell slots and recover them too easily? Yes. Do I think it typically breaks the game? No. Would I change it and give them fewer resources if I rewrote the game? Yes.

In practice, I find that this describes barbarians better than fighters. In D&D, defense is largely about items, and a heavily armored fighter with the best save boosters and ability enhancers that money can buy often doesn't take that much damage.

Hrmm.... more on this later...

This is also a strictly combat perspective. By analogy, divinations answer one question while Knowledge checks keep going. Charm charms one guy while Diplo keeps going (and isn't illegal mind control). Invisibility runs out, but Hide and Move Silently are a way of life.

But, I cannot use any of my skills unless you let me use them. And, you will veto any use of a skill whenever you feel it's appropriate. Diplomacy will fail automatically whenever you don't want me to talk to this or that NPC. And Hide? You require concealment (at least until very high levels) for hide, which means I can't do most of the time. Any time there's a direct line of sight, I get spotted automatically.

Typically, I run battles that would be well off the EL charts, and I find that fighters remain useful because there are fewer countermeasures for a sword than for a spell, and because of within-battle attrition of useful spells slots.

... and coming back to the Fighter's Don't Get Hit. Huh? If you're well off the EL charts, unless your fighter characters are so min/maxed charop specialists, they are getting CREAMED by these encounters. Attack bonuses scale much faster than AC, and after a certain point, many, many monsters get Improved Grab, which hoses our fighter.

And, since you have casters in many encounters (you need them for all those dispels to counter the casters), why aren't your fighters getting charmed?

And lastly, fewer countermeasures for a sword? Really? There are CR 1 creatures with Damage Reduction/Magic. If you're way above the PC levels, then they have DR Magic/Alignment pretty commonly. Never minding the fact that the monsters AC also scales, albeit more slowly than attack bonus, but, if I'm 3 or 4 CR above the PC's level, the fighter is probably only hitting me with his first attack. Iterative attacks miss almost every time.

How does this work? If I'm throwing an EL 14 encounter at a 10th level party and I'm not mopping the floor with them, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with my DMing. The math just doesn't agree with your ideas Ahn. Or, are your encounters mainly classed humanoids? That would make a significant difference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, I cannot use any of my skills unless you let me use them. And, you will veto any use of a skill whenever you feel it's appropriate.

That's misleading. I don't veto a skill when it's appropriate. I call for a roll when it's appropriate. It's an affirmative action on my part. It's not like my players don't get a lot of mileage out of their skills. They roll a lot more skill checks that attack rolls.

And this is why we talk about you not being all that mechanically inclined.

By "we", I assume you mean "me". That being said, I'll let that one go.

SR? Who casts resistable spells? Never mind that the most problematic spells virtually all bypass spell resistance and generally ignore damage resistance types. There's no spell resistance against Summoning or Polymorph self after all. And dispelling?

Summoning and polymorph both give you the base version of the creature. You can cherry pick some decent abilities now and then, but those creatures/forms don't play well in a high-powered game. It's virtually impossible for a summoned creature to do anything, and a polymorphed caster still has crap HD and BAB and saves. Typically those types of spells a waste of a spell slot. The exception is when you get into the highest level spells like Shapechange and Gate, but most characters don't get there, and those are so fraught with issues that most players don't touch them.

I find that most people gravitate towards spells that allow their characters to utilize their own best abilities. If you pump your casting stat, it's best to have enemies rolling saves against it, but that does also incur SR.

I also find that the most effective use of spell slots is often to boost the fighter; I see a lot of casters specializing in that. No SR there, it's true. But many very good spells are more effective when cast on a melee party member than on the caster.

Unless your opponents consist regularly of casters, virtually nothing in the game can dispel.

It's a pretty common SLA among demons and their ilk and available to every full caster class. It's not exactly rare. "Outside of casters" is outside of a large portion of the PHB classes.

... and coming back to the Fighter's Don't Get Hit. Huh? If you're well off the EL charts, unless your fighter characters are so min/maxed charop specialists, they are getting CREAMED by these encounters. Attack bonuses scale much faster than AC, and after a certain point, many, many monsters get Improved Grab, which hoses our fighter.

Not really. Some good equipment and buffs and the PF CMB rules pretty much negate those things. TB combat reactions help too. Even under the core rules, it always seemed to me that the basic fighter spine numbers were so dominant that they did alright.

And, since you have casters in many encounters (you need them for all those dispels to counter the casters), why aren't your fighters getting charmed?

I had one player who made a ranger with favored enemy aberrations and took the will save reducing flaw. This was not a good decision on his part. He was repeatedly enchanted in various ways and eventually got hold/CdGed. I don't see a lot of martial characters with low will saves any more. It's just not wise (no pun intended). Also, medium saves help, and the core rules do shaft the nomagical classes on base saves a little bit. That said, saves, like AC, come largely from magic items.

And lastly, fewer countermeasures for a sword? Really? There are CR 1 creatures with Damage Reduction/Magic. If you're way above the PC levels, then they have DR Magic/Alignment pretty commonly. Never minding the fact that the monsters AC also scales, albeit more slowly than attack bonus, but, if I'm 3 or 4 CR above the PC's level, the fighter is probably only hitting me with his first attack. Iterative attacks miss almost every time.

DR is usually pretty easy to beat; extraplanar creatures with alignment DR are the main exception. Iterative attack math can be a problem, one that Trailblazer patched pretty well.

How does this work? If I'm throwing an EL 14 encounter at a 10th level party and I'm not mopping the floor with them, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with my DMing. The math just doesn't agree with your ideas Ahn. Or, are your encounters mainly classed humanoids? That would make a significant difference.

Typically I use more monsters than classed NPCs, but it varies by campaign.

I'm playing a heroic high fantasy game. My players have much better ability scores than the standard array, and much more money than the DMG advises, and various other things. Their enemies are typically built the same way they are. In general, I consider a balanced encounter to be an even fight: that is, four PCs of level X against 4 NPCs of the same level, built the same way. When using monsters I'll typically have them in numbers and way, way over what the CR would suggest, and they'll all be custom built to the same standards. One NPC against the party will typically be on the order of six levels higher than them. Theoretically, these should be 50/50 battles decided by a razor thin margin, not mopping the floor with anyone. Sometimes I go higher than that. Sometimes I go lower, but anything much lower is less a battle and more a training exercise, barring some unusual tactical considerations.

The baseline encounter difficulty is really bizarre. As I've said elsewhere, in a four on one battle of equal level characters, the one should run or surrender, not fight.

In practice, the players have a much better feel for their characters and tend to use their abilities more effectively, so it swings their way. That said, this is why I don't run a lot of battles. I want each one to be a big deal and generally carry a real risk.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Many years ago in 1e, the PCs were trying to recover the run-away Mayor's daughter. She had taken up with a psionic teleporter of questionable pedigree. They burst in and he grabs her and jumps. I think for a second and say "He'll just use the minimum power points. He's going to a very well known location." And... I roll 00 on the teleport chance. The pair end up tens of feet into solid rock and are never heard from again.

I find the opposite a bit. The players can apply substantially more cognitive power to any single scenario than I can muster while juggling all the NPCs, events, and input from every player.

Interesting. I do find that players generally know their abilities and use them more effectively than I do. A DM running a battle is a busy guy!

 

[Wicht]

But, it was precisely arbitrary and changing the rules. Go back and read the example. The PC's want to see the King, so they talk to the Chamberlain to get an audience. The DM arbitrarily sets the DC so high that they cannot succeed. When that gets questioned, suddenly all these after the fact justifications get brought out (The king hates dwarves and you have a dwarf in the party, etc). IOW, you guys keep changing the situation to try to justify the use of DM force.

I read the example and assume the DM, in good faith had a legitimate reason for a high DC. You read the example and assume it was arbitrary. What we are saying (or I am saying at least) is that there might be reasons why some things don't work (legitimate reasons, multiple scenarios, et.al) and it doesn't do any good to start slinging around derogatory terms without trying to see the other side. If a DM says, "no that won't work," or more likely, "Roll... no he is not listening," or,... "Before you can get your words to come out, he is turning away from you," then there is a possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that the DM is merely doing his job. And some of us (me) don't really like the whole, "Say yes, or roll," mentality. Sometimes I just want to say, "No, that's not going to work, try something else."

That may not be your playstyle, but it is not, by default, a bad playstyle.

Stick to the original situation. Nothing special going on. No special circumstances. Nothing in the background. Just what the situation says - the PC's want an audience with the king and talk to the chamberlain to do so. Ahn would not even allow the Players to make a diplomacy check on their own. They have to wait until they have sufficiently persuaded Ahn to allow the check. N'raac introduced having the chamberlain go insane and stick his fingers in his ears to prevent the diplomacy check. Does anyone actually think that's good DMing advice? Really?

My players don't roll until I say roll either. Different play-styles. Not bad. Not necessarily GM force. It keeps the game more orderly. And, especially with social skills, I find it works best if I, as DM extrapolate from their wishes which skill they should use and when.

With N'raac, again you are assuming bad faith on the part of the DM, when there could (as I have already pointed out before) be multiple legitimate, by-the-book, reasons for that scenario and if those reasons are valid, then, yes, it might be good DMing.

The game, and DMing, is always situational and, to repeat myself, it does no good to immediately jump to conclusions and accuse others of "railroading," when, perhaps, they are just being good DMs and don't happen to follow a play-style where the players get to "fail forward" and NPCs motivations are determined before the dice are rolled rather than afterwards

Any use of a spell to is automatically subjected to either the most restrictive interpretation possible under the rules, or, barring that, manipulating the game world (using charm gets you killed by random bar maids) to punish the players.

You are again making baseless accusations. I do not believe you can point to an example of myself giving a spell the most restrictive interpretation possible. I tend to allow players to use whatever tools they have, by the book. This does not mean that I think that others always interpret spells right. cf. astral projection and luck blade previously. But I resent the idea that my interpretation is somehow overly restrictive.

Charm is a perfect example. I have never disallowed Charm or had a problem with it in game. It works just fine, as written. About half the time, when it is used, it fails, for whatever reason (saves mostly) and the other half, it makes someone friendly. Its never been a game breaker for me. Nor have any PC wizards using it in my games ever been killed by barmaids, arrested by guards or any such thing. Of course my players tend not to be stupid enough to try and use it on possible friends in high places.

Can you honestly not see why this looks like Calvinball? In Ahn's example of the angry fighter, you changed the scene so that the fighter is suddenly hundreds of feet away or there are 13 people in the way as a justification for not allowing player actions. But, none of those were true in the example, so, what's the point of bringing them up if it's not Calvinball?

Can you honestly not see why insulting other people makes you harder to talk with?

As to your accusation, I was giving examples of why a DM might tell a player "No," in the context of an attack. I was not suggesting a DM just arbitrarily throw up roadblocks, simply because he felt like it. To me, the word "No," is a perfectly legitimate word for a DM to use, and the DM might have valid reasons for doing so.

Your continued insistence on assuming bad faith on the part of DMs other than yourself is a bit grating.

Weren't you one of those calling us incompetent for not using GM force to solve all our problems? I might be misremembering, but, I know more than a few on your side of the fence has basically said that the reason we have the problems is that we're just not good enough DM's.

I do not believe you can find a quote where I called anyone incompetent. I do think that good DMing takes practice. I assume most of us have proved our bona fides that we have a few years under our belt. I do also believe, and I think everyone is in agreement on this, that different playstyles may create some problems that other playstyles do not and some mechanics will work better with different playstyles than with others. I do not think this contention is controversial at this point, and therefore, if you have problems with certain mechanics, and others do not, it is worth looking at what the difference in playstyles or gaming habits are before ruling the rules are broken.

Well, considering we're talking about ways to limit caster power, it's not really a stretch to think that these changes are being done as a means of limiting caster power. That's precisely the way they were being presented.

I am not talking about limiting caster power, except as in not giving players free reign to tell DMs what happens in the game is limiting (but that is a playstyle choice and not of itself a bad playstyle, though it may be different than yours). I am fine with my high level casters being powerful. They still, with all that power, do not outshine the rogues or fighters in our group.

Nor do I believe, though you keep insinuating, that I am somehow changing spells, or nerfing them against the rules, in order to somehow limit caster power. I do believe that a dynamic gameworld that responds to casters does a great deal to make casters self-regulate themselves. If selling your soul to gain the service of a devil has actual in-game consequences, then casters, especially good aligned ones, will think twice before calling up devils, demons, and such. This is not, as I am understanding the continued use of the term, DM force; rather it is the natural assumption of the designers, that DMs will make good decisions about how powerful, intelligent beings would react to mortals trying to cut deals with them.

I have yet to see a legitimate example of a really game breaking spell. Charm is certainly not it. Lesser Planar Binding is not it. Magic Jar is far from game breaking IMO. Divination spells have never been a problem, especially as, half the time, the players don't know the right question to ask. And when they do know, its normally beneficial towards moving the plot along. Simply put, the spells work just fine, as is, in a dynamic game world which responds vibrantly and meaningfully to the players and their choices.

Caveat: Polymorph, under 3.5, as noted before, is an exception to this opinion, not because of an inherent problem with the spell, but because of the creation of evermore monster books and therefore corner cases. I never had much problem with polymorph but I can understand how DMs with pushy players might have. Pathfinder solved this problem rather elegantly, and I recommend, as I have already, the Pathfinder solution to the polymorph problem.

 

[Dandu]

Then why not just cast dimension door to get into the vault in the first place?


Seriously, you are suggesting that because you can use a 5th level spell (lesser planar binding) and a 4th level spell (Dimensional Anchor), perhaps with a 3rd level spell (magic circle against evil) to do what you could do with a single 4th level spell (Dimension Door), that somehow the 5th level spell is too powerful?

Blind teleportation is not high on my list of winning strategies. Besides, I am merely establishing a point, that you can use low level spells to "power" high level spells.

Not to mention that using the 5th level spell in this way has imperiled your PCs life and soul.

I would hardly call a CR 5 Nightmare a deadly threat to a level 9 wizard. The disparity in power levels is quite severe.

And that a 9th level wizard that does this has used all of his top tier spells to get into and out of a single vault.

Whether this is a prudent use of resources depends, I suppose, on what is in the vault.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not sure if anyone besides @N'raac is interested but I'll be updating the thread with the play-post of my group's running of this scene and accompanying analysis (system, technique and why the way it worked out would be different with other systems, techniques, agendas).

Outside of that, I don't think I have much left to contribute to this thread. I've said my piece and broken the core issue down (technique specifically) and several orthogonal issues (system presumptions/mechanics and table agenda) down. I'm tapped out.

 

[pemerton]

Do I think casters get too many spell slots and recover them too easily? Yes. Do I think it typically breaks the game? No. Would I change it and give them fewer resources if I rewrote the game? Yes.

Some good equipment and buffs and the PF CMB rules pretty much negate those things. TB combat reactions help too. Even under the core rules, it always seemed to me that the basic fighter spine numbers were so dominant that they did alright.

<snip>

Iterative attack math can be a problem, one that Trailblazer patched pretty well.

<snip>

I'm playing a heroic high fantasy game. My players have much better ability scores than the standard array, and much more money than the DMG advises, and various other things.

I am not 100% clear on what version of 3E you are playing.

A point that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made upthread was that there seems to be at least a degree of tension in asserting both that core 3E (or, say, core 3.5) is balanced, and that the changes in PF which somewhat weakened at least some spells, and somewhat powered up fighters, are significant improvements to the balance of the game. The same thing appies to Trailblazer, which clearly in its rules text asserts that 3.5 as published had a balance problem:

Fighters don’t keep up with other classes as level increases. [TB, p 2]​

If you have made changes to the mechanics of the game you run, including adopting TB changes expressly designed to correct for the fact that in core 3.5 "fighters don't keep up with other classes as level increases", then why are you so critical of those who say that they have had trouble with caster/fighter balance in 3.5? Or in PF, for that matter - maybe whatever they were experiencing was a more extreme version of whatever TB improved for you, and so even PF or TB doesn't improve their game enough?

Changing other things too, like default stat array and default WBL also seems like something that might help fighters relative to casters, because fighters are more likely to care about a wider range of stats (STR, CON and DEX at least are all core to what fighters do) and have a performance that is more variable across changes in gear; whereas casters can often get buy just on their casting stat, and carry a lot more of their heft built in, via spell loadout, without the need for gear.

If you have made these changes, I'm again not really seeing why you are so harsh on those who are looking for other sorts of changes - say, a PHB3, ToB, ToM game - which might suit them better than the changes you've made.

In general, I consider a balanced encounter to be an even fight: that is, four PCs of level X against 4 NPCs of the same level, built the same way.
<snip>

In practice, the players have a much better feel for their characters and tend to use their abilities more effectively, so it swings their way.

<snip>

this is why I don't run a lot of battles. I want each one to be a big deal and generally carry a real risk.

Out of curiosity, how frequently do battles occur in your campaign?

Even allowing for the familiarity of the players with their PCs, and the intellectual synergies among a group of players vs a single GM, a party which survives 4 50/50 fights is doing pretty well, given that the likelihood of doing so is well below 10%.

To have a 50% chance of surviving 4 battles, the players' likelkihoo of winning each battle (assuming uniform odds across the four) have to be around 84%. If the battles are 50/50 in purely mechanical terms, then those non-mechanical contributions are making a big difference! Small changes in those odds make a big difference, too. Drop the 84% to 79% and there is a 50% chance of surviving 3 fights. Increase it to around 87% or 89% and there is 50% chance of surving 5 or 6 fights respectively.

In 4e the system mechanics are deliberately designed to leverage player familiarity and player intellectual synergy, by delivering to players significantly better than even mechanical chances of victory provided that they take advantage of their familiarity with their PCs, which (i) are far more complex in build than NPCs or monster, and (ii) work best in complex mechanical synergy with the other PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Weren't you one of those calling us incompetent for not using GM force to solve all our problems? I might be misremembering, but, I know more than a few on your side of the fence has basically said that the reason we have the problems is that we're just not good enough DM's.

I remember that being said by a few people too. My memory tells me that Wicht was one of them, but perhaps I'm misremembering.

I read the example and assume the DM, in good faith had a legitimate reason for a high DC.

<snip>

If a DM says, "no that won't work," or more likely, "Roll... no he is not listening," or,... "Before you can get your words to come out, he is turning away from you," then there is a possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that the DM is merely doing his job. And some of us (me) don't really like the whole, "Say yes, or roll," mentality. Sometimes I just want to say, "No, that's not going to work, try something else."

That may not be your playstyle, but it is not, by default, a bad playstyle.

Nor is it, by default, a good playstyle. Nor is it in any real sense the default playstyle.

In Gygaxian dungeon play it is common for the GM to "say no", because the GM is reasoning from secret background to fictional positioning of which the players are unaware. But another feature of Gygaxian dungeon play is that it happens in a dungeon, and the players are therefore able to take steps to uncover that secret background, and hence to change their PCs' fictional positioning.

For instance, if a PC wizard tries to Detect Magic, and the GM says that nothing is registering, this might because there is no magic around, or it might be because there is lead or gold blocking the spell. In Gygaxian play, the expectation is that the players might have their PCs tear down tapestries, rip apart furnishings etc looking for possible lead or gold defeaters of their detection spells.

Once we move the same sort of play into the king's palace, however, the dynamic is very different. If a PC tries to detec magic and fails, his/her player can't just choose to have the PC start ripping apart walls, furnishings etc. In other words the players' freedom to acquire the secret backstory that will then allow them to take steps to improve their PCs' fictional positioning relative to their goals is much less.

In my view, this is part of why there is something of a tradition of seeing dungeon play as open-ended and non-railroady in a way that urban and social play is seen as the opposite, even though - at first blush - it might seem that there are far more many pathways to take in a city than in a dungeon. It is because of the different position in the two scenario-types of the players and their PCs relative to the unknown backstory which they need to learn if they are to succeed.

Secret backstory in dungeon play is a type of default D&D playstyle. White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, any number of old White Dwarf scenarios, and (as best I know it) a more recent homage like Labyrinth of Madness, are all meant to be played in this style.

But secret backstory in social, urban or intrigue play in my view has never been a default playstyle for D&D. It has always been contentious, precisely because in those different fictional settings it is so hard for the players to access the secret backstory other than by having clues parcled out by the GM, who - in playing the "natural responses" of the good and the great to having their homes burgled, their minds controlled, etc - is also playing the major role in determining from moment to moment how feasible it is for the players, via their PCs, to obtain the backstory they need. (I also think that the dynamics of this sort of play, with the GM being in control both of backstory reveals and of making moment-to-moment decisions about how hard it is to extract that backstory, in some cases contribute to the reasonably well-known phenomenon of the players relating to the setting and its inhabitants essentially in the mode of sociopaths or psychopaths rather than actually embracing and caring about them.)

For the sort of game I enjoy, a GM who sets an impossibly high DC for the chamberlain on the basis of secret backstory, or who for reasons of fictional positioning derived from that secret backstory simply has the chamberlain walk away or say no, is not doing his/her job. S/he is, rather, taking the first step along a path which I know for my group at least will create intolerable tensions at the table, as the GM becomes both the hoarder and the revealer of information with no reliable way for the players to engage the game directly, and acquire the information they need, via action resolution + known fictional position.

The 4e designers were clearly aware of this issue, or stuff in the neighbourhood, because when they wrote in their secret backstory that the duke can't be Intimidated, they also wrote in (i) that there is a clear mechanical way for the players to learn this (via Insight) and (ii) that this won't in itself end the players' propects of success, as up to 5 failures are permitted, and an Intimidate check won't contribute more than one of them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A point that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made upthread was that there seems to be at least a degree of tension in asserting both that core 3E (or, say, core 3.5) is balanced, and that the changes in PF which somewhat weakened at least some spells, and somewhat powered up fighters, are significant improvements to the balance of the game. The same thing appies to Trailblazer, which clearly in its rules text asserts that 3.5 as published had a balance problem

None of those really change the magic/non-magic paradigm radically though. Fighters are still commoners that swing really fast and are tough, while wizards are the ones who do stuff that other people can't.

I'm trying to walk the line here of explaining that the rules aren't perfect, but that the variants I use are not to fix some huge problem, they're tweaks to a variety of ends. There are some real mechanical issues being touched on, but I don't think they ruin the play experience and I don't think they're difficult to fix, by and large.

I am not 100% clear on what version of 3E you are playing.

You and me both.
Does it really matter that much? I've played 3.0 and 3.5 basically as written, and then mixed in ideas from every other source I could find. I've had it every which way. Do I like the customized game better? Yes. Have various changes I've made changed class balance to some extent? Yes. Are we talking about my particular game? No.

Changing other things too, like default stat array and default WBL also seems like something that might help fighters relative to casters, because fighters are more likely to care about a wider range of stats (STR, CON and DEX at least are all core to what fighters do) and have a performance that is more variable across changes in gear; whereas casters can often get buy just on their casting stat, and carry a lot more of their heft built in, via spell loadout, without the need for gear.

Absolutely. In a game with no wealth and close to average ability scores, a wizard who can cast Fireball is working miracles. In a game where your fighter is Hercules, that wizard is less impressive. Nonmagical abilities are more responsive to those kinds of changes in power level. Meaning that the between-class comparison is not a static thing, nor should it be.

If you have made these changes, I'm again not really seeing why you are so harsh on those who are looking for other sorts of changes - say, a PHB3, ToB, ToM game - which might suit them better than the changes you've made.

There is no PHB3 for 3e, but assuming you meant the second one, it's irrelevant. My issues with some of those rules are pretty well documented. I don't think it's a question of one versus another.

Moreover, as we've covered before, my broader houserule environment includes a spell point system that makes all spells at the highest DC, XP-free magic item creation, and various other perks, so it's not like I rebalanced my rules solely to make the fighters better. I've made everything better.

Out of curiosity, how frequently do battles occur in your campaign?

Typically 1-2 in a 4-6 hour session, with maybe two or three such sessions per character level. Probably 20-30% of play time.

Even allowing for the familiarity of the players with their PCs, and the intellectual synergies among a group of players vs a single GM, a party which survives 4 50/50 fights is doing pretty well, given that the likelihood of doing so is well below 10%.

True. I understand the math. It's a fascinating phenomenon. On some level, I'm just creating input and watching the game engine run.

Of course, it may also be something that occurs at the character optimization level. Typically I'm the one trying the fancy spells, your summonings, your enchantments, your polymorphs. I run a lot of high level caster BBEGs. Whereas the players tend to be more straightforward. A lot of martial types, mixed martial/casters. A lot of direct attack and buff spells. Not a lot of gimmicks. Maybe if I just stopped playing the weaker classes...