D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nagol]

Do you think AD&D2e was unbalanced toward non-casters? Do you think in AD&D, fighters were much better than wizards?

Let's see what did 3e mean to fighters:
They lost the unique perc with physical stats: no longer able to have 18/00 str, or being the unique beyond +2 Con bonus to HP.
They lost the unique extra 1/2 attack from weapon specialization. New BAB is somewhat comparable, but it's free for all characters, not something unique to them
They have a harder XP table beyond lvl 9 than before (as the table is standarized now)

Let's see what it did for wizards:
Wizards spells are no longer interrupted if the wizard is damaged in the round before casting it (need to be in the same exact moment, through ready action)
Wizards are no longer fragile: in AD&D2e, wizards had 1d4 hp, +2 max from con. At level 9, that was 9d4+18, for a wizard with starting 16 in con, or 40-41 hp. Now, they can have more than +2 from con, and Con can be boosted with belts/amulets/whatever. So that's 9d4+45, for an average of 60 or so hp at lvl 9 (not including things like toughness)
They get a better XP table beyond lvl 9, as the table is standard.

So, let's see: fighters lost things, and got a worse XP table. Wizards won things, and got a better XP table. In my opinion, either no single edition was balanced between casters and non-casters before the advent of 3e (and thus 3e brought balance to the system), or every other edition was balanced (or closer to balance) and 3e broke that.

They did a lot more to both categories. For Fighter-types, melee damage went up massively. In my 3.5e campaign, the main fighters were competing to do the most damage -- they were doing 200+ per round on "good" rounds. The damage increase was matched by hit point inflation -- especially at levels >9 but even low levels gained a substantial boost.

Everyone got a massive boost to making saving throws at low level -- the bonus erodes at higher levels compared to earlier editions, but the difference at low levels is massive. Wizard spells got capped or reduced damage compared to 1e and had to deal with the same hit point inflation the fighter damage was increased to handle. Further, spells that were restricted by hit point total like Power Word: Kill did not have their thresholds adjusted even though high level opponent hit points trebled or more. Compare ancient red dragon hit point totals and the hit point cap of the power words.

 

[Obryn]

They did a lot more to both categories. For Fighter-types, melee damage went up massively. In my 3.5e campaign, the main fighters were competing to do the most damage -- they were doing 200+ per round on "good" rounds. The damage increase was matched by hit point inflation -- especially at levels >9 but even low levels gained a substantial boost.

Everyone got a massive boost to making saving throws at low level -- the bonus erodes at higher levels compared to earlier editions, but the difference at low levels is massive. Wizard spells got capped or reduced damage compared to 1e and had to deal with the same hit point inflation the fighter damage was increased to handle. Further, spells that were restricted by hit point total like Power Word: Kill did not have their thresholds adjusted even though high level opponent hit points trebled or more. Compare ancient red dragon hit point totals and the hit point cap of the power words.

Yes, hit points inflated. The issue is that casters have ways of bypassing hit points entirely, while Fighters don't.

Spell saves increase with spell power for Wizards in 3.x, but become massively harder against powerful opponents in 1e/2e. Likewise, it is much easier in 3.x to have a spell to go against a monster's one or two bad saves. (For example: A big, high-level brute in 3e almost certainly has bad Reflex and Will saves, and can be bypassed by a number of spells. In 1e or 2e, their saves all get better with level using the Fighter table.) What's more, there are ways in 3.x to make spell saves significantly harder, such as the famous Headband of Intellect or a number of feats.

Also... The increased difficulty in interrupting spells can't be ignored.

-O

 

[glenrm]

For some reason it just doesn't bother that Wizards have all these powers, it is has never bothered my players either. It doesn't hurt if you let Fighters and other non-spell casters get at least one or two magic items early.

 

[JamesonCourage]

How can you remotely know what chocolate mousse tastes like if you've never eaten it? How can you make an informed and reasoned judgement of how people "enjoy" it or not? What basis do you have? None.

I want to answer this, but I want to try to make this conversation productive, so please know that I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Can I, as someone who has never tried chocolate mousse, say that I dislike it? Personally, I don't like chocolate (well, I like white chocolate). Is that enough for me to say that I wouldn't enjoy it? I think I can safely make this judgement.

Can I say that I wouldn't want to be shot? I've felt pain before. So, I think I can safely say that, too.

If we extend this, can I say I dislike a game with a lot of meta mechanics, since I've played other games, and I disliked the meta mechanics when they popped up? I think I can here, too.

This is about where I land on this. Reading something goes a long way, especially if you've played something similar, or in the same vein. If I dislike a game for being highly lethal, is it okay for me to read a game with rules that make for a highly lethal game, and say that I wouldn't enjoy that game? I think that's fair. But I'm curious what you think. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

I want to answer this, but I want to try to make this conversation productive, so please know that I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Can I, as someone who has never tried chocolate mousse, say that I dislike it? Personally, I don't like chocolate (well, I like white chocolate). Is that enough for me to say that I wouldn't enjoy it? I think I can safely make this judgement.

Can I say that I wouldn't want to be shot? I've felt pain before. So, I think I can safely say that, too.

If we extend this, can I say I dislike a game with a lot of meta mechanics, since I've played other games, and I disliked the meta mechanics when they popped up? I think I can here, too.

This is about where I land on this. Reading something goes a long way, especially if you've played something similar, or in the same vein. If I dislike a game for being highly lethal, is it okay for me to read a game with rules that make for a highly lethal game, and say that I wouldn't enjoy that game? I think that's fair. But I'm curious what you think. As always, play what you like

I would say you're perfectly safe if you're trying to figure out whether or not you'd like it. I would say you're overreaching if you are loudly proclaiming to others how bad chocolate mousse is, or trying to construct intelligible critiques about it.

And yes, whether or not you think you'll like it, your opinions about it have less weight for me (an outside observer) than someone who's tried it.

-O

 

[timASW]

... Said the anonymous guy who just told everyone who plays 4e that they have no real idea about why they like it but it's certainly not because of the system because he know better than they do about why it's possible to enjoy D&D...

Sounds a lot like 4e players who tell everyone who has tried it and still thinks it sucks that they just dont know how to play and if they just bought the

PHB2.
DMG 2
Monster vault
Essentials LINE
Rules compendium

And assorted other 50$ books, refluffed half the 4e material, and house-ruled the stuff we didnt re-fluff then we would realize that 4e is really the most awesome game ever.

And its somehow OUR fault that after finding our first few months and 200$ or so of investment wanting we dont just shell out another 400$ or so for books and put the stuff that we know for a fact we do enjoy on the sideline for a few more months (and expect all our players to do the same) in the vague hope that they're right and this thing can actually be frankenstiened into a better version of the game we already have.

 

[Obryn]

Sounds a lot like 4e players who tell everyone who has tried it and still thinks it sucks that they just dont know how to play and if they just bought the

PHB2.
DMG 2
Monster vault
Essentials LINE
Rules compendium

And assorted other 50$ books, refluffed half the 4e material, and house-ruled the stuff we didnt re-fluff then we would realize that 4e is really the most awesome game ever.

And its somehow OUR fault that after finding our first few months and 200$ or so of investment wanting we dont just shell out another 400$ or so for books and put the stuff that we know for a fact we do enjoy on the sideline for a few more months (and expect all our players to do the same) in the vague hope that they're right and this thing can actually be frankenstiened into a better version of the game we already have.

I am 100% sure that is not what I'm saying, as you'd know if you comprehended the last few ridiculous pages of this thread.

-O

 

[timASW]

But, if a level /isn't/ power, what is it? Perhaps I'm using a weird, personal definiton of 'power', but I'd venture to say a more experienced musician is a more powerful musician, at least from the point of view of the metrics a game would care about. I mean, it represents experience and skill, translated into a relative measure. So higher levels means more experience and skill - not a stretch to say more powerful, huh?.

Level is your relative power IN YOUR FIELD. Not in the general world at all things.

To go back to the fighter/bard example. Should a grammy winning guitar player (probably mid level with bard) be able to strap on a pair of gloves and beat the hell out of a golden gloves (amatuer, low level) boxer in the ring because he's higher level?

Or should that very high level guitarist get beaten within an inch of his life by the skilled but ammy (low level) boxer in a boxing match?

And to flip it around should a championship professional boxer be able to tell stories or otherwise enthrall a crowd with speech or music as well as say a highschool music teacher (low level bard) with a guitar?

** assuming the crowd does not recognize the boxer, so that fame is not an issue.

Until you answer those very fundamental questions you cant decide how you really want level to relate to objective power.

 

[timASW]

I am 100% sure that is not what I'm saying, as you'd know if you comprehended the last few ridiculous pages of this thread.

-O

I've you seen you say it about 20 times in other threads though. Balesir is worse about it, and neonchameleon is pretty much a shrieking zealot on the topic.

So yes, that is absolutey the very regular attitude presented by 4e fans to anyone who doesnt like it. Especially since WoTC killed it in favor of a new edition, which has made it way, way worse.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would say you're perfectly safe if you're trying to figure out whether or not you'd like it. I would say you're overreaching if you are loudly proclaiming to others how bad chocolate mousse is, or trying to construct intelligible critiques about it.

I think it's pretty much bad to proclaim anything really concrete in a general statement, as long as that thing is subjectively-based. Things like "balance" and "mechanically superior" etc. are all subjective in the sense that the Fun gained from them is variable. Just like how I don't like chocolate.

And yes, whether or not you think you'll like it, your opinions about it have less weight for me (an outside observer) than someone who's tried it.

When it comes to something I've essentially tried before (chocolate), why would my opinion mean less? I mean, taste is all subjective anyways. Just like Fun is with RPG mechanics. As always, play what you like