Class Balance - why?

uh....... Is that supposed to be a real situation? In your campaign clerics can cast death ward in response to an attack? Don't see where thats in the rules. And it is only applicable to one target... soooo hows he doing it for the wizard?
He cast it before hand, of course. But he can only cast it twice, so he decided to put it on the 2 most important party members. I know, since my 14th level cleric did this as standard procedure before going into each battle that we suspected would use that type of spell. They were on their way to destroy it, so it was a precaution.

And if disintegrate is 2d6 per level, and the wizard is level 14, it seems to me we are looking at 84 damage? At that level the fighter has 3 attacks per round, EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Wheres the imbalance again?
I apologize, I missed a step and estimated instead of calcluating the numbers. This happened in a game we played(not all of it in the same combat, but the pieces happened separately and were put together to prove a point). The exact sequence was: Quickened True Strike, Sudden Maximized Disintegrate. It did "only" 168 damage. Still killed the enemy in one hit though.

As for the Fighter, there's a number of things causing the imbalance. He had +22 to hit with his primary attack. Most enemies were floating around AC 30. That means that he hit with with his second attack less than 50% of of the time and his third attack his around 15% of the time. On an average round he'd hit 0-1 times. Especially against harder enemies. The second and third attacks were often just a waste of the time it took to roll them.

When he did hit, he was doing 1d8+12 damage. Or 16.4 damage on average. If he hit with all his attacks miraculously, he'd need 3.4 rounds of attacking before he could equal the ONE spell cast by the Wizard(or 2, given that be made sure he hit with the True Strike). Including chance to hit, he'd need closer to 10 rounds to equal that damage.

During the day in question, there were 3 battles. Each one of them lasted between 1 and 2 rounds. So, that's no more than 6 rounds of combat in the day. The Wizard used lesser tricks in the rest of the combats. But most of them were way more powerful than whatever the fighter did as well.
And why is the DM throwing such that encounter at them anyways? Because hes wants to prove a point on a forum board or because he wants to run a fun game?
Because his players were complaining that the game was too easy. Everything dies on round one or two. Nothing seemed like an epic fight. They laughed at how this one really powerful Wizard who apparently had lived for hundreds of years and was 3 levels above them died before he even got to cast a spell.

Also, because portions of that were no fun for the DM. The DM wanted the PCs to every once in a while be scared of the enemies. He wanted combat to be something other than watching the PCs laugh at how easy his game was. To show a bit of healthy concerned for their own lives.

But they never did. Because they rightfully believed that they were nearly indestructible. The cleric could cast heal 4 times a day and that was enough to restore someone from empty to full. Plus he had enough other spells to restore another 4 or 5 more people from empty to full. If the worst happened, he could Raise Dead and always kept the money to do so. In between combat he had enough wands to restore the entire party from empty to full 5 or 6 times.

The Wizard had enough offensive ability to kill most enemies on round 1 or 2 for 3-4 combats a day. And if it took longer than that, he had the ability to teleport out and possibly fail their mission, but keep all of them alive.

The DM was just sick of combat being exactly the same each time: Roll initiative, either PCs go first and the enemies die or the enemies go first and do negligible damage to one of them and then die on the PCs turn.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.

Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?

That is where you'll find inspiration for d&d magic. Talk about that rather than rehash tired old arguments please.
I disagree. I understand his point. D&D has previously been modeled on books and literature that many people have not read and do not want to read. Instead, they read other fantasy books and watch fantasy movies. They expect their D&D to model the types of fantasy they like. Instead D&D models a type of fantasy that very few people have read. Then D&D attempts to justify its imbalance by saying "But, we are just trying to make it like fantasy literature."

I do think of Gandalf when I think of the archtypical Wizard. The fact that he has only the most tenuous relationships with D&D Wizards is kind of the point.
 

Well, that is a trail of woe, isn't it?

Goodness knows how many of us were frustrated with vancian magic back in the 70's, the fanzines were full of spell point systems, klutz systems and other mechanisms to allow wizards to cast more like the characters in our favourite literature but you know what? D&d never really changed.

Fact is, if you want to play a fantasy game that models a particular fictional world, you almost certainly don't choose d&d. You choose another rpg that is either directly customised to fit or a more generic one as a base.

However, there is now a huge back catalog of d&d based fiction - who is to say that newcomers to d&d won't have read that first? The fantasy fiction market has changed a lot in the last 40 years.
 

From @GeeksDreamGirl twitter, tweeting the seminar happening now on DnDXP:

"#ddxp Monte: A #dnd wizard MEANS something. It's diff than Gandalf, or a spellcaster in Skyrim. We are focusing on the feeling of the class."

And then they explain how they want to find what make it each different and a 'DnD class'. They have good intentions, at least.
 

I apologize, I missed a step and estimated instead of calcluating the numbers. This happened in a game we played(not all of it in the same combat, but the pieces happened separately and were put together to prove a point). The exact sequence was: Quickened True Strike, Sudden Maximized Disintegrate. It did "only" 168 damage. Still killed the enemy in one hit though.

As for the Fighter, there's a number of things causing the imbalance. He had +22 to hit with his primary attack. Most enemies were floating around AC 30. That means that he hit with with his second attack less than 50% of of the time and his third attack his around 15% of the time. On an average round he'd hit 0-1 times. Especially against harder enemies. The second and third attacks were often just a waste of the time it took to roll them.

When he did hit, he was doing 1d8+12 damage. Or 16.4 damage on average. If he hit with all his attacks miraculously, he'd need 3.4 rounds of attacking before he could equal the ONE spell cast by the Wizard(or 2, given that be made sure he hit with the True Strike). Including chance to hit, he'd need closer to 10 rounds to equal that damage.

Seems like you had an optimized wizard and an unoptimized fighter in the same party. A fighter with WF, GWF, Str 24 and +5 weapon would have +28 to hit, for example. That's probably not particularly optimized either.

I don't necessarily like the fact that power level in 3e depends on optimization, but it does mean even two characters of the same class can easily be "unbalanced", if only one is optimized.
 

From @GeeksDreamGirl twitter, tweeting the seminar happening now on DnDXP:

"#ddxp Monte: A #dnd wizard MEANS something. It's diff than Gandalf, or a spellcaster in Skyrim. We are focusing on the feeling of the class."

And then they explain how they want to find what make it each different and a 'DnD class'. They have good intentions, at least.
For the Twitter challenged (like me), the tweet is here: https://twitter.com/#!/geeksdreamgirl/status/162598657760301056 and GeeksDreamGirl's feed/stream/whatever here: https://twitter.com/#!/geeksdreamgirl
 

Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.

Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?
I think it's a bit much to claim that comparisons of D&D to LotR are somehow out-of-bounds. Large parts of the original game were lifted wholesale from Tolkien (e.g. all of the PC races that are not named "gnome"). Nearly every effect that Gandalf produces in the books became a D&D spell. While some of those game elements have evolved and mutated over the years, LotR was clearly a big influence on D&D in general and on D&D magic, even if the resource system and other spells are taken from Vance.
 

I think it's a bit much to claim that comparisons of D&D to LotR are somehow out-of-bounds. Large parts of the original game were lifted wholesale from Tolkien (e.g. all of the PC races that are not named "gnome"). Nearly every effect that Gandalf produces in the books became a D&D spell. While some of those game elements have evolved and mutated over the years, LotR was clearly a big influence on D&D in general and on D&D magic, even if the resource system and other spells are taken from Vance.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what powers he displayed in the books. Especially since he was basically a god that could do MUCH more then what he displayed in the books because he was forbidden from directly interfering.

And, we don't need to justify flying because Gandalf did it. Its there because its fun to do. Heres a crazy idea, instead of making classes less fun, lets make them all more fun.
 

Especially since he was basically a god that could do MUCH more then what he displayed in the books because he was forbidden from directly interfering.

I'm really not getting where that comes from. Gandalf interferes all the time. It is, in fact, his job to do so. He does so indirectly or subtlely because, in a mano a mano fight with Sauron, he's badly outclassed. In order to maximize his effectiveness, he has to apply strategy, avoid the head-on conflict, and not draw too much attention to himself when he's supposed to be traveling in secret.
With that in mind, we can neither conclude that Gandalf is like a D&D wizard or unlike a D&D wizard except in very limited ways.
 

What about the kind of Wizards Conan fought? Did they disintegrate people much, teleport, fly? And was he unable to survive against one of them without protective spells cast by friendly mages?

Yes. See "The People of the Black Circle," where he needed the magic belt to protect him from sorcery, so he could take out the Seers.

Or, "The Hour of the Dragon," where he needed a friendly wizard to take out the undead wizard of Acheron (forgot his name) while Conan dealt with the mundane forces.

Or, '"The Scarlet Citadel," for a similar situation to the above.

R. E. Howard's Conan is not the best example for this argument. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top