Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5884749" data-attributes="member: 87792">There speaks a simulationist.  It is absolutely not necessary that NPCs and PCs use the same rules - their functions are different.  And there certainly isn't balance between the King's Champion and an apprentice wizard.  Balance matters at precisely two points.  Firstly intra-PC balance so you don't get Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.  And secondly for measuring the strength of PCs relative to the world to allow a pacing mechanism.I don't care how you set your gameworld up.  I care that the system does not lie.  If the system claims that two characters are equal level then they should be equally powerful.  If there are no fighters in your world above level 10 with the exception of PCs then you get exactly the result you want without the suystem being deceptive about it.The only thing PC-NPC balance provides is information.  The DM can set NPC levels to whatever he or she wants.And fighters should be able to do things wizards can't - and simply can't in (pre-4e) D&D.  What they should be able to do is have killed three enemies by the time the wizard is two syllables into his spell.  They should be an order of magnitude better at killing stuff than a caster.  Fighters fight.  Stack all the cleric's possible self-buffs and they should still barely stand up to a fighter.  The fighter should be that good. That D&D was his game at core.Three types. You're just confusing two.  If you want magic in the world to be stronger than mundane in the world that's fine.  All the kings are wizards?  Doesn't change gameplay.  But within the party, characters of the same level should be equally strong.  That being a level 12 thief makes you The World's Greatest Thief, and being a level 12 wizard wouldn't make you strongest mage in a kingdom is absolutely fine.  But a wizard 12 being an order of magnitude more useful to the party than a thief 12 is simply bad design.I named SR ignoring spells from core.Anything that allows a wizard to outfight a fighter of the same level is overpowered.  I'm not sure how the wyvern stacks up.Even picking only out of the SRD, 3.5 Polymorph is overpowered.  You don't have to overpower polymorph spells - it's just that it's easy and 3.X gave little thought to it.No it doesn't.  It just requires one monster that someone considers cool that happens to be broken when someone polymorphs into it.I've friends who like squid.  One of them's a biologist - and I can picture him playing a character that will turn into a giant squid no matter how strong it is.  But will still dominate 3.X even without intent.  Yup.  Polymorph is cheese.  Stinky stupidly broken cheese - and it shouldn't be.  If ever there was an iconic wizard spell outside D&D I'd call either Polymorph or Baleful Polymorph (croak!).The big problem with casters is that the most broken options are almost all in the PHB.  Three of the six top tier classes are PHB.  Six of the ten spells LogicNinja identifies as broken in his wizard guide are PHB (and a further two are PHB2).  Restricting by source doesn't help.  (Banning anything that involves shapechanging does - and that further restricts wizards from having anything to do with mythological wizards, when shapeshifting was the main flashy spell in mythology).You miss a huge point.  First as a new player my instinct was to reach for the polymorph.  Because that was a type of wizard that looked fun, interesting, and mythological.  Second, spells don't need to be broken.  They just need to be good.  And that as you're learning what to ban you're also learning what works well.</blockquote>

Verification