Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

Bob is a highly powerful wizard. He binds a barbed devil, Ted. He does what any wizard going for bound minions would do. He debuffs the ever-loving hell out of it. Curses galore, Lesser geas it can't meet, throw mind-affecting crap on there, too, until it's intolerable. Hell, if they're even remotely psychologically similar to humans(Which they'd need to be for "reasonably" to even be comparable to what a human would), you could probably mundanely screw with the head if you're clever enough. It has no chance to make the roll. It cannot stand being bound and cursed as it is, and you'll kill it permanently if it doesn't give in. Isn't long-term service "reasonable" when the alternative is this?

Sure.

 

[delericho]

Sure, if you're willing to put your clothes on the disk too.

As noted up-thread, in 3.5e (but not, curiously, Pathfinder), your first set of normal clothes don't count towards encumbrance. (I believe that's stated in the PHB but not the SRD, hence my inability to cite at present.)

 

[MerricB]

As noted up-thread, in 3.5e (but not, curiously, Pathfinder), your first set of normal clothes don't count towards encumbrance. (I believe that's stated in the PHB but not the SRD, hence my inability to cite at present.)

PHB page 131, under Clothing. "This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry."

 

[Ahnehnois]

The charge of coddling still stands. When you automatically assume that any wizard that sees play is already 13th or greater in level, has hundreds of thousands to spend on magic items, is protected by DM fiat and plot device.

This is an important point. I think it's easy to see that certain circumstances can favor some classes over others. However, with regards to spellcasters those circumstances seem to be assumed for some reason.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is an important point. I think it's easy to see that certain circumstances can favor some classes over others. However, with regards to spellcasters those circumstances seem to be assumed for some reason.

Or, its just fundamental that the guy carrying (i) a two-way radio to a man in field, (ii) a two-way radio to on-demand air strikes, (iii) sat-nav equipment, (iv) stealth tech, (v) on-demand heavy artillery, (vi) on-demand infantry, (vii) an on-demand ambassador with diplomatic immunity, (viii) an exhaustive library of information on relevant subjects trapped in his head or a button press away is going to rarely, if ever, in a situation with unfavorable circumstances versus the guy on the other side of the two-way radio in (i) who has a rifle, a trench knife, a helmet, and some body armor and has his two-radio taken away.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Sure.

Is not potentially indefinite service equally reasonable, when the one serving is an immortal serving a mortal? Especially when one is in a highly hierarchical society, for lack of a better word, and there is massive gain that could be gotten if the devil tries to corrupt said highly powerful wizard? How about merely the threat of such measures, does that make the request "reasonable?"

Hell, if we want to really take a long walk down this mechanically meaningless part of the road, Devils have the Lawful subtype. They are from planes made of the essence of hierarchy, and they, themselves, are partial extensions of that. From their perspective, wouldn't obeisance and submission to an obvious superior be completely reasonable, and among the first things to cross their minds?

This is an important point. I think it's easy to see that certain circumstances can favor some classes over others. However, with regards to spellcasters those circumstances seem to be assumed for some reason.

No, they exist without exception beyond fiat.

Or, let me put it another way: In utility, casters win. In information and preparedness, casters win. In combat, casters win. Very, very win. Hell, wizards are even better at stabbing people to death than non-casters. Casters winning at everything isn't just a fact, it is ingrained at every level of the system. The only "circumstances" being assumed here is that you are playing D&D 3.5, which, in a discussion of D&D 3.5, hardly seems like a stretch.

This "coddling" line is an obvious, rather sad attempt to evade the point rather than simply concede.

 

[Hussar]

I look at it like this.

If you have non-caster party (or at least limited to say rangers and paladins), you could conceivably run the same adventure, increased for difficulty for level differences, for any level of this group. They will approach every challenge pretty much the same way. A chasm in the way? They shoot an arrow across and make a rope bridge. Doesn't really matter what level the group is, they're going to do the same thing.

In a party with casters, the campaign radically changes as time goes on. The first level party shoots an arrow across the chasm and makes a rope bridge. The 7th level party has the wizard fly across and secure a bridge. A high level party has the caster fly the entire party across and doesn't need a bridge at all.

In other words, the challenge goes from a serious one to a speed bump, simply because the casters gain so many more options. The campaign undergoes radical changes as the party gets higher levels. Exploration changes radically - instead of needing food and foraging, the Cleric drops Hero's Feast and now the party is fed, and immune to poison. The treasure is under water/behind a wall of magma/in some really hard to get to place? The wizard teleports and gets it. The cleric casts a water breathing spell and now the party can all swim.

On and on.

The non casters, as time goes on, become more and more dependent on the casters, while the casters become less dependent on the non-casters.

 

[Cadence]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand: Is that a serious question, or a counter-argument?

It was a serious question to see if it could dispense with the ray of enfeeblement argument Thanks for the explanation.

If a Wizard was planning on spending all that time taking out an old dragon and realized that was their one week spot they could either make, borrow, or steal one. If they're seriously considering taking out a dragon on their own, how hard could stealing a belt from a fighter be?

If the Ray of Enfeeblement has been removed as a serious threat, then I'm happy to withdraw the question.

 

[N'raac]

Nope. Wizards are learned, Sorcerers are dragony.

Wizards learn through intelligence, seek out arcane lore and prepare spells. Sorcerers possess innate magic potential which they harness through force of will and personality. It is commonly assumed the sorcerer has some magical creature in its ancestry, but not necessarily a dragon. And that’s less mechanical than the interpretation of “reasonable”.

Obviously they didn't, given how a basic arcane education teaches me all I need to know about magical creatures.

It provides the same level of knowledge regarding magic traditions and arcane symbols. For appropriate creatures, it provides one useful bit of information at a DC of 10 + HD, more for each 5 points the roll succeeds by.

Spellcraft allows a roll to identify a spell being cast, identify a spell in effect or identify materials created or modified by spells. It seems like knowing a spell exists which could accomplish some given task falls either within spellcraft (at less DC than specifically identifying the spell in progress), or Knowledge: Arcana. I favour the latter, as knowing about spells seems more in keeping with the Knowledge than the Crafting skill.

Contact Other Plane. Use every single slot save for your "OH

" buttons.

“All questions are answered with “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” “never,” “irrelevant,” or some other one-word answer.” A 10% chance of a lie or random answer also exists at the “Greater deity” level. You’ll need a lot of castings to go from “I have the vague sense there is a dragon out there somewhere” to a copy of the GM’s map of the lair, surrounding area and the dragon’s stat block.
[MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] – we discussed Taking 10 on the INT roll yesterday. I didn’t look that close – did you? Specifically, is there any rule that says you can Take 10 on an attribute roll, or anything other than a skill roll? This is an Intelligence check, not a skill check, after all. While “you may take 10” seems reasonable to allow the spell to be used with less risk, is it within RAW? After all, we want to stick to RAW, in accordance with CJ’s edicts, right?

Because nothing was defined. Therefore, "unreasonable" is meaningless from a mechanical perspective.

It is part of the rules within the spell. If the restriction to “reasonable” services cant be upheld, then why would any portion of the spell remain?

You're joking, right? "Clear idea" and "Study" are both trivially easy with divination.[/quote0

You keep saying that. I am waiting for the divination spell that gets you an hour of studying the location. And I don’t interpret a 10’ square to be “a clear idea of the location”.

...Are you trying to, like, pull a satire about rabid anti-optimizers? 'Cuz that's all I'm getting from your post.

Frankly, I long since gave up any care what, if anything, you get from my posts. I generally post about the issue, not to any specific poster.

No it doesn't.
No we don't.
...Uh, no. Did you even read a single post? Or are you here to post meaningless one-liners

See, the thing about irony is – it’s just so darned ironic!

While I agree that they are necessary, a discussion about the mechanics of it are the only thing that we all have in common here.

Also, I question the wisdom of attempting to push human ideas of reason onto intelligent immortal beings made out of the idea of Evil, especially one so hierarchical as to have the Lawful subtype.

Yet you are trying to push your ideas of reason on such creatures. Are you telling us you do not consider yourself (or your ideas of reason) to be human?

Or, let me put it this way: Bob is a highly powerful wizard. He binds a barbed devil, Ted. He does what any wizard going for bound minions would do. He debuffs the ever-loving hell out of it. Curses galore, Lesser geas it can't meet, throw mind-affecting crap on there, too, until it's intolerable. Hell, if they're even remotely psychologically similar to humans(Which they'd need to be for "reasonably" to even be comparable to what a human would), you could probably mundanely screw with the head if you're clever enough. It has no chance to make the roll. It cannot stand being bound and cursed as it is, and you'll kill it permanently if it doesn't give in. Isn't long-term service "reasonable" when the alternative is this?

It only has a +12 will save to attempt daily. And an 18 CHA, so that check will have a shot, although that DC is quite high. Enjoy your opposed CHA checks. As well:

If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free.

Indefinite service cannot even be bargained for effectively. Looking more deeply at the Planar Binding rules, you also need a Magic Circle, focused inward. That circle lasts a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, so your time to persuade the target is not unlimited.

I rather suspect a response of “Foolish mortal – do you think you torment me? I am a creature of Hell – I have endured centuries of torments you cannot even imagine!”

I don’t see anything that says you can’t cast spells on the victim. Other than that, I think your approach at obtaining a long-term servant relies on a pretty lenient interpretation of the rules, and your views that you can obtain a lifelong servant completely ignores the limit on indefinite services set out in the spell rules themselves.

But feel free to continue criticizing the reading abilities of those who do not bow to your wisdom!

Is not potentially indefinite service equally reasonable, when the one serving is an immortal serving a mortal? Especially when one is in a highly hierarchical society, for lack of a better word, and there is massive gain that could be gotten if the devil tries to corrupt said highly powerful wizard? How about merely the threat of such measures, does that make the request "reasonable?"

About that heirarchical evil society – I wonder how that Devil’s REAL master feels about these presumptuous mortals stealing away his servant. In any case, the belief “potentially indefinite service” is even remotely possible demonstrates a failure to actually read and/or comprehend the rules.

As to corrupting the wizard, he’s already summoning devils. Seems like that ship has sailed.

This "coddling" line is an obvious, rather sad attempt to evade the point rather than simply concede.

You act like you can win the Internet, somehow. It’s quite entertaining, so please don’t stop on my account!

I’d call removing the restrictions of spells to let the wizard have his powers extended “coddling”. Perhaps my own failure to consider whether Take 10 could properly apply to that COP INT roll was a form of coddling. Certainly, assuming any task the wizard requests, or ignoring the time limit on “indefinite servitude”, or failing to determine the duration and restrictions on the Planar Bindings and the attendant Magic Circles, thus interpreting the spells entirely to the Wizard’s favour, rather than objectively applying the rules as written, would reasonably be considered “coddling the wizard”. At least, to my limited human reasoning.

 

[delericho]

It was a serious question to see if it could dispense with the ray of enfeeblement argument Thanks for the explanation.

No worries. I just wasn't sure.

If a Wizard was planning on spending all that time taking out an old dragon and realized that was their one week spot they could either make, borrow, or steal one. If they're seriously considering taking out a dragon on their own, how hard could stealing a belt from a fighter be?

Well, exactly.

If the Ray of Enfeeblement has been removed as a serious threat, then I'm happy to withdraw the question.

Well, you don't have to worry about it from over here. Can't really speak for anyone else, though.