I begin to worry...

[Counterspin]

But if you randomize wizards, the imbalances become even worse. Wizard A, who got all the good spells, is just as good as any wizard with an optimized spell list, and Wizard B, who got all the bad spells, is wretched. All the while denying the player the possibility to pursue spells which fit his playstyle, or synergize well, or whatever else. It seems to me to take the fun of spell selection away, while not really improving anything.

And again, I'm just flaberghasted by people who don't want D&D to strive for balance. The point of having a level system is to produce characters of similar power levels, and in this 3rd edition is a significant failure. The combination of focus on system mastery and the low quality of the playtesting(playing what you like to play rather than probing to find systemic flaws) allow for huge variance in power level amongst similar level characters.

 

[Psion]

I just wish I had more options once levels hit double digits than wizard, cleric or druid.

Heh. The grass is always greener on the other side, eh? It seems to me, when players are making higher level characters, that getting a spell selection is a genuine pain for some spellcasters.

I know many players who play fighters precisely because they DON'T want complicated decisions.

 

[Psion]

Yeah, because the party focus fires on the wizard.

No, because the wizard has poor HP and armor selection and doesn't have near the defenses against magic and melee that the cleric does.

Why? Because its usually the more powerful class. Also the wizard needs a standard action to do his trick. The fighter in 3.5 needs a full round action.

That would be meaningful if the wizard had anything to do with the remaining movement action than trying to stay out of melee because the first big hit by a creature like a troll would take him out.

A commoner can contribute to the game. I mean, aid other is fun too right?

A commoner isn't going to mop up enemies like a fighter is.

I seriously question whether you've seen a fighter contribute equally to the guy who can teleport, read minds, alter his shape, rob others of their will, summon extraplanar entities... need I go on? The fighter swings his weapon.

I'm a little confused about what else you expect the fighter to do. The progress options for a fighter allow him to swing his weapon really good. If you don't like what being a fighter entails, I'm genuinely confused what you expect out of a fighter.

But as D&D is a largely combat oriented game, it still remains an undeniably important role.

These are contributions from their class, and the wizard, by virtue of having access to any spell they bother to research, can do more. Anyone can come up with ideas and contribute in a way other than their class abilities, so that's a wash.

I never once suggested this was about the player contribution; you're trying to put a spin on my words that wasn't there. Of course the wizard's broad utility is undeniable. It's physical conflict that the fighter is good at; fighter's the go-to guy for physical conflict, the class you want to play if you are about physical conflict.

If physical conflict wasn't such a central part of the game, I might share your concern. If you deviate from norm for D&D, I think it's perfectly fair to expect the players make characters to accommodate (fewer fighters, more skill monkeys and spell users.)

 

[Twowolves]

I seriously question whether you've seen a fighter contribute equally to the guy who can teleport, read minds, alter his shape, rob others of their will, summon extraplanar entities... need I go on? The fighter swings his weapon.

Or, the fighter could spend some of those bonus feats (you know, his #1 class feature) on some combat focused feats and do more than just swing his sword. Like Power Attack, Sunder, Trip, Bull Rush, Disarm, etc etc etc.

Oh, and he doesn't run out of "slots" or "charges" on these things, so he can still be doing them after the wizard is out of memorized spells and clutching to his wand/scrolls.

 

[Andor]

I think what he was trying to point out was that HE considers YOUR narrative to be unfun and nonsensical and prefers HIS version. Now me? I'm generally on his side, the mechanics are telling me something different is happening than your narrative and I always try to move from mechanic to narrative rather than the other way around.

Now for myself I find THIS to be using a narrative to drive the mechanics. Going by the PHB we know that a cleric prays for the spells he will be using during the next day during his daily meditation/prayer. So the spells are prepared before casting rather than spontaneous and are gained by prayer. The most direct and sensible interpretation of this is that the cleric knows precisely what spells he got from his divine backer as he ASKED for them specifically beforehand. This is not metagaming this is working to reach a narrative through the mechanics. Whereas you are apply a narrative in spite of mechanics that do not match.

He was using hyperbole yes, but he also has a point which you are patently overlooking. Fighter starts out at 200hp then is taken down to 10hp. Now let's assume that your narrative style would figuratively describe all that damage as just "scrapes and bruises." Heal is cast that still leaves the fighter down by 40hp. Thus his only sign of injury CAN'T yet go away because he's still not fully healed(in fact he still has enough HP damage to drop several 1st level characters) and there's no other damage to describe going away. You can fudge this and describe some of the cuts and bruises healing which is where his hyperbole comes in. But it still doesn't mesh with the mechanics that dropping one of the most powerful healing effects of the game won't eliminate simple cuts and bruises. He's trying to point out that applying enough magical healing to bring 20 first level character from the brink of death to fully healed when applied to a single target would heal enough damage to cripple 20 such characters but not heal what your narrative describes as superficial damage.

Exactly. Thank you. My faith in mankind is restored by someone on the internet actually understanding my point.

Sorry PC, It's not actually 4e. The 'narrative damage' meme has been one of my hot buttons since AD&D because it breaks so much internal and meta-game logic. Frex:

What I'm saying is that your narrative doesn't work. He doesn't fall onto a swept slate. He hits that tree that was planted in the imperial courtyard and it breaks his fall. He catches an updraft. Heck, I don't know. What I'm saying is you've dictated a narrative that does NOT fit the results of the dice. It's no different than describing your attack as lethal before rolling damage. If the PC has 50 hit points, there is no way (barring magic) for a 1st level fighter to lop off his head in a single stroke of a longsword. (actually, not quite true, but, close enough) Thus, no matter how well you roll, max damage, crit, full power attack, doesn't matter, you cannot describe the attack as lethal. This is no different.

D&D is driven by Narrativium. :0

My point is that I as a player can back you as a GM into a corner by setting up the narrative. Let's say Joe the 20th level fighter has become convinced that he is supernaturally tough and makes a bet with a commoner that he can survive any fall. He deliberately finds a big flat rock with no trees or softness at all, hops on his magic carpet and goes skydiving sans parachute. You can have a freak dust devil blow up out of nowhere, to save him, but what if he does it again? Suddenly a flock of turkeys appear out of nowhere for him to land on? The absurdities will rapidly become apparent in game. My point is that unless you really really contort your thinking HP as fatigue and scratches just doesn't work in the context of the narrative. The rules portray the physics of the world. My high level character can do a standing high jump in full plate and break all olympic records. Realistic? Nope. Not by the laws of our world, but in D&D there is no magic involved, he's just that good. The high level rogue can pick a bank vault without breaking stride ala the Stainless Steel Rat. Again no magic, and no funky narrative required, he's just that good.

If you think of what's on your character sheet as existing in the game world, then HP are not boo-boos. If you think the Character sheet is an abstraction of our distorted view of some world that perfectly models our own (ignoring the whale sized flying lizards) wherein no one can do what cannot be done in our world then... I dunno. We're not playing the same game I suppose. :\

 

[Hussar]

*snip for some excellent points*

Meh, I gave up playing with players who deliberately broke the system a long time ago. Can you break D&D? Yup. You just showed how.

But, again, it's not a binary problem here. Sometimes hp's relate to physical injury, and sometimes they don't. Whichever fits the narrative at the time is what we're looking for.

TwoWolves- true, he can swing his sword all day long. Unfortunately, after the first fight he gets into, he's so low on hp's that he can no longer do anything. The wizard just has so many more options for getting out of a fight. Heck, a single charm spell and he has a ready made meat shield.

Does anyone honestly think that fighters are anywhere near the power level of core casters after 10th level?

 

[Psion]

Does anyone honestly think that fighters are anywhere near the power level of core casters after 10th level?

All I have to say, Hussar, is that in the last campaign I ran into high levels, it was the fighter I was compensating for, not the mage.

And that fighter wasn't using PH2 (which provides a bevy of powerful high level feats for fighters).

And I nerf 2H power attack in my game.

So in other words, my experience differs.

 

[BryonD]

So in other words, my experience differs.

My experience agrees with yours.

Will saves are a weak point, but the front line guys ability to withstand massive assaults and dish out intense levels of destruction puts them shoulder to shoulder with the spell casters.
Which isn't to say the spellcasters are weak. But the fighter-types shine quite nicely, the players don't feel shorted and everyone is glad for the help all around.

 

[Sammael]

My experience agrees with yours.

And I will have to third this. 3.x fighters can dish out quite a bit more damage than mages of the same level, and they have incredible resilience and staying power. There are two fighters in my high-level game, and they both continue to amaze me.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I think the entire HP argument so far has centered around just one key issue as illustrated in another thread.

I concede you may not agree that high-level D&D characters are "normal humans," but if that's the case, we've gone around in circles because we come at the discussion from totally different viewpoints.

Those on Hussar's side feel their Suspension of Denial is broken when situations where PCs at higher levels begin to do and survive things no human could ever manage to do so. And those of us on my and Andor's side indeed look at the mechanics and see it modeling a situation where PCs may start out as normal humans(or elves or whatever) but become something mythic and inherently greater as the levels accrue. Our Suspension of Denial is based around the very concept that the PCs become something unrealistic at higher levels.