Scaling: How many level 1 characters should it take to defeat a level 10 character?

[Hussar]

Wow, 8 whole spells out of around 100 for A-C. Yup, "virtually no spells" is entirely the wrong phrase. I can see that.

See, again, I'm wondering what system you are looking at. Because the system in D&D, as it has been implemented, has most spells (is that exact enough for you?) with scaling power.

But, yeah, this isn't going to go anywhere. You continue to want to discuss some hypothetical system that doesn't exist, whereas I want to discuss what's actually in the rules.

You have a good day now.

 

[Buugipopuu]

If you had meant "most", you would have said "most", instead you did not. Your wilful misuse of technical terms is a pretty common dishonest debating tactic, as it allows you to make points so vague that no matter how they're proven wrong, you can always claim you weren't actually making them. It's no surprise how you think this is going nowhere, since you keep changing the direction you're trying to go. You now claim you want to discuss 3.5 as written, which is contrary to your previous stance that Vancian magic was inherently broken, spells scaling with caster levels are inherently overpowered, and the only way spells can improve from spell level to spell level is so quickly as to make combat-ending spells appear before one reaches the end of the range. None of these things are true, and the fact that you now claim to be discussing D&D as written rather than all Vancian magic systems in general is equivalent to an admission as such.

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, you two - step back to your corners and take five. Tempers getting short here.

 

[Hussar]

all Vancian magic systems in general is equivalent to an admission as such.

What other Vancian magic systems outside of D&D are there? Not counting retro-clones of course. I'm honestly curious. I thought D&D and various clones were the only games that used this magic system.

 

[Buugipopuu]

And how is that relevant to you proving that the properties you claim are an inherent part of the system, and not merely a statistical trend in spell descriptions?