Stats scaling past 18/19

You just made my point there.

X number of spells per day is less than infinite (by definition) and therefore a mage can run out of them.

I have played with many competent players, as a matter of fact, but this point will also be ignored, because if you don't, you see the obvious, which is written down in black and white in the rulebook in front of you: a mage is at full strength when he has all of his spells and each spell he casts weakens him. If he cannot rest, he is done for. Even a newcomer to the game can grasp this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] - Can you give an example of a typical campaign? Sandbox, Adventure Path, or something else? Tailored encounters or not? Static or dynamic?
 

You just made my point there.

X number of spells per day is less than infinite (by definition) and therefore a mage can run out of them.

I have played with many competent players, as a matter of fact, but this point will also be ignored, because if you don't, you see the obvious, which is written down in black and white in the rulebook in front of you: a mage is at full strength when he has all of his spells and each spell he casts weakens him. If he cannot rest, he is done for. Even a newcomer to the game can grasp this.

Thanks for proving my point once again.
 

You just made my point there.

X number of spells per day is less than infinite (by definition) and therefore a mage can run out of them.

I have played with many competent players, as a matter of fact, but this point will also be ignored, because if you don't, you see the obvious, which is written down in black and white in the rulebook in front of you: a mage is at full strength when he has all of his spells and each spell he casts weakens him. If he cannot rest, he is done for. Even a newcomer to the game can grasp this.

It's not that I don't make the assumption, it's that the fact that this kind of diversity going into a situation shows why theorizing about how encounters will go is inherently flawed - just the magic item assumptions alone throw those theories out of whack.

The fighter might have the right tools for the job while the wizard doesn't; or the other way around, or something else altogether. Some items might be sundered, or stolen, or just forgotten about. Saying "but this combination is a killer" misses the point entirely.

Fighters only make choices only two times. At creation/leveling and in the moment. Wizards and clerics make choices three times. At creation/leveling, in the moment, and at the beginning of each day. That's a clear advantage for the caster. (Note that I consider gear acquisition part of leveling, whether the gear is chosen by the PC or the DM.)

More times to make choices means more opportunities to adapt. More opportunities for adaptation means it is more likely that you have an appropriate resource that can be spent at the moment to solve (or make easier to solve) the challenge. That means more "power."

Casters have limited spells per day and hit points. Fighters have only hit points. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, but the casters have spells per day to ablate, too. In fact, the purpose of several of those spells is to reduce incoming damage, whether relatively directly (spells that boost AC or give temporary hit points) or indirectly (by damaging enemies or removing them from play or consideration) or both at once.

While it is inherently obvious that spells are limited in quantity, what is less obvious is whether that limit is meaningful. I tend to believe that not to be the case.

The fact of encounters tends to be that many things are being spent. Casters are casting spells (some more judiciously than others) and the whole party (especially the fighters, if they are doing their jobs) is taking damage. All this talk of limited spells per day seems to ignore the fact that the fighter's hit points are limited, too, and they are likely (in most adventuring circumstances) to run out long before spells do. In fact, without a healer (i.e. a caster, usually), the fighter will run out within a scant few encounters, or even during a single encounter.

In most of the resource-intensive situations I've experienced (from both sides of the screen), what prompted a withdrawal or rest was not the wizard running out of spells, but rather the healer. They will tend to spend a spell or two in combat, whether buffing or blasting or whatever other flavor they favor, then more spells in combat to heal whoever is taking damage, then (until they have wands or whatnot) more spells after combat to heal the group up to a reasonable level. No one wants to press on at half hit points when the healer is out of spells.

There was also a point or two made in this thread about denial of gear or resting. The simple fact of the matter is that non-casters are generally more disadvantaged by this than are most casters.

As to denial of rest, while it is true that can stymie a caster's ability to refresh spells (well, an arcane caster's, anyway), it also prevents a fighter from recovering their only resource -- hit points. It is also somewhat true that a caster (here, I am really thinking of wizards) can more easily provide a secure place of rest in the field.

The spells for this range from Rope Trick, to Secure Shelter, and on to Mage's Magnificent Mansion. (The first and last of those are invisible to the normal world, while the middle will just be hard to enter without alerting the occupants. All can, theoretically, be dispelled, but a non-caster has no option for providing even near the level of security as those spells (absent gear that mimics them in some way).

Wizards also provide a means of resting in relative comfort at a known safe-house via (possibly greater) teleport. Clerics can get in on that action with word of recall, too. In higher levels, two spell slots per day can virtually guarantee safe rest. While it is true that, possibly, the safe house is no longer safe (and this is a really unlikely event for a decently chosen safe house), it will be much safer than resting in the field (barring rest-places like the extradimensional ones, above).

If the spellcaster doesn't have those spells, they don't happen. If the spells are countered or dispelled, they don't happen. If the enemy follows them, then the above situation won't happen, etc.

The caster at least has the option to have those spells and resources available, where the non-caster simply doesn't. Also, the spells mentioned (Rope Trick and Teleport, along with the others that are in the same category and are used at end-of-adventuring day to rest) won't be cast while in combat. There won't be an enemy immediately present to counter or dispel them, and following is only possible until the door is closed from the inside, or by some odd circumstances if teleportation is involved. (Okay, so the Rope Trick might, if detected at all, which requires some means to see invisibility, be dispelled, but it is still more secure than any fortification that a noncaster can provide.)

To put it another way, it seems like your post is saying that the presence these options for safe recovery of spells, because they might under rare circumstances possibly be countered in some off-the-wall manner, are weaker than their absence. That is the opposite of true.

The travel methods above are also great for dealing with equipment denial. Wizards, knowing that they are powerless without their spellbook, tend to also safeguard it through any number of means. A back-up spellbook is a pretty common part of an adventuring wizard's possible kit. It can be stored at a safe house, hidden on their person (with shrink item or the like), or otherwise secreted away.

TL;DR: Casters tend to have more options, and options are power. Non-casters tend to have fewer options, and thus less power.
 

To the OP: No.
As to the majority of this thread? Wait, there is actually a 3e gamer who believes that Fighters are in the same ballpark as the Big 3 (Cleric, Druid, Wizard)? That has to be a troll...
 

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] - Can you give an example of a typical campaign? Sandbox, Adventure Path, or something else? Tailored encounters or not? Static or dynamic?

A typical campaign would be sandbox, which means that there will be dangerous areas that are outside of the recommended CR ratings because the world does not revolve around the party. These are created semi-randomly and often before play starts.

Adventures feature encounters that are a mix of tailored (and CR appropriate) encounters and random elements, but mostly these will be CR appropriate. For example, it's a pretty good idea to drop a few spell scrolls into an adventure for a party that features a couple of wizards in it whether or not the treasure table rolls generate these of their own accord. Areas that aren't CR appropriate are considered 'optional' and not necessary to complete the adventure - so for example some additional assistance can be granted to earn some more experience and very likely a special item if the party wish to do it. These optional areas tend to be more dangerous, providing a larger risk, but they can be left without scuppering the adventure.

Being sandboxy allows the party to choose what they would like to tackle next. Dangerous areas let them pick the quick route (through say a dangerous swamp) or the long route (via the winding road) and so on.

So to summarise: The campaign as a whole is not tailored to the party, nor is the lie of the land or its denizens. Adventures are, but subquests (which provide better rewards) are put in as optional challenges. Randomisation is also used throughout to mix things up and attack predictability. This an approach that I've found works well.
 

TL;DR: Casters tend to have more options, and options are power. Non-casters tend to have fewer options, and thus less power.

That's somewhat true, but also a kind of logical fallacy. If I have 1 option and it is appropriate to the situation, am I stronger or weaker than someone who has 1000 options, but none of them appropriate?

It's similar to the old adage of knowledge being power. It depends what the knowledge is of. For example, an intricate knowledge of steam trains won't do you any good when you are being mugged. /Context/ is everything and that's what we're missing here.

Another poster mentioned that if the scenario fits the build, the build excels. Which is exactly what he was designed for, so he should. Fighters are the opposite of specialists; they are generally good wherever you put them. A fighter's weakness is of course magic, which is often countered at high levels with magical gear, similar to how the mage counters his weakness of poor combat ability with spells. The gear is often permanent on the fighter (e.g. a ring that grants magic resistance all the time) whereas the mage needs a round per spell cast, giving the fighter the immediate edge if a mage is caught with his pants down (oops, I meant unprepared). It's all 'swings and roundabouts'.
 

2nd edition had the horrible tacked-on system of fractional strength, only for warriors and only for some races. 3.5 was a big improvement, since it made all the stats equal and flattened the stat curve.
ht3.jpg
jh88.jpg
dh6.jpg
ht7.jpg

Well, it flattens it if you use a point buy method of character creation, where 18 is merely 1 point away from 17. If you use dice, on the other hand, you get a bell curve distribution around the middle, followed by a linear line, which makes little sense when you think about it. With dice (lets use 3d6 in order as an artifical example, really, people tend to use 4d6 and drop the lowest), there is only a 1/216 chance of scoring an 18 where a 17 is a 3/216 chance, so the 18 is further away than a 17 than it looks because its 3 times harder to get. Hopefully I've described that in a way that makes sense.
 

The method of stat generation has little bearing on what the stats actually do though. Stat effects are linear barring stuff like carrying capacity which is definitely exponential.

Also, in standard point buy an 18 is not 1 point away from 17. It's three points, just like 17 is three points away from 16 which is two points away from 15, etc. With 32 point buy, a character could get two 14s and four 13s, for a total of 32 points above straight 8s. Moving one of those up to an 18 results in an array of 18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, which adds up to 26 points above straight 8s. Doing double 18s results in just 20 points above straight 8s. In short, it's exponential cost for linear gain.


As far as the fighter versus wizard discussion goes, a fighter might always have a way to deal acceptable damage but a wizard who has chosen versatile and powerful spells for his daily loadout will tend to be equally or more effective. Likewise, a caster will typically have divinations that can give extra info on what challenges the character will face. Using Commune or Contact Other Plane and similar spells can be very informative if the DM isn't a jerk about withholding information and the players know how to ask useful questions to get the info they want. Yes, that can be dependent on how the DM runs things, but if they are playing things by the book and allow the spells to work to their written proper potential it's a good way to figure out what resources the adventurers will need.

In short, a fighter chooses his feats and gear and hopes he'll be able to be useful with those mostly permanent expenditures. To be fair there are some pretty nice options for fighters overall, but they still only compare to a few middling spells. Likewise, damage is typically not all that useful compared to the power of other effects and a character that can only do damage is likewise not very useful. If your campaign is set up to cater and fudge things for those who can only do damage then they'll of course look pretty decent. Casters, however, have far more than just damage-dealing potential and many can change that potential around every day or even on every cast.
 

xigbar said:
Off to a great start.

If you think that was the start, you need to go back and re-read the entire thread.

xigbar said:
You aren't aware of what "powerfully built" means, but if the caster is as such, they will not, at the least, down on hit points. Wizards don't need a lot of consumable materials, since most "consumables" are replicating spell effects that they can just cast with low level slots. Additionally, there are a lot of ways to make things like scrolls that make these effects so cheap, that they might as well be, or in some cases, actually are, free.

You don't seem to realize that "powerful" in any context of measuring different classes is going to be largely decided by the circumstances of play. You're just parroting the idea that you can somehow create a spellcasting character who'll have enough spells and items that they can somehow master every possible situation that could ever arise during game-play, even though that idea is completely lacking in feasibility.

xigbar said:
No, it doesn't. Wizards don't need to be optimized for dealing with melee classes. So many of their spells are so profoundly multi-purposed, there are some that single handedly take down any non-caster outright.

Yes, it does. The entire point that you're making is that 1) spellcasters need to be optimized, and 2) that in doing so they can deal with any situation that could ever come up during the game.

The debate that's going on here isn't "who'd win in a spellcaster vs. non-spellcaster fight." It's "spellcasters are so much better than non-spellcasters that the latter are useless in a fight."

It's that latter point that I'm responding to. If that's not what you're talking about, then we're having two different conversations.

xigbar said:
See above. Also, melee classes could one shot a Balor with little to no effort when it's a level appropriate encounter. But they to spend on a way to chase the Baalor when it's flying, and then deal with it's spell like abilities which also allow it to outmaneuver and outclass the melee build.

See above. You're again assuming far too much; as though the one hypothetical encounter you've built specifically to prove your point somehow is a universal truth.

xigbar said:
Errrr, no. Asking for a build is a logical to display how a given character can deal with a day with game situations to run the gamut from combat, social problems, or stealth.

Errr, yes. Asking for a build is a completely illogical way to try and showcase the idea that actual builds are comparatively unimportant compared to the circumstances of what's going on in the game itself.

xigbar said:
I would like to see what you mean by competent. Also, if the monsters are played to their full potential, then blasting can work, since defensive abilities working against them might not have been though of.

I explicitly defined what I meant by "competent" in the post you quoted. Also, you're again making some vague statement - "monsters played to their 'full potential' means that 'blasting" can work" - as though it were somehow universal for play experience. It's not.

xigbar said:
Thanks for the condescending lecture, pops.

Anytime, kid.

xigbar said:
Then, why not try multiple and varied encounter against the same build? They don't all have to be combat encounters, that would truly show versatility.

I think that's already self-evident that if you throw potentially anything against the same build you'll find more than a few things where said build isn't as useful as you thought - not even taking into account that if the GM wants to, he can find something that can neutralize any kind of character - to the point where I don't think the work of building multiple suites of NPCs just to throw against your characters is worthwhile.

Like I said, I already have a group that I play with. What you're talking about is essentially running an entire campaign just to prove a point...one that I think is fairly clear to begin with. For example, I throw eight or nine encounters at characters in the course of a day, and the spellcaster will likely be low on spells. Or something else again. How is it not easy to just imagine circumstances that show that spellcasters aren't the uber-useful characters you think they are?

nogray said:
Fighters only make choices only two times. At creation/leveling and in the moment. Wizards and clerics make choices three times. At creation/leveling, in the moment, and at the beginning of each day. That's a clear advantage for the caster. (Note that I consider gear acquisition part of leveling, whether the gear is chosen by the PC or the DM.)

Leaving aside that I disagree regarding gear selection, not to mention the choices of what levels to take, feat selection, skill point selection, class features with multiple choices (e.g. rogue talents), etc., I think this post summarizes what I see as a disconnect between a class's potential strength in its build versus its actual strength during game-play.

nogray said:
More times to make choices means more opportunities to adapt. More opportunities for adaptation means it is more likely that you have an appropriate resource that can be spent at the moment to solve (or make easier to solve) the challenge. That means more "power."

I disagree. Versatility is, first, not the same thing as power. Secondly, preparatory spellcasters are hindered by having to choose their spells beforehand, which means that their "adaptation" to the circumstances that arise is virtually non-existent (and the idea of leaving some spell slots open to prepare later takes more time than is often granted to them).

nogray said:
Casters have limited spells per day and hit points. Fighters have only hit points. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, but the casters have spells per day to ablate, too. In fact, the purpose of several of those spells is to reduce incoming damage, whether relatively directly (spells that boost AC or give temporary hit points) or indirectly (by damaging enemies or removing them from play or consideration) or both at once.

Spells are too diverse to say that their collective purpose is to "reduce damage," particularly by defeating enemies that then can't attack. In that regard, all offensive abilities are defensive.

nogray said:
While it is inherently obvious that spells are limited in quantity, what is less obvious is whether that limit is meaningful. I tend to believe that not to be the case.

That's a more difficult claim to follow up on, simply because it's going to vary wildly between sessions and between groups.

There's also the situation of a spellcaster running out of spells that they consider to be "useful," finding themselves falling back on lower-level spells that they prepared with different circumstances in mind after they've used their higher-level and/or more directly applicable spells.

In other words, it's not just about how many spells they've used that matters in regards to a spellcaster's "usefulness." It's also the circumstances they're in currently (which has been my point all along).

nogray said:
The fact of encounters tends to be that many things are being spent. Casters are casting spells (some more judiciously than others) and the whole party (especially the fighters, if they are doing their jobs) is taking damage. All this talk of limited spells per day seems to ignore the fact that the fighter's hit points are limited, too, and they are likely (in most adventuring circumstances) to run out long before spells do. In fact, without a healer (i.e. a caster, usually), the fighter will run out within a scant few encounters, or even during a single encounter.

In most of the resource-intensive situations I've experienced (from both sides of the screen), what prompted a withdrawal or rest was not the wizard running out of spells, but rather the healer. They will tend to spend a spell or two in combat, whether buffing or blasting or whatever other flavor they favor, then more spells in combat to heal whoever is taking damage, then (until they have wands or whatnot) more spells after combat to heal the group up to a reasonable level. No one wants to press on at half hit points when the healer is out of spells.

That may or may not be true on a per-encounter basis, but even that that won't necessarily be the case if you measure encounter per day, simply because it's much easier to regain hit points during the same day than it is to regain spells.

If the party is high on hit points but low on spells, they're often still viable for another encounter. Which is relevant, as what foes they encounter isn't up to them, but to the GM.

nogray said:
There was also a point or two made in this thread about denial of gear or resting. The simple fact of the matter is that non-casters are generally more disadvantaged by this than are most casters.

As to denial of rest, while it is true that can stymie a caster's ability to refresh spells (well, an arcane caster's, anyway), it also prevents a fighter from recovering their only resource -- hit points. It is also somewhat true that a caster (here, I am really thinking of wizards) can more easily provide a secure place of rest in the field.

I disagree with you regarding who's more disadvantaged regarding gear loss, simply because I think that (like most other aspects of what goes on at the table) are situation in nature.

Even leaving that aside, a spellcaster that doesn't get to rest for a night gets no spells back; as nobody gets hit points back in that case, the spellcaster is likely worse off simply because they've missed the chance to replenish two aspects of their character (spells and hit points).

Moreover, the issue of rest seems (to me) to be more notable between encounters in one day, as noted above.

nogray said:
The spells for this range from Rope Trick, to Secure Shelter, and on to Mage's Magnificent Mansion. (The first and last of those are invisible to the normal world, while the middle will just be hard to enter without alerting the occupants. All can, theoretically, be dispelled, but a non-caster has no option for providing even near the level of security as those spells (absent gear that mimics them in some way).

Wizards also provide a means of resting in relative comfort at a known safe-house via (possibly greater) teleport. Clerics can get in on that action with word of recall, too. In higher levels, two spell slots per day can virtually guarantee safe rest. While it is true that, possibly, the safe house is no longer safe (and this is a really unlikely event for a decently chosen safe house), it will be much safer than resting in the field (barring rest-places like the extradimensional ones, above).

This goes back to the issue I was talking about above, as its straying too far into the issue of "which class is better than the other" versus "which is more useful in a fight."

The idea of a fighter not being able to dispel a secure shelter is less relevant when you're facing a demon who can greater teleport into it. Similarly, the idea of teleporting back to safety after a fight ends is, as I've mentioned before, a nice idea that doesn't always work out. The size of the group alone can often quash this idea ("sorry, I can teleport everyone but you. You can survive a night here on your own, right?").

In the event that you aren't attacked during the night, the entire issue becomes moot anyway. Again, situationality trumps attempts to make something universally "better."

nogray said:
The caster at least has the option to have those spells and resources available, where the non-caster simply doesn't. Also, the spells mentioned (Rope Trick and Teleport, along with the others that are in the same category and are used at end-of-adventuring day to rest) won't be cast while in combat. There won't be an enemy immediately present to counter or dispel them, and following is only possible until the door is closed from the inside, or by some odd circumstances if teleportation is involved. (Okay, so the Rope Trick might, if detected at all, which requires some means to see invisibility, be dispelled, but it is still more secure than any fortification that a noncaster can provide.)

To put it another way, it seems like your post is saying that the presence these options for safe recovery of spells, because they might under rare circumstances possibly be countered in some off-the-wall manner, are weaker than their absence. That is the opposite of true.

That option is only good if it's actualized, and even if it is, then it's worth is only measurable by how applicable it is to the given situation. Safely resting inside a rope trick is meaningless if there are no encounters during the night.

Further, even leaving aside the issue of "these spells won't be cast in combat" (which isn't true in my experience; if a party is losing a fight badly they'll attempt to use things like that to retreat). The idea of those circumstances being "off the wall" is, at best, one's personal opinion - how another game goes down might differ wildly.

Moreover, this again misses the larger point that simply having an option available somehow means that the person who has that option is universally "better" than someone that doesn't. That's the real opposite of what's true.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top