Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5971199" data-attributes="member: 8461">If you think that was the start, you need to go back and re-read the entire thread.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.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.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.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.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.Anytime, kid.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?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.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).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.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).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.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. 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."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.</blockquote>

Verification