Try it in your game? Remove caster level.

[Tovec]

I would still be interested in hearing how a level 12 spellcaster can solo a Balor.

Antimagic field, Repulsion, Summon Monster VI, Geas/Quest (lesser extent), Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Flesh to Stone, Disintergrate (all from 6th spell level for Sorc/Wiz) would work well enough if you choose to ignore lower levels spells which may work too. This is before buffing or feats to make it more effective. A fighter can TRY to hit it with a sharp stick but certainly doesn't have as many other options.

The adaptations section in Tome of Battle for the Swordsage class.

I confused swordsage with something else, my mistake.
What does it entail? I don't own TOB anymore.

Then I am out of ideas for you.

A fix for casters is what I seek, so far I haven't found a system that does that so I'd be very much surprised if you could help me in that regard.

 

[Dandu]

Antimagic field

Turns the wizard into a rich commoner. This is probably a bad thing when facing a demon that could snap you like a twig.

Repulsion

Only prevents creatures from getting close to you on a failed will save. The save DC of Repulsion is, what, 10+6+8 (assuming Int 26) = 24? The Balor's will save is +19. Unless it buffs with Unholy Aura, the at-will SLA that gives it +4 to saves and AC, among other things. Then you're just screwed.

Or it could just cast Blasphemy from a distance. You know, that at-will SLA it has that is devistating to anyone with significantly less hit dice than the caster level of the spell, which is 20 in this case.

Also, Balors have SR 28. Assuming Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, that's a +16 to your CL check to overcome SR, which is, what, a 45% chance to succeed?

Summon Monster VI

Full round casting time, so the Balor gets to take his turn while you are waving your arms around. Also, I would very much be interested in hearing what monsters you would summon to deal with a Balor.

Geas/Quest (lesser extent)

Ten minute casting time. If you can't see the problem with using this spell on a Balor...

Also, SR 28.

Otiluke's Freezing Sphere

Does not do enough damage to drop a Balor in one casting. Blasphemy, on the other hand, will drop the wizard in one casting.

Also, SR 28.

Flesh to Stone

Balor's fort save is +22. The DC of a 6th level spell, as calculated above, is about DC 24. Let's say you have Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. That's DC 26. Balor succeeds on a roll of a 4 or higher. Unless it buffs with Unholy Aura, of course.

Also, SR 28.

Disintergrate (all from 6th spell level for Sorc/Wiz)

Not only is it at the same DC as Flesh to Stone, but it also requires a ranged touch attack. That's two chances to go wrong for the price of one! Well, three if we count SR.

In conclusion: No, you're not taking out a Balor with your level 12 spellcaster.

 

[Tovec]

Turns the wizard into a rich commoner. This is probably a bad thing when facing a demon that could snap you like a twig.

True, turns wizard into an expensive commoner, negates the spell which summoned a Balor to the Prime Material in the first place.

Only prevents creatures from getting close to you on a failed will save. The save DC of Repulsion is, what, 10+6+8 (assuming Int 26) = 24? The Balor's will save is +19. Unless it buffs with Unholy Aura, the at-will SLA that gives it +4 to saves and AC, among other things. Then you're just screwed.

Or it could just cast Blasphemy from a distance. You know, that at-will SLA it has that is devistating to anyone with significantly less hit dice than the caster level of the spell, which is 20 in this case.

Also, Balors have SR 28. Assuming Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, that's a +16 to your CL check to overcome SR, which is, what, a 45% chance to succeed?

Repulsion was a weak choice, granted.
Also 45% chance is far better than I would expect at level 12.

Full round casting time, so the Balor gets to take his turn while you are waving your arms around. Also, I would very much be interested in hearing what monsters you would summon to deal with a Balor.

How is a full-round any worse than a standard action if the Balor is right on top of you? If the Balor is going to interrupt the casting they're going to do it no matter if the spell takes a full or standard action.

Ten minute casting time. If you can't see the problem with using this spell on a Balor...

I said it was a lesser choice, it works best when the Balor can't see you and you can get clean away.

Does not do enough damage to drop a Balor in one casting. Blasphemy, on the other hand, will drop the wizard in one casting.

290 HP means its going to be hard to kill anything in one hitting. Doesn't matter if you are a wizard.

Also, SR 28.

This is where the feats like Spell Penetration helps. I'm not going to address each of these separately. Yes the balor would almost certainly make the save. On most saves he has a 1, 2 or 3 in 20 of failing. That is still MORE of a chance than the fighter gets.

In conclusion: No, you're not taking out a Balor with your level 12 spellcaster.

What about banishment? I started at level 6, but there are a number of helpful spells at lower levels to evade, hide, mislead, scry, teleport, dimensional shift away from the Balor. Yes if the Balor is THAT intent on killing you he will but I'm assuming a challenge the same as any other creature not having a vendetta against the caster. My point still remains that a caster, with 6th level spells alone, has FAR more options and CHANCES to defeat a balor than a fighter of equal level. The balor would have to fail 1 save against the caster, where as he would have to fail to hit about 60 times for the fighter to have an equal chance.

 

[Dandu]

True, turns wizard into an expensive commoner, negates the spell which summoned a Balor to the Prime Material in the first place.

Balors aren't summons. By which I mean to say, you do not get them with Conjuration (Summoning) spells, like you would with a Celestial Bison. You would have to use Planar Binding, a Conjuration (Calling) spell, or Plane Shift, or something else along that line. That means that Antimagic Field will not work.

Repulsion was a weak choice, granted.
Also 45% chance is far better than I would expect at level 12.

45% chance to penetrate SR. The actual chance of the spell working is 5% (Balor rolls a 1) * 45% which is... very low.

How is a full-round any worse than a standard action if the Balor is right on top of you? If the Balor is going to interrupt the casting they're going to do it no matter if the spell takes a full or standard action.

My mistake, I meant that the Summon Monster spell has a casting time of 1 turn.
Standard action: I cast it, it comes out on my turn.
Full round action: The same, but I have no move.
1 round casting time: I cast it, it comes out on my next turn.

I said it was a lesser choice, it works best when the Balor can't see you and you can get clean away.

The chances of this happening within the spell's range of Close for 10 minutes (600 rounds) is astronomically small, in no small part due to the fact that Balors have a Listen and Spot check of +38.

This is where the feats like Spell Penetration helps. I'm not going to address each of these separately. Yes the balor would almost certainly make the save. On most saves he has a 1, 2 or 3 in 20 of failing. That is still MORE of a chance than the fighter gets.

A good charging build might be able to hit AC 39 and deal damage in the triple digits at level 12. Granted, you'd have to roll well, but since the wizard only wins if the Balor rolls poorly...

What about banishment? I started at level 6, but there are a number of helpful spells at lower levels to evade, hide, mislead, scry, teleport, dimensional shift away from the Balor.

Yes, but running away from the enemy isn't achieving victory, otherwise the French would have the most feared military on earth.

My point still remains that a caster, with 6th level spells alone, has FAR more options and CHANCES to defeat a balor than a fighter of equal level. The balor would have to fail 1 save against the caster, where as he would have to fail to hit about 60 times for the fighter to have an equal chance.

This I can agree on, but the facts are not as you describe them.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

What was the OP about again?

Wizards fighting Balo... nope. not that....

Monks and if they do or do not suc.... wait, no, that wasn't it.

Oh! if removing caster level power progression would weaken casters to bring them a little less powerful, therefore a bit more balanced to the weaker classes.

Yes, this would likely work to accomplish what you are saying it would do.



...You may all now continue.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you give them the ability to make touch attacks, for example, via expending Stunning Fist attempts or something, it's less necessary.

You mean like Ring the Golden Bell, a feat from DCv1? Nifty- lets you stun at range (as a touch attack, as I recall) AND deliver any other effects you have loaded on your Unarmed strikes, if any. So, for instance, if a monk had RtGB and used it while simultaneously having an active Shocking Grasp on his fists as well, the target would be subject to both the spell & stunning effects.

Thoughts on the Legend monk, Danny? I believe you've seen it before.

Nope- doesn't ring a bell (golden or otherwise). Unless I'm actively looking for help or ideas, I generally don't look at builds on the web too often. Got a link? Maybe I'll add it to my database.

 

[Tovec]

What was the OP about again?

Wizards fighting Balo... nope. not that....

Monks and if they do or do not suc.... wait, no, that wasn't it.

Oh! if removing caster level power progression would weaken casters to bring them a little less powerful, therefore a bit more balanced to the weaker classes.

Yes, this would likely work to accomplish what you are saying it would do.



...You may all now continue.

I wish I could XP you. Yes, very good RUMBLE, I agree.

[MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] I'll concede only because we have reached a stalemate. I've made my points and we still disagree.

 

[Hassassin]

Edit: Sorry, didn't notice the other thread for this. If someone wants to move this, feel free.

Here is the issue I see: there is no reason to attack the monk. His attack bonus is +15 assuming Weapon Finesse, but with unarmed damage in the area of 2d6+2 damage, he deals 9 damage per hit on average. This is less damage per hit than a first level fighter with a great sword. It is insufficient at level 12 against opponents with DR, boatloads of HP, and high AC. Completely and utterly. Enemies are free to simply walk around you and engage other party members, which means that all you ultimately do is provide flanking.

Note that your argument changed from "monks have low AC" to "monks do less damage". Nothing wrong with that, but did you concede that monks don't have to have (significantly) lower AC? (Your earlier post quoted below.)

I have a question: At the level at which you can afford all that, what can't hit an AC of 28?

11.5 damage is still about what you'd expect from a level 1 fighter...

2d6+6 assuming 18 Str and a greatsword. That's an average of 13 per hit.

<snip monster list>

Feel free to look through the rest of that list, Hassassin this is just the top 1/3rd.

The monsters you list have on average AC 25.

Your 12th level fighter with spiked chain deals 2d4 + 11 damage per hit. Assuming +20/+15/+10 attacks, that's an average of 27 damage per full attack, if my math holds.

My 12th level monk with flurry of blows deals 3d6 + 2 damage per hit. Assuming +15/+15/+15/+10 attacks, that an average of 22 damage.

Sure, the monk deals 20% less damage. Does that really make him that much less of a threat that enemies can ignore him? Note that not all enemies even think about tactics, and would want to go past the monk to attack a mage.

If the party has a bard inspiring courage, the fighter's average damage increases to 29, while the monk's increases to 32. Buffs, debuffs and flanking have a similar effect of giving the monk's extra attacks an advantage.

Add in the various feats both characters have, and the advantage will probably shift more to the fighter, who has more of them. However, I didn't spend all the monk's money, either (because I thought it was about AC).

I understand that the fighter is better at fighting (duh), but that's how it should IMHO be. I again fail to see how the monk's weakness is so great as to make him totally useless.

 

[Hassassin]

That pretty much says it all.

Sorry, but your comment OTOH doesn't say it all, or pretty much anything for that matter. Do you think I made mistakes?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, Rumble, it doesn't solve anything.

His houserule just kicks the already weakest school of magic in the junk and does absolutely nothing to save or lose/die/suck, battlefield control, debuff, or most buffs.

Buffs: Round/level past spell level 2 is just about "all battle long" if you're quick, which is the longest round/level will ever last anyway. Hour/level once you hit CL 5+ is often enough close enough to "all dungeon" that more CL means nothing, though again, it hurts the level 1-2 spells if not heigtening them. Min/level was always an awkward duration that was pretty hit or miss for "one encounter" or "several encounters." This houserule just establishes it as "one encounter long" pretty much always. Oh well.
The only buff duration meaningfully affected by this change is the 10 min/level variety, which granted there are a lot of. Low level ones become "one or a few encounter long" spells, higher level ones remain "all dungeon long" spells.

And...that's the only actual effect this houserule has on spells that don't already suck. Unless you actually think it's ok to leave monster SR values unchanged, which is just such a ing retarded notion that I'm not even going to entertain it. That'd be like playing a game with no magic items and not adjusting monster attack and AC bonuses to compensate, just demonstrates ignorance of how the game works.

So, in the end...this is one of the worst houserules I have ever EVER seen, it's rare you see houserules meant to balance actual problematic things (as opposed to "phantom problems" that aren't real, like "monk is OP, help!") in the rules that so totally make the game worse by punishing the wrong things and making the cheesy tactics that are already too good (DMM Persist, Incantatrix cheese, save or dies) even better than them by comparison. This houserule sucks.

And the only reason I didn't say this sooner is because I honestly thought this entire thread was some sort of tongue-in-cheek joke. I gave the OP way too much credit, it seems.