Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]

[Gez]

Incidently the plural of the word 'worse' is 'more worse' or 'even worse'. Though I am sure I have used worsest sometime in the past.

It was a voluntary mistake, but actually I realize I was wanting to say "the worstiest"

There is a difference between using an item and becoming skilled with an item.

Also the term 'use' a magic sword is misleading given in function it operates no different from a normal sword.

Yes, however what I meant by that was that a mere mortal would, in this approach, be unable to use the magical capacity of the sword (i.e., not activate capacities like flaming, and not benefit from magical enhancement bonuses) unless the sword would have been created specifically to be usable by simple mortals (something few wizards would bother to do, as that would be more complicated).

I won't claim that would be easily balanced -- just that it's the way I would tend to apprehend these stuff.

Supernatural skills aside (most of which were inspired by Hong Kong 'wire-fu' movies) glancing at the 30th-level NPC Fighter in the ELH I don't see any great magical prowess either generated in and of his own abilities or from magic items; looks like he has about three spells at his disposal...?

Now, of course, the Fighter is not what we could call an "especially advantaged class for skills". But some things he can do with the right combat feats would probably seem like witchcraft is at work behind his blows.

Thats far too close for me; the best warrior in the universe is practically pegged by an equal level wizard who has never bothered to study the martial arts (if they did they would have taken Fighter Levels).

That's what I would call an extreme attitude. At low level, a wizard do practice martial arts. I knew it from experience. Even a sorcerer run short of spell at low level. He may not study it deeply and with an intense devotion, but to say he avoid it altogether... Well, maybe if he's got the luck of traveling in a party of 8. My gnome wizard had slain her share of ogres and goblins (and other bandits) with her mere dagger, and had to continue resorting to physical violence even up to level 7 (after, the campaign has been interrupted).

And, in the other way, I don't see an interest in combat training to warrant multiclassing in fighter or a like-class. At low-level again, that would force nearly everyone save barbs, fighters, rangers and paladins to multiclass in one of these aforementionned combat class. Class are not straighjacket, you have some place to move and define the character.

(See how adressing problems that pops up at high level bring other problems at low level ?)

Note that your 40th wizard, with a BAB of 10+10 and two attacks per round, will still be at other disadvantages compared to the 40th fighter. For a strange reason, the most common magic weapons are martial weapons the wizard can't use without a penalty (while the fighter will get bonus from his focus and spec). There may be some daggers (the only wizard weapon that's "frequently" magicked up to artifact level), but overall the fighter will get superior weaponry.

And then, there's the hit point problem. As far as I know, the discrepancy between d10 and d4 is not removed, and the gap between them continue to grow (of course, a natural 1 on your massive damage save make pretty irrelevant whether you have 1000 or "merely" 400 hit points).

 

[Gez]

.

 

[Gez]

[Triple post because of connection glitches.]

 

[Knight Otu]

The issue I saw was numbered 150-something... But 2000 ? That's just "worsier". The author just can't be human. Or, there are about 50 authors that spend their time writing (potential continuity troubles).

Multiple authors, plus one mostly writing the exposés for the plot, plus one for all things technical and arkonidian.
I do not know how far the series has progressed in France

Knight Otu is the real expert but as far as I know Perry Rhodan is massive in Germany - I mean we are talking television and movies either in planning or already shown...whats the deal with those Knight Otu mate?)

There is a trilogy in the making, which apparently is moving slowly but steadily. And I deny the existance of a previous movie!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Bonsoir mon ami!

It was a voluntary mistake, but actually I realize I was wanting to say "the worstiest"

I think we save that for when its really, really bad!

Yes, however what I meant by that was that a mere mortal would, in this approach, be unable to use the magical capacity of the sword (i.e., not activate capacities like flaming, and not benefit from magical enhancement bonuses) unless the sword would have been created specifically to be usable by simple mortals (something few wizards would bother to do, as that would be more complicated).

I won't claim that would be easily balanced -- just that it's the way I would tend to apprehend these stuff.

Depends who the weapon was made for; by and large I would imagine they are created for fighter types.

Now, of course, the Fighter is not what we could call an "especially advantaged class for skills". But some things he can do with the right combat feats would probably seem like witchcraft is at work behind his blows.

Any non-epic examples?

That's what I would call an extreme attitude. At low level, a wizard do practice martial arts. I knew it from experience. Even a sorcerer run short of spell at low level. He may not study it deeply and with an intense devotion, but to say he avoid it altogether... Well, maybe if he's got the luck of traveling in a party of 8. My gnome wizard had slain her share of ogres and goblins (and other bandits) with her mere dagger, and had to continue resorting to physical violence even up to level 7 (after, the campaign has been interrupted).

Yes but at low levels the difference is negligable.

Think of it like this: when two kids at school begin education the difference between them won't be so great. But when the two finish university; one a doctor the other an architect - you don't phone the architect when you feel sick.

Likewise at low levels the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is less pronounced than at high levels.

And, in the other way, I don't see an interest in combat training to warrant multiclassing in fighter or a like-class. At low-level again, that would force nearly everyone save barbs, fighters, rangers and paladins to multiclass in one of these aforementionned combat class. Class are not straighjacket, you have some place to move and define the character.

I'm afraid you are guilty of wanting to have your cake AND eat it.

(See how adressing problems that pops up at high level bring other problems at low level ?)

Nope...?

Note that your 40th wizard, with a BAB of 10+10 and two attacks per round, will still be at other disadvantages compared to the 40th fighter.

None that couldn't be more than offset by spellcasting.

For a strange reason, the most common magic weapons are martial weapons the wizard can't use without a penalty (while the fighter will get bonus from his focus and spec). There may be some daggers (the only wizard weapon that's "frequently" magicked up to artifact level), but overall the fighter will get superior weaponry.

Weapon Focus and Speciality require feat slots of course.

Wizards know that any melee combat prowess they possess will always take a secondary role to spellcasting.

And then, there's the hit point problem. As far as I know, the discrepancy between d10 and d4 is not removed, and the gap between them continue to grow (of course, a natural 1 on your massive damage save make pretty irrelevant whether you have 1000 or "merely" 400 hit points).

You know of course that wizards deal out more damage (and against potentially more opponents) than Fighters of that level.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Knight Otu mate!

And I deny the existance of a previous movie!

I reckon this would be worth the comedy potential alone; I'll have to hunt it down! It can't be any worse than Star Trek IX: Insurrection.

 

[Anubis]

I have to side with the "leave the system alone" side when it comes to Epic Levels for attacks and saves. The reasoning is simple.

Diversity in AC.

At such a level, first the fighter already has a 10-point advantage. Add to that all the nifty other tricks the fighter can do with Weapon Focus (Epic Weapon Focus) and magical items, and that advantage grows and grows. AC also continues to grow for both PCs and opponents.

If UK's system is put in place, a high-level wizard will almost NEVER be able to hit in combat due to low attack rates. Either that or the fighter will ALWAYS hit. Either way, you have a problem. The EAB and stuff balances that fact out, see?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

I have to side with the "leave the system alone" side when it comes to Epic Levels for attacks and saves. The reasoning is simple.

Thats certainly your prerogative.

Diversity in AC.

Don't you mean less Diversity in AC!? What you are suggesting is a more restricted range of BAB so therefore by extension AC as well!?

At such a level, first the fighter already has a 10-point advantage. Add to that all the nifty other tricks the fighter can do with Weapon Focus (Epic Weapon Focus) and magical items, and that advantage grows and grows. AC also continues to grow for both PCs and opponents.

If UK's system is put in place, a high-level wizard will almost NEVER be able to hit in combat due to low attack rates. Either that or the fighter will ALWAYS hit. Either way, you have a problem. The EAB and stuff balances that fact out, see?

Exactly, as I previously showed it doesn't matter whether we retain the epic BAB progression or not because by the time we reach 30th-level the difference between single class Fighter and Wizard attack bonus is already greater than 20.

So given that even the epic BAB progression doesn't solve this dilemma but creates another (Fighters being less skilled than most Monsters) it becomes pointless.

A single classed Wizard that finds himself in melee (not of his choice; through things like Tensers Transformation) is guilty of being out-thought not out-fought.

 

[Gez]

Salut Craig,

Any non-epic examples?

Why ? Ah! I said "at high level". I meant at epic level, of course (since I then mentionned epic use of skills).

Yes but at low levels the difference is negligable.

Think of it like this: when two kids at school begin education the difference between them won't be so great. But when the two finish university; one a doctor the other an architect - you don't phone the architect when you feel sick.

Likewise at low levels the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is less pronounced than at high levels.

So, you really don't think the myriad of epic (or mundane) combat feats and twice times attacks is a pronounced difference ?

I'm afraid you are guilty of wanting to have your cake AND eat it.

Where's the problem ? If I have my cake, I can eat it without the slightiest inconvenience, provided I'm hungry and the cake is good (which I would be somewhat doubtful if I just looted it from the proverbial orc).

However, once I ate it, I'll have it no more, but hey!, that's after I finished eating it.

None that couldn't be more than offset by spellcasting.

So, where's the problem ? If the wizard is more efficient when "wizarding" than when "fightering", why would he fight ? So, how could his combat prowess be compared to that of the fighter ?



Note that BAB is not used only for weapon attack -- spellcaster have plenty of melee and ranged (usually touch attack, but I've seen some exceptions) spell requiring a to-hit roll.

Weapon Focus and Speciality require feat slots of course.

Of which the fighter is rather plentiful...

Wizards know that any melee combat prowess they possess will always take a secondary role to spellcasting.

Of course. When given the possibility, they'll always cast a spell rather than swing a staff.

You know of course that wizards deal out more damage (and against potentially more opponents) than Fighters of that level.

Usually, yes. That's his role as an "artillery wargame unit".

Wizards are a varied lot. I played in two Ars Magica saga (that game lingo for campaign), and while in one my mage, Sorlin, was quite archetypal (non-combatant, knowledge-hungry bookworm), my character for the second, Necam, was rather oddball, as he was roguish/swashbucklerish in behaviour and used nearly only what we could call "buffing spell", and fought with sword (usually once enlarged to double his size, with a copperish skin for armor, and airborn on the wings of winds).

Of course, in D&D term, he would have been forced to be something like a spellsword, and would thus lose several caster level, while in Ars Magica he was perfectly able of casting spell of the same high magnitude than his fellow (especially in the Corporem (spells that affect a body) and Muto (spells that modify something) arts).

What I'm just trying to say by this exo-D&D example is that a wizard (or sorcerer) with a BAB that don't stray too far low from a fighter is not necessarily unlegitimate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Salut Craig,

Wait a second isn't that Spanish...or Italian? Are you trying to confuse me Gez mate!?

Why ? Ah! I said "at high level". I meant at epic level, of course (since I then mentionned epic use of skills).

Its simply to balance the various class levels.

So, you really don't think the myriad of epic (or mundane) combat feats and twice times attacks is a pronounced difference ?

Nope.

Not as pronounced as the difference between the spellcasting abilities of each.

Where's the problem ? If I have my cake, I can eat it without the slightiest inconvenience, provided I'm hungry and the cake is good (which I would be somewhat doubtful if I just looted it from the proverbial orc). However, once I ate it, I'll have it no more, but hey!, that's after I finished eating it.

The trouble is you have to pay for the cake first.

The wizard class doesn't pay enough to get comparable fighter progression at epic levels.

So, where's the problem ? If the wizard is more efficient when "wizarding" than when "fightering", why would he fight ? So, how could his combat prowess be compared to that of the fighter ?

Note that BAB is not used only for weapon attack -- spellcaster have plenty of melee and ranged (usually touch attack, but I've seen some exceptions) spell requiring a to-hit roll.

Yes and AC is usually at least halved (or better) against touch spells.

Of which the fighter is rather plentiful...

Yes but the Wizard gets feats too...AND spells.

Of course. When given the possibility, they'll always cast a spell rather than swing a staff.

Exactly and I don't see why the balance between melee and magic should be any different for the Wizard at epic levels.

Usually, yes. That's his role as an "artillery wargame unit".

Wizards are a varied lot. I played in two Ars Magica saga (that game lingo for campaign), and while in one my mage, Sorlin, was quite archetypal (non-combatant, knowledge-hungry bookworm), my character for the second, Necam, was rather oddball, as he was roguish/swashbucklerish in behaviour and used nearly only what we could call "buffing spell", and fought with sword (usually once enlarged to double his size, with a copperish skin for armor, and airborn on the wings of winds).

Of course, in D&D term, he would have been forced to be something like a spellsword, and would thus lose several caster level, while in Ars Magica he was perfectly able of casting spell of the same high magnitude than his fellow (especially in the Corporem (spells that affect a body) and Muto (spells that modify something) arts).

What I'm just trying to say by this exo-D&D example is that a wizard (or sorcerer) with a BAB that don't stray too far low from a fighter is not necessarily unlegitimate.

You can still have a Wizard that can competantly fight; they are called multi-class Wizard-Fighters.

I am not familiar with Ars Magica but it must attempt some balance between Fighter types and Spellcaster types, otherwise everyone plays a spellcaster.