Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6075127" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm trying to reply to this one, but you've messed up your coding again.Roughly the way I do it.  "We said in 4e Roll the Dice or Say Yes.  But it turned out saying Yessssss was more fun."  - 13th Age (paraphrased).The caps are still there; <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm" target="_blank">fireball still caps at 10d6</a>, and the race limits were a balancing factor that 3E did absolutely the right thing for - eliminated them by making humans a viable choice.4e is Exception Based Design.  This is expected.  It doesn't bother with the trappings of 3e that indicate the other way.There's two problems with saying that.  The first is you can justify anything with fluff.  The second is to at least paraphrase LogicNinja, "A druid shouldn't take any PRCs that don't start with the letter 'P'.  And end with 'lanar Shepherd'".  Wizard 20, Cleric 20, Druid 20, Artificer 20.  These will break your game if played well.  Any prestige class on top of the wizard or cleric is just gravy.  And as a rule Druids and Artificers shouldn't take prestige classes.<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shrinkItem.htm" target="_blank">Shrink Item</a>.  As normal in 3.X the answer to the limitations of magic is ... more magic.That's why you don't do it to the casters but their faceless mooks and henchmen.I've said how absurdly many spells a mid-high level wizard gets.  Novaing at level 9 doesn't burn out all your spells.  As for "Being in enemy territory", you memorise a handful of locations then teleport back home and come back the next morning.  When you've run out of your literally dozens of spells.The caster being blinded at the cost of the only bad guy being blinded is not a problem.  A 50% miss chance imposed on the bad guy means he's half as dangerous as he was.  And easier to kill because his defences have been nerfed.  Likewise Slow; the <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kraken.htm" target="_blank">Kraken</a> slowed means it can no longer take full round attacks, cutting back from +28/+28, +23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23 and a bite at +23 to one single attack at +28.  You've just cut at least two thirds of the threat off the kraken.  The fact that the wizard now can either move or cast a spell is, at this point, almost irrelevant.  The wizard's done his job and then some - finishing the kraken can be left to the characters that specialise in doing damage.You mean that a fighter can have a wand used on him, a wizard can use a wand?Neither does the wizard.  As mentioned he carries two scrolls of knock (costing a trivial amount) and the fighter carries a crow bar.Your DMs aren't dumb.  They are smart.  The spellcasters actually casting the AoE damage spells are dumb - this is a difference.  Playing a spellcaster NPC as smart would make them a very strong enemy.Of course you don't.  If you are getting hit by a weapon, your problem is you got into reach.  And weapons don't bypass the hit point mechanism.  This is why, despite alowing spell resistance, <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/slow.htm" target="_blank">Slow</a> is the fourth of the big low-ish level AoE debuffs.  It can be fired into melee selectively.  It's not a burst attack, it's a "Target: 1 creature per level" and it's a save not a to hit.  Firing into melee means you might accidently hit the wrong person, but with no to hit roll this isn't an issue.He was on full hit points and out shopping.  Spells memorised but none up.  He also had a Solar Simulacrum to carry his shopping for him.First, this isn't a serious problem in older editions.The wizard gets fewer spells.  Debuffs are harder to get through than direct damage.  Spell preparation took longer.  There was a soft cap in the game at level 9.  With weapon specialisation the fighter was genuinely mighty - and could shrug off spells at high level.  Weapons did more damage as a matter of course at higher levels - that was one of the purposes behind large creatures taking extra damage.As for 3.5, there are things to recommend it - and 4e made a lot of good design decisions but never explained them.  If you don't have a tactical mind it can work well enough for everyone at the table.  And if you're an out and out munchkin (I'm not saying all 3.X players are merely that some are and they tend to hate 4e because it is fairly well balanced), 3.X is as much a playground as Exalted.Because winning a duel is the thing fighters are supposed to be good at.  The only thing.  They have literally no strategic resources as a class, unlike any of the casters.  Their skills generally suck unlike the rogue.  They can't take out whole armies - they don't have much area of effect and can't heal themselves.  What they should be able to do is take on the biggest and meanest enemies and kill them.  It should be the fighter going toe to toe with the dragon or wrestling with the Tarrasque.  On the other hand, the wizard even more than the rogue is the party squishy.  They are all about the strategic resources and trickery - they should be terrible at dueling because they are strong everywhere else (including on the army destruction front).The cost of a single +1 sword: 2300GP.  The cost of a single +2 sword: 8300 GP.The cost of one hundred level one scrolls: 2500GP.  The cost of twenty level 3 scrolls: 7500 GP.  (Remember that unlike the fighter the wizard can make scrolls for half this).  The fighter needs to spend their money on magic weapons and armour which is expensive - and ultimately will be upgraded so they are effectively consumable.  The wizard doesn't need a sword.  (And before you say Bracers of Defence, I'm going to say +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt.  ASF: 0%.  ACP: 0.  Total cost: 5250GP).And the only reason the level 20 fighter was in the duel at all was three quarters of a million GP on equipment.OK.  You've made up your mind that picking locks with a skill failure beats picking locks without.  But how do you get by without the wizard. You don't need a healer if you have neough potions.  You don't need the fighter - the Cleric or Druid can tank.  But who can replace the wizard?  This is the other problem.The difference between 4e and Pathfinder in terms of rigidity is minimal.  I can do loads in 4e I can't do in PF.In short you stopped when the Cleric ran out of spells.Open locks is occasionally useful.  Useful enough for the wizard to have a scroll of knock or two in the back of a spellbook (150GP each) for the rare things the crowbar can't deal with.  If the Rogue doesn't have Open Lock he can't do it - but the wizard can spend minimal resources to be able to do it often enough.Flight, Greater Mirror Image, a pet Solar Simulacrum, I can't remember the rest of it.  There are several ways.The problem is You need to block line of effect.  At that point it becomes an argument about what sort of materials block line of effect. And then keep that to hand.  If you're arguing it has to be metal, line the hat with steel/wear a helmet - or play games with Shrink Object and throwing the object onto the crossbow bolt.  (Alternatively picking up the crossbow bolt and firing it back).Silence is an obvious and well known spell.  There are answers within the fiction.Objection!  The Warrior's permanents are effectively consumables.  A warrior isn't normally still using the +1 sword he found at level 1 by the time he reaches level 16.This.We've Gygax's own words on these boards that it was for balance purposes (and the Cavalier and Barbarian were intended to be balanced with the casters).Bring them up to par at low levels.  Linear fighter quadratic wizard always existed.  It's just that they crossed at level 7 or so in a game soft-capped at level 10.  In 3.X the question is whether they cross at level 1 or level 3.This.  (And everything else you just wrote).Mine is that those rules are worse than useless.  They actively make the game worse.</blockquote>

Verification