Author Topic: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper  (Read 40557 times)

Offline Nachofan99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2011, 11:41:48 AM »
I like the OP's main points.  Think of 3.X coming off of 2nd Edition where casters are deliberately more powerful...if you can live that long.  The thing is, at first level, casters would die incredibly easily - you're a commoner than can fire a magic missile.

3.X came in and greatly improved caster low level play, while not improving melee high level play.  But that's what the OP was basically saying; casters are kind of supposed to be super powerful as a hold over from 2nd ed.

In before DMG quote about carefully balanced classes.

Offline Bozwevial

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3052
  • Developing a relaxed attitude toward danger
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2011, 12:45:35 PM »
Yeah, verisimilitude is more about internal consistency and deals with things like paying wheelbarrows full of gold for a mace. Realism (ignoring magic) only lasts for a few levels before you go superhuman.
Homebrew Compendiums: D&D 3.5 4e/PF
IRC: #mmxgeneral on Rizon

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2011, 01:18:53 PM »
I hate to contradict, but I think that fast-acting, low-impact wizards would have been fine. However, when the designers decided to make spells that simply bypass normal play measures (like hitpoints), that is where everything went wrong.

Examples:
Glitterdust wouldn't be so broken if it inflicted the dazzled condition only, and lit up the targets.

Disintegrate should deal 10d6 damage on a failed save and turn you to dust if you die, 4d6 on a made save.

Sleep should deal 4d10 nonlethal damage to everyone within the affected area, making them fall asleep if they would be made unconscious (and having the nonlethal damage disappear as soon as they woke up), not just KO'ing everyone it hits.

The "paralyzed" condition does not exist. Instead, Things that would paralyze you instead deal DEX damage round by round. When you reach 0 DEX, you are paralyzed. Remove Paralysis is simply a more direct way of healing DEX ability damage.


The designers made some great ways to emulate reality, like nonlethal damage, ability damage, hitpoints, and ability damage. most status effects inflicted by SoDs are simply too much for the game to handle. That is what I believe breaks casters. No fighter could ever hope to transcend hp like that.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2011, 01:58:22 PM »
So your solution is to make magic just as worthless as non magic? Sounds like a good way to get the entire party killed the moment they go to fight something level appropriate.

You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is how can you make swinging a sword around a valid life choice. Admittedly this is easier said than done.

Offline Nachofan99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2011, 03:31:11 PM »
I hate to contradict, but I think that fast-acting, low-impact wizards would have been fine. However, when the designers decided to make spells that simply bypass normal play measures (like hitpoints), that is where everything went wrong.

Examples:
Glitterdust wouldn't be so broken if it inflicted the dazzled condition only, and lit up the targets.

Disintegrate should deal 10d6 damage on a failed save and turn you to dust if you die, 4d6 on a made save.

Sleep should deal 4d10 nonlethal damage to everyone within the affected area, making them fall asleep if they would be made unconscious (and having the nonlethal damage disappear as soon as they woke up), not just KO'ing everyone it hits.

The "paralyzed" condition does not exist. Instead, Things that would paralyze you instead deal DEX damage round by round. When you reach 0 DEX, you are paralyzed. Remove Paralysis is simply a more direct way of healing DEX ability damage.


The designers made some great ways to emulate reality, like nonlethal damage, ability damage, hitpoints, and ability damage. most status effects inflicted by SoDs are simply too much for the game to handle. That is what I believe breaks casters. No fighter could ever hope to transcend hp like that.

I only disagree slightly with the bolded section.  Any TWF sneak attack/uber charger/Splitting Arrow Archer is forcing "pseudo" SoD's via hitting ACs and dealing enough damage to make it worthwhile.  HP of the target is irrelevent for well designed non-casters that are optimized to deal damage; it's more about dealing with Mirror Images/Miss Chance/Flight/Invisibility or defenses other that AC that non-casters can't deal with effectively or at all.

That does agree with what we're mostly primarily saying; casters were given mechanics that IGNORE, CIRCUMVENT and REPLACE standard game mechanics.  Of course they are superior at pretty much everything.  And it looks like it is entirely intentional to make they casters perform that way.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2011, 03:34:20 PM »
So your solution is to make magic just as worthless as non magic? Sounds like a good way to get the entire party killed the moment they go to fight something level appropriate.

You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is how can you make swinging a sword around a valid life choice. Admittedly this is easier said than done.

Wow, way to jump the gun, bub.
If you change the fundaments of D&D magic, "level-appropriate" suddenly changes. When rocket tag is limited to corner-cases, when everything is subject to hitpoints or some level of randomness greater than a simple save, things on all levels start to simmer down. When magic starts to match up with mundane combat, become more on the level of maneuvers, say, then the game has less of a divide.

I am saying that casters should play by mundanes rules, at least mechanically. In all of the above situations, the spell is essentially the same, flavorwise, it is just less abrupt and game-changing. Disintegrate still disintegrates, but not instantly. The high-level wizard disintegrates things of lower levels, with fewer hp, in a single shot, but he can't turn a balor to dust in one shot. That goes with the flavor of the spell. A wizened wizard turns someone normal to dust for mocking him, bust the same shot doesn't annihilate gods.

Obviously, when everyone starts playing softball, the monsters playing hardball won't be appropriate anymore. Many of the spell-like abilities of monsters would change just as the spells they are based on, nerfing that a bit.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2011, 04:03:18 PM »
So your solution is to make magic just as worthless as non magic? Sounds like a good way to get the entire party killed the moment they go to fight something level appropriate.

You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is how can you make swinging a sword around a valid life choice. Admittedly this is easier said than done.
Well we've gone the other way and made mundane appoximate magic and you end up at the tome series which actually has Samurai Deflecting raindrops(magic) and it was loved and the opposite too.
I think though that sneers suggestiong might slide towards "No one gets nice things" which is in my opinion was the essence of 4th edition again my opinion.
One of the best answers to this was the "Feats apporoximate quadratic" but people wereen't comfy with this.

We on BG spent a year or more re-balancing things for 3.5 keeping close to 3.5 as to not offend people and you know what? They were still offended, by simple things like "a spell that causes the following effects (save or dies/suck) cost 1 full round to cast. Giving abilities like "Meleeist increases his threatened area by 5 ft, if someone provokes an AoO he may take a 5 foot step to intecept) at high levels we increase it more to where he had effectively an interupt attack within "X" feat, but people where inflammed.
I remember specifically someone over at wizards going "PFFT! So what the high level fight is "spiderman" or the eff-ing "flash" now? No way".
So in someways the op is right... some people a large portion actually want the fighter to be "human with a sword" however this:

Quote
As a further note, I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with having character  A being able to "reshape reality at a whim" and character B being "the greatest knight in the land."
I'm baffled by, this. You have to understand why thats wrong on some level?
Its conceptually wrong... for those two people to fighting a challenge that equal to both of them.
Bmx Bandit and Angel Summoner is important here.
The simplest thing to illustrate is this:
If you are the "Greatest Knight in the land"
and
I "Reshape reality at a whim"...
Then it is within my power to say "Now, my dog! My dog is the greatest knight in all the land!"
and for it to be ostensibly true.
(It might take a bit for me to Awaken my dog, and then cast PAO, then give it the sufficient buffs and armor, and Mindrape it towards the belief its is the greatest knight in the land etc) (alternatively the knight could be subtly corrupted then turned into a dog)
The issue isn't the mechanics there, but like the op suggest the issue is the concept, and that needs to be looked at hard before people can ever get on the same page about what the relationship between:
Caster
and
Non-caster .... is really going to be in a game.

I vote everybody awesome mechanically. What remains is a "find an idea set that lets that work" I don't like the "Magic drives you mad" or "Punishes you" at all.
I prefer... magic doesn't work on everyone/everything. Which means a sweeping change but there could be sweeping changes that actually work.
 
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2011, 04:12:21 PM »
Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

But yes, from a mechanical standpoint it is absolutely horrible to tell the mundanes that they will forever be second-string players. So you have to get over the cultural taboo against letting someone break the laws of physics through sheer training alone, and it helps if you also stop casters from being do-everything people.

See, this is why the Japanese do this shit better. For one, even the "mundane" fighters are head and shoulders above mundane "people". The fighter isn't just the guy who swings a sword; he's the guy who swings a sword so fucking fast he can deflect raindrops, verisimilitude be bent over the knee and spitroasted like a common whore.

Record of Lodoss War illustrates this best. At one point, Slayn and other members of Parn's crew are ambushed. Slayn wants to cast a spell to bring a quick end to the conflict, so what does he do? He asks to be defended because casters are helpless while casting. But D&D made this too simple. Partly because most encounters do not last over a minute, and partly because buffs notwithstanding, making a concentration check is that damn easy, the moment when casters are supposed to be their most vulnerable does not exist.
You do know that that anime was based on a 2nd edition D&D campaign, right? And in 2nd edition, there was no concentration skill. If you got hit while casting, you automatically lost the spell.

Also, there were other reasons that the caster/warrior divide wasn't as huge back then. Casters were still stronger overall at the higher levels, but warriors had a lot more hit points (con bonus was capped for non-warrior classes), and a lot better saves than they do in 3.X. Extra attacks were harder to come by also, especially for non-warriors. So playing a gish was more difficult overall, I think. You couldn't just slap on one or two spells and do as well as Fighty McFighter at fighting.

So... I guess the takeaway message is unless you consider older editions of D&D Japanese... that's not a good example.  :P And now the world will end as I'm lecturing Kuroi on anime...
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2011, 04:27:17 PM »
...
Quote
As a further note, I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with having character  A being able to "reshape reality at a whim" and character B being "the greatest knight in the land."
I'm baffled by, this. You have to understand why thats wrong on some level?
Its conceptually wrong... for those two people to fighting a challenge that equal to both of them.
Bmx Bandit and Angel Summoner is important here.
The simplest thing to illustrate is this:
If you are the "Greatest Knight in the land"
and
I "Reshape reality at a whim"...
Then it is within my power to say "Now, my dog! My dog is the greatest knight in all the land!"
and for it to be ostensibly true.
(It might take a bit for me to Awaken my dog, and then cast PAO, then give it the sufficient buffs and armor, and Mindrape it towards the belief its is the greatest knight in the land etc) (alternatively the knight could be subtly corrupted then turned into a dog)
The issue isn't the mechanics there, but like the op suggest the issue is the concept, and that needs to be looked at hard before people can ever get on the same page about what the relationship between:
Caster
and
Non-caster .... is really going to be in a game.
...
Please don't turn me into a strawman.  And, please don't completely take me out of context. 

What I actually said was that D&D is an action-adventure game with fantasy trappings.  So, being good at action-adventure things is sufficient.  Whether or not my knight character can conjure balls of fire, leomund's secure bathhouse, or whatever isn't all that important to me.  I don't think it's necessary to being viable or even fun or even keeping up in the game.  This, by the way, is the exact approach taken in the Tome series:  the Tome Samurai has a ton of combat abilities, and even some non-combat ones, but he can't conjure huts or anything. 

Now, what I said just 1 sentence later was that the problem is when Captain Reshape Reality can make the Knight obsolete.  Which, I feel compelled to point out, is the exact same example cited in the quote above. 

Perhaps it's my own fault, but I meant "reshape reality on a whim" to imply broad-based "unrealistic," in the sense of highly fantastical power that would have to, pretty much by definition, be the province of magic.  For example, the leomund's example in this post.  By contrast, the Tome Fighter's Foil ability could, theoretically, be couched as something "mundane" -- e.g., you throw sand (or a dagger) at the beholder's eye right before it zaps you. 

P.S.:  I did have a whole comparison of Green Lantern and the Hulk thought out, but I think that's probably less helpful rather than more.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 04:29:35 PM by Unbeliever »

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2011, 04:28:55 PM »
So your solution is to make magic just as worthless as non magic? Sounds like a good way to get the entire party killed the moment they go to fight something level appropriate.

You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is how can you make swinging a sword around a valid life choice. Admittedly this is easier said than done.
The OP's post was that there was something inherent in the concept of magic that led to the quadratic v. linear issue.  That is, rather than stemming from idiosyncrasies in game design. 

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2011, 04:34:49 PM »
So your solution is to make magic just as worthless as non magic? Sounds like a good way to get the entire party killed the moment they go to fight something level appropriate.

You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is how can you make swinging a sword around a valid life choice. Admittedly this is easier said than done.

Wow, way to jump the gun, bub.
If you change the fundaments of D&D magic, "level-appropriate" suddenly changes. When rocket tag is limited to corner-cases, when everything is subject to hitpoints or some level of randomness greater than a simple save, things on all levels start to simmer down. When magic starts to match up with mundane combat, become more on the level of maneuvers, say, then the game has less of a divide.

Nope. You are still 1-2 rounded by full attacks at all levels. Just you can't 1-2 round them. So you lose. Each and every time.

Quote
I am saying that casters should play by mundanes rules, at least mechanically. In all of the above situations, the spell is essentially the same, flavorwise, it is just less abrupt and game-changing. Disintegrate still disintegrates, but not instantly. The high-level wizard disintegrates things of lower levels, with fewer hp, in a single shot, but he can't turn a balor to dust in one shot. That goes with the flavor of the spell. A wizened wizard turns someone normal to dust for mocking him, bust the same shot doesn't annihilate gods.

Disintegrate becomes light poke. What, did I walk into the 4th edition section by mistake? Disintegrate never one shotted a Balor, because it does less than half even if he doesn't save. Making everyone give out Flurries of Blows might make the Monk feel less lonely, but it doesn't make the game better, and does quickly leave you without players.

Quote
Obviously, when everyone starts playing softball, the monsters playing hardball won't be appropriate anymore. Many of the spell-like abilities of monsters would change just as the spells they are based on, nerfing that a bit.

And they still easily kill you, and you can't fight back anymore. Dragging everyone down to that same level of suck is called 4th edition, and there is a reason why its predecessor is STILL more populat.

And yes, there is something inherent. It's called magic has more than one thing it can do, and non magic doesn't. So non magic is forced to engage in the very definition of insanity, while magic has more than one thing it can do.

Imagine two people playing a game, and one of them has a broken controller such that only the X button works.

Offline Kuroimaken

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5348
  • No obstacle too great for the FLAMES IN MY HEART!!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2011, 04:38:34 PM »
Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

But yes, from a mechanical standpoint it is absolutely horrible to tell the mundanes that they will forever be second-string players. So you have to get over the cultural taboo against letting someone break the laws of physics through sheer training alone, and it helps if you also stop casters from being do-everything people.

See, this is why the Japanese do this shit better. For one, even the "mundane" fighters are head and shoulders above mundane "people". The fighter isn't just the guy who swings a sword; he's the guy who swings a sword so fucking fast he can deflect raindrops, verisimilitude be bent over the knee and spitroasted like a common whore.

Record of Lodoss War illustrates this best. At one point, Slayn and other members of Parn's crew are ambushed. Slayn wants to cast a spell to bring a quick end to the conflict, so what does he do? He asks to be defended because casters are helpless while casting. But D&D made this too simple. Partly because most encounters do not last over a minute, and partly because buffs notwithstanding, making a concentration check is that damn easy, the moment when casters are supposed to be their most vulnerable does not exist.
You do know that that anime was based on a 2nd edition D&D campaign, right? And in 2nd edition, there was no concentration skill. If you got hit while casting, you automatically lost the spell.

Also, there were other reasons that the caster/warrior divide wasn't as huge back then. Casters were still stronger overall at the higher levels, but warriors had a lot more hit points (con bonus was capped for non-warrior classes), and a lot better saves than they do in 3.X. Extra attacks were harder to come by also, especially for non-warriors. So playing a gish was more difficult overall, I think. You couldn't just slap on one or two spells and do as well as Fighty McFighter at fighting.

So... I guess the takeaway message is unless you consider older editions of D&D Japanese... that's not a good example.  :P And now the world will end as I'm lecturing Kuroi on anime...

Only partially based. See Ghim taking on the Gray Witch, or that berserker guy whose name escapes me at the moment. (Plus, what class was Deedlit anyway? I don't think "Bard" is appropriate for what she did, though she pretty much filled that role in the party.)

But the point remains: spellcasters can remake the world in their image, but they're completely helpless until the spell takes effect. This is true in pretty much all anime where magic is a driving force. Even if someone can sodomize reality in a fraction of a moment, it is ALWAYS pointed out how ridiculous that is, until someone ELSE negates that via sheer power of awesomeness, willpower and so on and forth. The typical meatshield still has SOME role to play, even if it is "keep this bitch busy while I go pick her pocket" or something.
Kami darou ga akuma darou ga, ore no michi ni tateru mono NASHI!!

Give me internets. Now.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2011, 04:58:06 PM »
The view I presented was the problem I believe blighted the inception of D&D, 3.5 specifically. Their mechanics simply bypass, subvert, or, as Nachofan said, "IGNORE, CIRCUMVENT and REPLACE standard game mechanics."

In hindsight, a balanced game could only be accomplished by forcing wizards to work within established mechanics.

However, in hindsight, I also agree that that fix is simply saying, "No one can have nice things."

Knowing how awesome a wizard can be is really cool, until compared to a fighter. Now that we have seen true glory, seeing the "No one can have nice things" school in play is 4E, a system I am not particularly enthused by.

I am firmly of the school of "everybody should be awesome." People should be Super Saiyins and Kratos clones at high levels. I think that that is the ideal. That is really cool.

That doesn't detract from the fact that the school is still fundamentally saying, "Well, wizards are broken, let's break everything else!" It also doesn't detract from the fact that it all could have been prevented by simply having casters work within established standard game mechanics, for better or for worse. This seems to be what they were after, anyways; the CR system certainly sheds light on that.

I do not say that I want everyone to be little nothings muddling about. I am objectively stating that the problems with casters stem from that, and all of this would not be an issue. I do accept, though, that streamlining things leads to sameness, leads to 4E.  ;D
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2011, 05:09:09 PM »
Quote
Please don't turn me into a strawman.  And, please don't completely take me out of context.
Hmm... that irritating.
Some miscommunication occur'd. Still as long as you understand that its wrong to have a "Htc phone that can grant you 3 wishes one of them can be for the Iphone-X" is better than having Iphone-X we're good.

A brief not on the "gish": I don't want people to malign the existance of "The Gish" the gish is supposed to exist.
Here's what its NOT supposed to be in a 'well made' game.
1. Not supposed to be someone who is stictly better than pure melee, because of magic, but worse than a pure mage because of using melee.
2. Not supposed to be someone who's worse than both the Melee class, AND the Caster class.
That only occurs in poorly balanced games where magic is just better than melee or where multiclassing is punished but we have prcs.
I think it was sunic that said it last before he was removed but Gish=Buffs, and really thats what that guy is doing overall.
He might take the 1st round to cast "arbitrary spell to stop combat for a second" followed by a round of "buffing", or he might be buffed all day long.  Thats what thats about though. Nothing wrong with having a mage who's whole thing is I use magic to beat people up. . . like at all. Its just an example of hyperspecialization.

I like this thread because it takes the time to discuss the problems inherent with the very concept of magic in the game. Ramirez! Do everything, is a meme, so it's weird to see it in acutal effect.
I thought about the "magic punishes you:somehow" bit... and why I don't like it. Story effects to punish mechanical concepts is trite, and annoying, and there are a million pages of paladin discussion, to show why power for story sucks. (even if they're not powerful, the pricipal is a hold over from earlier edition X where they were supposed to be). Also, it one of those things where either A. Its too bad to use (in which case it might as well not exist). B. We'll just find away around the restictions (as well this the min-max boards.com) or C. The restrictions won't matter in game at all, like... any race with immortality for example. In actual play you being having the immortal trait(won't die of old age) has about .5% chance of ever being mechanically relavant, similar to "Lost my soul" etc...
So thats not a good approach, no having a soul can be good because, it makes you immune to things that effect souls. LOL
Quote
That doesn't detract from the fact that the school is still fundamentally saying, "Well, wizards are broken, let's break everything else!" It also doesn't detract from the fact that it all could have been prevented by simply having casters work within established standard game mechanics, for better or for worse. This seems to be what they were after, anyways; the CR system certainly sheds light on that.
   

"Lets break everyting else..."
Now I feel I'm being made a strawman of, I apologize to unbeliever formally.

Thats NOT what anybody is saying.
What's being said is: "At high levels the standard of game play mechanically is "9", therefore let us make all the classes play at a "9" and not just Wizards, and Monsters."
Thats acutally NOT broke. Thats actually works.

At that point we have to decide what is a broken effect. This is the second pillar of wrongness beyond concepts that mundanes are bob your neighbor but with a sword.
I played magic the gathering so, I remember when that term rose to popularity, and sometimes we'd say "Play solitaire" for certain combo decks.

Some of it is bad dm'ing some of it is improper monster design, but everything is broke... is a problem.

I have a question about this but I need a second to formulate it just right... brb...
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Kuroimaken

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5348
  • No obstacle too great for the FLAMES IN MY HEART!!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2011, 05:16:30 PM »
The problem is also that there are several schools of thought on what is "balanced" and what is not.

For example, 4E dictates everyone is the same. No need to tell how that turns out.

MMOs ascribe 'roles' to party members (typically the Tank, the Glass Cannon, the Healer etc.), which falls apart when you consider that A) some roles are more vital than others and B) some roles are completely irrelevant depending on party makeup. The usual "fix" is to make mixed-role classes, which actually makes shit worse.

Rock-Paper-Scissors (yes, there is such a school of thought) makes each archetype really good at one thing and completely sucky at everything else. Which sucks when either A) that thing is more or less pointless (see in-combat healing) or B) everybody plays rock.

And finally, we have the "powerful, yes, but with limitations" school that goes "you CAN bend reality and sodomize it over the table, but if you do, X, Y and Z happen to you." Unfortunately, X, Y and Z can be things that make the ability itself unusable, things that are little more than speedbumps (if at all) or actual blessings in disguise, sometimes both or all three at once, depending on the situation. (Example: an ability that makes you more difficult to damage but makes you slower can be useless if you move in slow motion, unimportant if speed is not an issue, or actually better for it if being fast becomes a disadvantage for whatever reason, like falling off a building).

And no one seems to agree on which school of thought to follow...
Kami darou ga akuma darou ga, ore no michi ni tateru mono NASHI!!

Give me internets. Now.

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2011, 05:30:02 PM »

And no one seems to agree on which school of thought to follow...

Of course, the only agreement that matters in this case is the one at your table^^

That aside though, debate is good for the soul - as long as the people involved don't act like they're coming down from on high delivering holy writ. 

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 05:31:29 PM »
I am firmly of the school of "everybody should be awesome." People should be Super Saiyins and Kratos clones at high levels. I think that that is the ideal. That is really cool.

That doesn't detract from the fact that the school is still fundamentally saying, "Well, wizards are broken, let's break everything else!" It also doesn't detract from the fact that it all could have been prevented by simply having casters work within established standard game mechanics, for better or for worse. This seems to be what they were after, anyways; the CR system certainly sheds light on that.

I do not say that I want everyone to be little nothings muddling about. I am objectively stating that the problems with casters stem from that, and all of this would not be an issue. I do accept, though, that streamlining things leads to sameness, leads to 4E.  ;D

Kratos is a mid level character.

With that said everything else already is 'broken', as long as you're defining broken as able to function in the game world, which is a very odd definition. Everything else that is, except for non casters on the PC side.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2011, 05:35:37 PM »
Kuroimaken ( I can spell that without looking, so I know I'm badass) you are most correct.
I may have made the mistake of thinking he was talking about the "Tome Series" aka Tome of Awesome...
So... the "lets break everything" I get that from people sometimes, and really its not about that. The thing is even at base D&D 3.5 we have uberchargers doing nth damage and Hurlers destroying the world. People can look at any system with complex rules and try to make something unfair.
  The tomes actually make it more fair, for everbody, instead of now how its only fair for casters, can you break the tomes? Yeah.  I've seen a fighter build break it (intentionally for the sake of argument mind you) by using size increases, and mazimizing damage to kill everything in one round, course he chose to ignore some of the highlevel monster abilities like the titan's image powers that say "You'll never attack me" to do it.
The thing to understand is that the MONSTERS are broke too, if we look at it from sneers perspective half the time because they have full casting or "Monster only powers/defenses"
 
I got that question now by the way.
It is about being broken.
I remember reading the fighter math thread (a relavant read btw) and even if not you'll agree.
At level 1 a Melee class with an 18str and a greatsword kills most everything in the game in 1 round and with a few exceptions 2 rounds.
Minimum damage: 2 greatsword dice + 6 str. = 8 damage.
If you use dice expression 3.5 for greatsword damage then its:
Damage = 7greatsword damage + 6 strength = 13 damage.
NOTE There are Raging barbarians and a few other critters that are really tough that won't die in 2 rounds of this.
So here's the question...

If at level 1 the concept of a melee killing any single target in 2 full attacks is acceptable, then why is it that at level 10 15 20 people call it broke?
Edit: Espeically considering that the higher you go the more the enemies are capable of killing you all in 1 single round, and have a multitude of defenses to prevent that.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 05:43:10 PM by midnight_v »
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Kuroimaken

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5348
  • No obstacle too great for the FLAMES IN MY HEART!!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2011, 05:45:23 PM »
The problem isn't that casters can kill with HP damage (or that they can kill AT ALL). It's that they can do that AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

Magic isn't the only enabler, mind you. It's just the most ridiculously easily accessible and consequence-free method.
Kami darou ga akuma darou ga, ore no michi ni tateru mono NASHI!!

Give me internets. Now.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2011, 05:49:55 PM »
Sorry, didn't mean "Let's break everything." Used hyperbole to enhance point.

I have no issue with high-level power at high levels. I think that any appropriately designed ability that can be feasibly explained in even the most tenuous ways is great for melee guys. I am okay with the everyman hero, as the OP said, turning into a demigod in a gradual evolution.

My problem is with the fixes out there that say, "The wizard can do this, so how can we make our fighter fix counter it?" Doesn't matter how the ability works to them, as long as the new fighter can take a wizard in a straight fight.
There we see the emergence of "Let's break everything."
When the fixes devolve into, "Fuck you, wizard, I'm a fighter!"

Examples:
Good: Fighter can change planes by slicing a hole in the cosmos and stepping through. Crazy, but awesome and somehow conceivable.
Bad: Fighter kills everyone in a one-mile radius by looking cool since the wizard can already do the locate city bomb. Makes no sense, and exists purely to keep up with wizards.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.