Author Topic: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper  (Read 40556 times)

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #80 on: November 11, 2011, 04:21:33 PM »
Correct, its a different game though, hence trying it on for size. Better or not only comes out when players and GMs alike try it.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

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 #81 on: November 11, 2011, 04:49:25 PM »
Correct, its a different game though, hence trying it on for size. Better or not only comes out when players and GMs alike try it.
So... are you going to codifiy it into rules somehow? Or are you going to start an adventure, were you demo all your changes?
 
Maybe people should just play tier 3 campaigns for the win instead. Do any of those guys have teleport?

I see the "nerf casters" crowd, and I think... Conceptually a lot of the ideas people set forth seem bad. Mechanically: playing the tier 3 wizard. . . what does that mean in terms of vs team monster.

The problem is almost always vs "team monster" Beholders, Aboleths, Mindflayers, and Dragons... that is to say the iconic boss monsters you fight are the question. Tier 1 seems to be a meause of doing things, and I"m glad that we don't "have to have  a rogue" or "have to have a Melee"...

I'm just pissed off when those things are always inferior options.
I find that those are inferior option vs the MONSTERS and challenges as well. . .
Thats why my focus is more on point with powering people up instead of tearing people down... I hear people talk about "Lets take this from casters" but that shit has to come off monsters too.
This includes things like:
Beats the fuck out of unbuffed melee.
and... the monk. just... yeah.
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #82 on: November 11, 2011, 10:20:12 PM »
Well, the thing is you also know that it is all part of the problem of rocket tag, dangerous monsters do not last, their sole hazard is to use casting methods to kill or incapacitate the PCs before they go down. At the same time, these 'boss' monsters also make use of magic, so any weakening of magic would strike them in the same place.
While using large mobs of moderate challenges gives Team Monster the time to inflict some harm on the party, even a pure T4 party, with 1-2 T3s buffing it, would often be able to completely annihilate Team Monster in 2 rounds. The only difference with T1s and T2s(and hence, full casting) is  that they can  scale it up even faster.

If it helps, I'm aiming at T3.5 for mundanes(giving martials better skills, and easier access to 'common magic' stuff) and T3 for casters(narrow magical focus with limitations on more complex forms of casting).
The idea being that, if you can make a skill check to generate the equivalent of an Alarm spell for camping, why not? Same goes for healing(especially long term care and ability/special damage), and other simple utilities. As you go up, you get teleport equivalent effects and planar travel via the same means. Those worrying about verisimilitude can have their explicitly magical, yet skill based and accessible teleportation(use Survival to find natural portals, go clockwise around particular locations at noon and wind up elsewhere etc).
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2011, 01:28:16 AM »
You are going to have to first point out what this is in response to. Spellcasting actually is a good balance measure, both because everyone has it (except PC non casters) and because it's a good basis of what abilities should become available when. But that aside, if you have to warp the whole system just so attack for low damage is viable, you already have that. It's called 4th edition. Don't reinvent things.

I feel that MDJ is not level-appropriate, nor is Gate. The same to spells that allow the players to obviate the need for a plot. They are a pain in the ass to remember when DMing, and they render the effort I put into the campaign meaningless. Seriously, D&D is supposed to be a game about having fun. What kind of group has fun sitting on the sidelines while the Wizard using Scry and Die with his BC spells? Like the CR system, magic as written should not be used as a measuring stick for balance either. There are too many level-inappropriate abilities.

As for that 4E comment, that's really out of place (I rather dislike 4E for various reasons). I'm not saying that D&D should be more in line with the Final Fantasy Philosophy (where the party is only able to deal an insignificant fraction of the enemy's HP in damage while the enemy has the ability to TPK every turn). In fact, that's the main thing about 4E that I hate most.

I'm saying that the CR and Magic systems in D&D need revising. Magic of Incarnum had the right idea when it comes to flexibility, and the Bo9S had the right idea as far as combat goes. Both of those systems needed some more polishing (several Soulmelds/Maneuvers just aren't practical), but they were a huge step in the right direction (4E, incidentally, was a step away from the Bo9S IMO).
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

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 #84 on: November 12, 2011, 02:19:09 AM »
Quote
I feel that MDJ is not level-appropriate, nor is Gate.
Really? What does that term mean to you then?
Quote
They are a pain in the ass to remember when DMing, and they render the effort I put into the campaign meaningless. 
  Sometimes the simplest things derail dm's well laid plans, it part of the game. You have to deal with that, on some level.
Quote
The same to spells that allow the players to obviate the need for a plot

Okay... high level adventures require high level plots. They require more effort, on the behalf of everyone. Some of the things people seem to want to ask of high level char/plots, to be the same as that of low level char/plots... that sucks.
 Note I'm not specifically talking about "you" perse but if your dm'ing skill input is fetch Mcguffin/Walk to the mount of doom... then you dont' qualify to run high level campaigns.
Its work. Its supposed be high level because, not just high stakes but mechanically chars are expected to have their p's & q's in line.
Scrying is ubiquitous, teleportation is ubiquitous "among monsters" ... in fact some of the mosnters are ethereal ambushers... and really the thing that the people seem to forget is that ultimately the players are supposed to win. Like I don't mind a glorious death in the end game but losing and being defamed or having to deal with that, fall out? Fail.
There are sooo many facets of whats going there, but I"m not sure if you feel things like Disjunction and Gate level appropriate... for the highest level magic? Then I'm not sure what is... because well... balor's summon balors at that level, while summon mosnter 9 actually sucks because it summons bebiliths.

Do there need to be changes? Yeah, but high level needs to be high level still, the adventures are SUPPOSED to change there. Pause to digest.
Edit:
Quote
(4E, incidentally, was a step away from the Bo9S IMO).
Right... everyone else seems to think differently including the devs, but I'm sure I can see your point.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 02:20:55 AM by midnight_v »
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #85 on: November 12, 2011, 04:14:01 AM »
Quote
Okay... high level adventures require high level plots. They require more effort, on the behalf of everyone. Some of the things people seem to want to ask of high level char/plots, to be the same as that of low level char/plots... that sucks.
As a minor aside, think it could be worth a thread on plots appropriate for higher level campaigns, with partial or full consideration of magical effects?
This is not an isolated issue, lots of GMs face the issue, and without an adequate response or plot, both the players and GM suffer from a worse game for it. Mostly a list of situations trivialized by the application of magic(the list of plots that do not work, by spell level(character level being irrelevant to the discussion here), ways to work around particularly all-solving ones, or what to restrict, if you still want a standard plot.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #86 on: November 12, 2011, 07:21:49 AM »
This is not an isolated issue, lots of GMs face the issue, and without an adequate response or plot, both the players and GM suffer from a worse game for it. Mostly a list of situations trivialized by the application of magic(the list of plots that do not work, by spell level(character level being irrelevant to the discussion here), ways to work around particularly all-solving ones, or what to restrict, if you still want a standard plot.

That's greatly covered by my guide to DMs, with advice on how dealing with anti-plot spells and exotic quais-magic terrains for higher level play.

As for the plot itself, well, in my experience most groups prefer to create their own, based on whatever they like. And then simply plot power is used to help it work. The BBEG has the special evil ritual, the prophet can see limited glimpses of the future, the super-ancient isolated city has special defenses, etc, etc

Even pretty much all wotc published modules give custom unique abilities to the main NPCs.

Now some abilities are simply not level apropriate, no matter the level. Gate is one of the biggest offenders here. As a standard action, call a creature that's stronger than you from a massive selection list (double from your own HD, from any of thousand monsters ever printed, what the hell were they smoking?) and you get full acess to its abilities for several rounds for chump change exp cost. Since it's auto-scaling (and loopable with certain monsters), it's just not balanced by an means of the word and the only way to deal with it is nerf/ban.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 07:27:30 AM by oslecamo »

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #87 on: November 12, 2011, 07:53:13 AM »
Monsters can just kill people in 1 or 2 full attacks without ever casting a spell.

You are going to have to first point out what this is in response to. Spellcasting actually is a good balance measure, both because everyone has it (except PC non casters) and because it's a good basis of what abilities should become available when. But that aside, if you have to warp the whole system just so attack for low damage is viable, you already have that. It's called 4th edition. Don't reinvent things.

I feel that MDJ is not level-appropriate, nor is Gate. The same to spells that allow the players to obviate the need for a plot. They are a pain in the ass to remember when DMing, and they render the effort I put into the campaign meaningless. Seriously, D&D is supposed to be a game about having fun. What kind of group has fun sitting on the sidelines while the Wizard using Scry and Die with his BC spells? Like the CR system, magic as written should not be used as a measuring stick for balance either. There are too many level-inappropriate abilities.

Level 17 is well broken. With that said, MDJ is an example of an anomalous spell, much like Fire Trap but for different reasons. It's also one that no one has any reason to ever cast, so it's really just wasted ink. Gate is broken for much the same reason that Planar Binding is. So you remove Conjuration (calling) and its 4 spells or so. Big deal.

As for spells "obviating" plots, that is an example of the DM not grasping that this isn't a game where you fight level 20 orc bandits in the woods at level 20. It's a game in which the game dynamics change every few levels. So if you throw some low level fetch quest at a mid or high level party, they're likely going to solve it without significantly interrupting their smoke break. Just like they'd kill ordinary MM Orcs in a flash. Pick level appropriate encounters. It applies to more than just enemy statblocks.

Scry and Fry consists of the Wizard finding the target, everyone buffing up, and then everyone going to jump on them. That's many things, but leaving the rest of the party out is not one of them.

Quote
As for that 4E comment, that's really out of place (I rather dislike 4E for various reasons). I'm not saying that D&D should be more in line with the Final Fantasy Philosophy (where the party is only able to deal an insignificant fraction of the enemy's HP in damage while the enemy has the ability to TPK every turn). In fact, that's the main thing about 4E that I hate most.

In 4th edition, the enemies also do low damage. That is why you can get away with doing low damage, as it means combat is slow, and not quick with you losing.

Quote
I'm saying that the CR and Magic systems in D&D need revising. Magic of Incarnum had the right idea when it comes to flexibility, and the Bo9S had the right idea as far as combat goes. Both of those systems needed some more polishing (several Soulmelds/Maneuvers just aren't practical), but they were a huge step in the right direction (4E, incidentally, was a step away from the Bo9S IMO).

There are a few anomalous enemies. For the most part though, you can throw anything level appropriate at a good party and be confident they can beat it. If you were to really get technical about it, more of the anomalies are in favor of enemies being too weak than too strong. They also share common weaknesses just a little too much. But this problem is generally fixable without changing the enemies fundamentally. Different feats are just using the resources they have in a better way, for instance.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #88 on: November 12, 2011, 09:04:12 AM »
Quote
That's greatly covered by my guide to DMs, with advice on how dealing with anti-plot spells and exotic quais-magic terrains for higher level play.

As for the plot itself, well, in my experience most groups prefer to create their own, based on whatever they like. And then simply plot power is used to help it work. The BBEG has the special evil ritual, the prophet can see limited glimpses of the future, the super-ancient isolated city has special defenses, etc, etc
Yeah but it's a bit more oriented towards conflict and combat in general, while I'm thinking of getting a general look at plot, plot enabling effects and plot bypassing effects.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #89 on: November 12, 2011, 11:14:01 AM »
Yeah but it's a bit more oriented towards conflict and combat in general, while I'm thinking of getting a general look at plot, plot enabling effects and plot bypassing effects.

Well, being good at conflict and combat is both a plot-enabling effect (stop the monster/BBEG before it wrecks more havoc) and plot-bypassing effect (just kill them all and take the reward from their cold corpses, or kick down the door, or fly/jump over the obstacle, or go ethereal/teleport to the destination).

D&D is a combat and conflict based game after all. Every campaign-breaker ends up being based on greatly increasing your combat ability, be it minion hordes, endless wealth (that directly translates into endless combat power), and/or achieving such combat stats that nothing has any chance against you (notice that "combat" does include mobility, divinations and the like)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 11:19:53 AM by oslecamo »

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2011, 11:50:03 AM »
True, and bypassing conflict as well. Thats what I was referring to, theres guides as to how to challenge PCs but its purely combat(and most people hereabouts are a dab hand at it already), so plot consequences of abilities and extreme skills could be explored.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #91 on: November 12, 2011, 12:02:35 PM »
True, and bypassing conflict as well. Thats what I was referring to, theres guides as to how to challenge PCs but its purely combat(and most people hereabouts are a dab hand at it already), so plot consequences of abilities and extreme skills could be explored.

What's there to explore exactly? Either the plot has anti-mobility/divination effects (which are indeed explored in my guide), or the casters walk around everything. There is no much middle ground in there, because mobility/divination effects completely ignore everything else that wasn't specificly made to counter them, and all of said counters are combat-based.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 12:04:47 PM by oslecamo »

Offline liquid150

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #92 on: November 13, 2011, 10:07:37 AM »
The Black Company D20 game took many steps to make magic harder to use. The lack of optimization options for melees within the system makes it so that magic remains OP though. However, it looks like the game might play pretty well with other d20 supplements, so that could be changed.

I haven't had the chance to try the game yet, looks interesting.

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #93 on: December 04, 2011, 03:24:04 PM »
I hope that this isn't thread necromancy, but this point relates to the topic at hand so I saw no need to create a new post.

I recently watched The Spoony One's Leaping Wizards episode of the Counter Monkey series.

Spoony cut his teeth in the earlier editions of D&D (2nd edition I think), where spellcasters at low levels were a lot less powerful than 3rd edition low-level spellcasters.  He knew that D&D class system was imbalanced, but he saw it as a strong point.  He argued that if you started out as a Wizard in early D&D, you had to be smart and resourceful to survive to high levels.  In his view, the omnipotent status of Wizards at higher levels was well-earned and an overdue reward: "Finally I get a chance to shine!"

The welcome enthusiasm of caster-noncaster imbalance is not an overwhelming voice, but I've seen it expressed online in several places.  Did Wizards of the Coast keep the imbalance due to consumer demand?  Is that why the Tome of Battle was so controversial?

My first post assumed that the desire to keep the imbalance was due to the Fighter/Thief's "everyman hero" status.  Now I think it may be a desire to keep around the earlier system of "it's equal if the classes are unbalanced at different levels" train of thought.

Does anyone agree?  Disagree?

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #94 on: December 04, 2011, 03:54:46 PM »
You may actually be right. I know a few guys who played the old editions and expressed pride in their wizards' growing power. Those wizards lived only because they were smart enough or lucky enough to get that far.

However, I think that temporal balance is retarded. Saying that the average balances out is a real issue when mundanes and magickers can't play together at any level properly except the middle.

The reasons don't really matter, only the product. The product is extremely flawed in that respect, though, damn the reasoning. I understand the idea, but an ideal system would be one where people are handicapped because they choose to be, then they shine because they change something, not because of an inherent property of the system.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #95 on: December 04, 2011, 04:44:16 PM »
I tend to notice that the greatest rewards and feelings of empowerment come from sheer luck.  When a gamer's Barbarian PC is near-death and confronted by a giant Red Dragon, that Natural 20 on the crit for the Power Attack Great Axe can feel really good when you know how much the stakes were against you.

It's like gambling: a lot of times you fumble and do poorly, but the lure of the Triple 7s or the Jackpot is still there, just looming out of your reach.

There's nothing inherently wrong by making classes this way; I just think that the design goals should be expressed in the work in an obvious way ("Class A was designed to rock at high levels, and is not recommended if your campaign's entirely low-level").

I also think that class power consistency is better: a 15th-level Fighter, theoretically, should be about as powerful as a 15th-level Wizard or Rogue.  The Fighter would be better at melee and ranged combat, the Rogue would be better at sneaking, while the Wizard would be good with magic but his magic won't outperform the Fighter's and Rogue's niches.

Offline Nachofan99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #96 on: December 04, 2011, 05:49:26 PM »


However, I think that temporal balance is retarded. Saying that the average balances out is a real issue when mundanes and magickers can't play together at any level properly except the middle.



This is something I would like a few more opinions on.  I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue.

Is it fair to have classes that are good early but bad late?  Or bad early but good late?  Or should everyone be about the same all the time?

I personally like the idea of purposeful imbalance but only in so far as the following statement: "I'm good at X but bad at Y.  You're good at Y but bad at X.  Over the course of a campaign, we're about the same, but we are not the same."

Look at a game like Starcraft or SC2; three different races that are very different but are perfectly(in SC1's case) or decently (in SC2's case) balanced over the course of play on different maps, different match ups and different types of strategies.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2011, 06:50:05 PM »
However, I think that temporal balance is retarded. Saying that the average balances out is a real issue when mundanes and magickers can't play together at any level properly except the middle.
This is something I would like a few more opinions on.  I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue.

Is it fair to have classes that are good early but bad late?  Or bad early but good late?  Or should everyone be about the same all the time?

I personally like the idea of purposeful imbalance but only in so far as the following statement: "I'm good at X but bad at Y.  You're good at Y but bad at X.  Over the course of a campaign, we're about the same, but we are not the same."

Look at a game like Starcraft or SC2; three different races that are very different but are perfectly(in SC1's case) or decently (in SC2's case) balanced over the course of play on different maps, different match ups and different types of strategies.

Of course you don't want everyone to be balanced the same way! Specialization is the name of the game!

What I mean is: barbarians rock the battlefield at lower levels, wizards blow their load 3 times and are useless thenceforth. At higher levels, wizards take the place of all other classes and more if they feel it necessary.

It's "balanced" in that stupid way of "suffer now rock later" producing classes that are great at lower levels and useless at higher and vice versa. That's no way to design a game. People should be equally good at what they specialize in. So fighters should be as good at fighting as rogues are at sneaking and casters are at blasting at ALL levels.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Nachofan99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2011, 07:40:41 PM »
While I would normally just automatically agree with your statement, that, "People should be equally good at what they specialize in. So fighters should be as good at fighting as rogues are at sneaking and casters are at blasting at ALL levels." I am willing to say 'No, I do not automatically agree.'

Here's why.

Unless *all* enemies/challenges are *exactly the same* it's impossible for, say, "Sneaking" to be *equally effective* at all points in time in the game.  Because of different HP values on enemies, "damage" is not *equally effective* vs all enemies.  And so on.  Because of that, it is *impossible* for sneaking to be "as good as" "fighting" or as good as "blasting" or anything else.  Different challenges should test the limitations and specializations of PCs in different, and therefore, unequal ways.

My personal preference is for situational specialization to be a driving factor in "overwhelming goodness".  I would prefer for fighters to be better than everyone else if it's a challenge that fighters should excel at.  Same ways with all other classes.  As long as there are enough different challenges so that everyone gets an equal amount of time, effectively, "being overpowered compared to the rest of the group" that's something that I would, in fact, enjoy.

Equality in Inquality, to go all Orwellian on your ass.

That's sort of what you're saying, but not exactly what you're saying I believe.

I think that what you're saying is more like 4th edition where everyone is "basically" exactly the same.  The thing is, in 4th ed, all the "challenges" are effectively the same - deal damage to monster - period.

I don't want that kind of gameplay experience.  Personal preference, of course.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper
« Reply #99 on: December 04, 2011, 08:09:47 PM »
No, what I mean is that, when an encounter caters to a certain style of play, the person who specialized in that style should shine just as much as a person who shines in a different situation would shine in their element.

For an example: a sneak should be able to bypass opponents, obstacles, and filch stuff from under people's noses  just as well as a fighter kills people.

Now, the ratio of killing fools to sneaking past them equalling one is difficult to pin down. Should a sneak be able to bypass about one person or obstacle a round if the fighter can off one person a round? Of course, why not just off them all if that's the ratio?

So, no, I don't want everyone to shine all the time. Mister sneak can do 5 damage the entire game except when he sneak attacks and I would be fine, just as long as mister wizard is never better at anything than mister sneak can do without investing the exact same resources to specialize in it.

Expenditure of resources is the name of the game. If I find out that one class can put forth less permanent resources (levels, magic items, skill points, etc.) than another and receive as good or better results than a supposed "specialist," I would say that system is flawed in a big way.

As it turns out, wizards at later levels need invest only in spells, ephemeral and daily-renewable resources, to bypass all of their brethren. In that respect, 3.5 is MAJORLY flawed.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 08:13:33 PM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.