Underpowered Mundanes or Overpowered Magic - Which is worse?

[Senevri]

Very true.

[Shiki]

Anything played poorly sucks. However, casters' still got more options than mundanes and their stupid choices (think Fireball, etc) are still better than stupid/weak mundane choices (Weapon Focus...). So, yeah...

[Mixster]

Ah finally someone to have a meaningful discussion with!

...You do realize you just insulted everyone here?

Ah, well there weren't really anyone who didn't troll who were of a different opinion than me, and starting a discussion on something you agree on, while fun, is rarely productive.

You realize that suppose to be how they respond. Thats what they do, harry potter style, course i've never seen harry potter so I can't say what level he is but I've seen the commercials and... well yeah spells.
Don't reduce it to the "easy" way. Its just the way they do it.

Not to be a nitpicker, but that's actually not how they do it, they think outside the box all the time. They use tricks that don't rely on spell, like talking Hagrid into telling them all the plot points and stuff like that. And they rarely even fight with spells, because for some reason when fighting they prefer swords and fists. Also all of them are terribly scared of that guy who can't casts spells but can hang out with the wizards anyway.

What I want to encourage is not archaic class roles per se, but more the idea of team-work and thinking outside the box. Wizards have a box so huge, that they can rarely think outside it, if you have every tool at your disposal, why pick the rock to punch in the nail, when you can pick the hammer-o-matic 9000.

I just don't think that the adventuring barbarian, while flavorful, should solve each problem by hitting it with the axe. Beowulf didn't charm the king of Denmark with his axe, but with his magnificient poems (at leasts that's how the Edda goes down haven't seen the movie).

I might agree, although suggesting 4th edition and WoW I almost consider an insult, I am no longer sure that 3.5 is the system I want it to be. I want RPGs to make you have to think outside the box, yes my abilities aren't tailor made to solve this situation, but I could perhaps use them in this way to solve that problem. Then in addition if I combine my ability to do X with your ability to do Y, we can do Z.

I do also agree that the mundanes are having a way to tough time against team monster, however as the title suggests, I do not find it worse, mundanes have got alternatives; if you want to be the cool guy that hits thing with a sword, be a Warblade, if you want to be the chick punching holes in walls and running on them and flinging Shurikens everywhere be an Unarmed Swordsage. However, in many games it doesn't matter, yes I want to be wolverine, but I don't want to be wolverine when the guy next to me is basically the silver surfer, Galactus and Phoenix all in one, because I will never get to do the fun work.

I look at it this way, if this were a novel (which I consider my best games to be like), and you had to choose from two protagonists, would you choose the the everyday chum or superman? One guy has troubles in his life like you and me, he struggles with the things he is not good at, and sometimes does well in the areas he is good at. The other guy just breezes through everything like it's a breeze. I find the story the most compelling when the hero is challenged, often. Almost like IMO all the good superman plots are when someone plays to his weakness. But I guess it is a matter of preference.

And this brings us back to the D&D, wizards have no real weakness, at least, not any weakness they can't cover easily with spells (except for an anti-magic field, but if you are running into them on a regular basis, Wizards probably aren't tier 1). Yes they have a low AC, but he flies, blinks and mirror images. Same goes for bad ref and con saves. Other characters have real weaknesses, of which they will have to find other ways to cover than there real strong side. IMO there is a reason the wizard handbook is called a guide to being god. Because you really are godlike, I do not like stories were the protagonist is god, and only struggles when someone else also have godlike powers.

So yeah, 3.5 Might not be for me, but at least it tells the story of the weak hero much better than 4th edition or wow. It probably does it worse than other RPGs, but they have tons of other problems. And such 3.5 remains the king with all its' flaws.

Oh and by the way, The same game tests is IMO just a more complicated look on the tier system. It even uses the tiers as well, placing those who fail miserable on par with monks and fighters (tier 5 classes), those who do okay on par with the rogue (a tier 3-4 class), and those who do better than average on par with the wizard (a tier 1 class), so it basically is just a re-invention of the tier system, or the tier system was a re-invention of the SGT, whichever came first.

[veekie]

And this brings us back to the D&D, wizards have no real weakness, at least, not any weakness they can't cover easily with spells (except for an anti-magic field, but if you are running into them on a regular basis, Wizards probably aren't tier 1).

Bah, AMFs screw everyone over, least of all the casters who can choose not to be in one.

And you're right about it being a matter of preference. I personally dislike the weak protagonist option(unless its a lovable rogue who makes the fumbling enjoyable, everyone loves those right?), in favor of a strong protagonist, but short of reaching auto solving everything levels. I enjoy the ability to warp and pervert the rules of reality in systematic ways.

If I want my gritty weak protagonist I can look to RL after all.

[Sunic_Flames]

Sounds about right at mid levels. It seemed to be sliding towards 1 full attack=dead at higher levels.

By better than average do you mean a higher than normal do you mean a higher CR creature or something with higher attack power than a giant?

Either or both. Giants are not very good auto attackers, as they do not use natural weapons.

Could you give a few examples of good auto attackers?

Kind of want to look at the survivability of a "Turtle" character now.

It's either very bad (if enemies attack them, despite being a non threat) or very good (because everything ignores them and attacks others). Either way though it isn't helping.

I was also seeing what kind of offense I could while doing so, I didn't plan on full expertise.

Dungeons tend to have narrow hallways.

But big enough for the creatures that live there. And there's more than one way around.

But if the other way around gives a couple of rounds the party can get some distance between them.

But where are you getting the 99% from? Is it just the fighter or is it the entire party? Does it take into account the fighter being knocked unconscious and living? Or just being forced to withdraw as other party members pick up his slack?

The 99% and 95% and so forth are meant to illustrate how even very small failure chances per encounter add up and quickly approach one over many iterations... such as say, a campaign. It applies to each person, and counts losing (dead) but not landing in the narrow KOed but not dead window (which will also happen rarely). And running means dying tired. Though picking up the Fighter's slack is hardly new...

Also, raith fails.

I didn't mean running, I mean moving out of the danger zone while other people continue to fight.

The kill ratio seems to jive with my experience with  5 characters being killed between 4-16(only 1 character was 16).

And? They're still faster than you.

Surrender is a fate worse than death. The encounter rules are for fighting encounters. If it were something you were meant to negotiate with, like some non hostile Great Wyrm at level 3 that doesn't count. If you run you die tired, because enemies are faster than you, and higher level enemies can counter your abilities so you can't run that way.

How do you reconcile that with,

"The PCs should run. If they don't, they will almost certainly lose.

I mean, it's easy to claim that the DMG is just wrong, and perhaps, sometimes it is... but it does describe how it assumes the game to play out. Do you ignore that, and focus on the numbers and tables and whatnot... or ignore those and focus on how the game assumes it's played?

The same way I reconcile things like Fighters being bandit kings and a bunch of other stuff with the reality of them being hopelessly gimped. I disregard it as lying fluff, because while it recommends you run, you cannot actually do so. There is no way you can escape from such a creature if it wants to harm you. And if it doesn't, encounter rules don't apply.

Whether it breaks down or not...
Actually, this reminds me: Casters are brutes. Their solution to everything is to brute-force their way through with a spell. But that's a different topic, altogether.
My question here would be, do you allow it to break down... or make it work?

This statement makes no sense.

Well, you self-identify as a flamer, and I need a thicker skin, so... *shrug*

My username does not refer to insulting idiots. I didn't even always do that, just that well... it's the only way to deal with idiots.

I don't quite know why people keep saying leave the casters and improve the mundanes.
What about single spell auto-trump of mundanes?

Are we going to have a feat that says: "grapple check beats freedom of movement." or Arrows are immune to wind wall?

Just ditch a few auto-trump spells and rubbish like immediate teleporting level 1 abilities (conjurer). Some stuff is OBVIOUSLY overpowered.
Otherwise we'd have to change the whole system.

Cleric Archer phenomena. The beatsticks are trivially replaced because they offer so little. Make them offer more and they cannot be so trivially replaced. Case in point: DDO. CoDzillas are only mediocre melees, and the actual beatsticks are actually good at it. Mostly because the beatsticks were greatly improved to get actual features that actually help them. Before that, they were quite pointless.

Besides that, shifting spell levels would do quite a bit. Any spell that's a must-have or obviously best for it's level is too strong, although a spell that retains its usefulness over the career of a character is just fine. Basically, it's not that Meteor Swarm is underpowered, it's just that gate, time stop and shapechange are overpowered.

Fail.

Meteor Swarm is underpowered. No, scratch that. It is completely fucking worthless. You cast it on a level SEVEN PC, and chances are they survive it. Keep in mind you are at minimum TEN LEVELS HIGHER THAN THEM, and can therefore kill an NI number of level 7s, and will if you use anything other than Meteor Swarm to do it. But since Meteor Swarm is so sad and pathetic it won't kill a single one, despite supposedly being your highest level tricl.

[Sunic_Flames]

Just to be random:

"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Passes save, cloak of decption invisible, activates torc of anti magic, shadow strides behind wizard, eats him with full attack (+sneak attack & TWF) from shadow pounce.

How many actions, illegal moves, and custom items from Aelrinyth's "reasonable house rules" is that again?

Hi Welcome

Please do not start picking this up...

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Oh and midnight = Win also.

[SorO_Lost]

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Ahh you caught it. 

[Gods_Trick]

I'm ... going to disengage myself from the math here. And a large part of me says thats intellectual cowardice, but in any game I've played, its not been relevant; the environment is not as harsh as assumed by Sunic.

Go figure, easy GMs, dishonest GMs, whatever. The fun was there. And thats what I and a majority of gamers come for. I sometimes wish the game was more rigourous and challenging, but most of table doesn't. They can't handle the work needed to build a competent caster. And I don't have the luxury of finding a group calibrated to my ability.

So, getting back to the OP, I'd rather make meleers stronger. F & K's Tomes been accused of raising meleers to Tier 2, but so what? Is there a rule only casters get to be uber? And it helps weaker optimisers because those classes rock right out of the box. Statistically the number of hardcore optimisers are an outlier, there are a lot of more of CO-innumerate out there.

Mixster mentioned Wolverine on the same team as the Silver Surfer; the cool thing is there has been and will be stories about teamups as unbalanced as that. And we read it.

Making casters weaker takes something out of casters to make them more even, a bad paradigm as 4E demonstrates.

[Sunic_Flames]

The reason why things are "harsh" is simply because of Iterative Probability. Winning a fight is not that hard, unless you have a fail class.

But when you have to win every time and the enemy only has to win once, and there are many fights such as say... a campaign? Things get a lot harder simply because of the different victory conditions.

[veekie]

Yeah, though on the bright side once returning to life hits the tables your odds drastically improve, so long as enough of the party remains to respawn the rest.

[dark_samuari]

Hi Welcome

Please do not start picking this up...

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Oh and midnight = Win also.

But we are still clear, I am the King?

[Sunic_Flames]

Hi Welcome

Please do not start picking this up...

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Oh and midnight = Win also.

But we are still clear, I am the King?

Of Dumbfucks? Absolutely.

As for raising the dead, not when you lose more levels than you gain. Which is actually more likely than not unless your success rate exceeds 95%. Even at 99%, still a lot of level loss. Wealth too.

[oslecamo]

And it helps weaker optimisers because those classes rock right out of the box. Statistically the number of hardcore optimisers are an outlier, there are a lot of more of CO-innumerate out there.

It doesn't really. Tome classes are pretty strong out of the bat yes, but then get downright insane if you optimize them, so an optimizer will still outshine a non-optimizer. And then the DM has to also optimize like mad or the players simply roll over any regular ecounter. But since there's still a power diference between optimizers and non-optimizers, we're back to the starting point.

Mind you, casters get even stronger by tome rules. I'll just say they made polymorph even stronger by unlocking all monster abilities. Because geting super physical stats wasn't good enough for a 4th level spell aparently.

Making casters weaker takes something out of casters to make them more even, a bad paradigm as 4E demonstrates.

But if you're playing casters as the tome rules assumes (auto-win everything, endless resources, ect), then why don't just play freeform? There must be limits somewhere in a game.

4e nerfed everything too much right, but cuting down optimization potential was a pretty important step on my opinion. A lot of the current D&D insanity it's because you can stack all kind of stuff willy nilly and end up with casters with a bazillion buffs and minions and action stacking and whatnot.

Just look at the most problematic spells, like the polymorph line. What's bad about them it's that they allow you to cherry pick from hundreds of options, wich the testers clearly didn't think off (and no, tome rules only make it worst because limiting by CR is even more abuseable than limiting it by HD).

Now look at Summon Monster X. Good solid and fun spell, but not broken by any means. Why? Because it's limited to just a small list of monsters that can't be (easily) changed, and then they're just around for a few turns so you can't just stack them up on an army.

[Gods_Trick]

Yeah, though on the bright side once returning to life hits the tables your odds drastically improve, so long as enough of the party remains to respawn the rest.

After 6th level resurrection spells just became another consumable. And at least in our narratives, quite often the PC's justifiably received greater versions for free since we were saving the world.

As Sunic puts it, unless theres 'class fail', I find death occurs as a matter of bad luck or stupidity. One is a matter of probability which you shrug and rez from, the other is an infinite void you don't believe will be crossed.

[dark_samuari]

Hi Welcome

Please do not start picking this up...

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Oh and midnight = Win also.

But we are still clear, I am the King?

Of Dumbfucks? Absolutely.

Than your king asks you to leave his court and domain.

You are to be royally banished from our lands.

[juton]

It doesn't really. Tome classes are pretty strong out of the bat yes, but then get downright insane if you optimize them, so an optimizer will still outshine a non-optimizer. And then the DM has to also optimize like mad or the players simply roll over any regular ecounter. But since there's still a power diference between optimizers and non-optimizers, we're back to the starting point.

While this is true, what we are primarily concerned with is transforming non-functioning PCs into functioning PCs. Having everyone at the table be able to pull their weight is something that would help a lot.

But we are still clear, I am the King?

Of Dumbfucks? Absolutely.

Than your king asks you to leave his court and domain.

You are to be royally banished from our lands.

You hear that Sunic, you're no longer allowed to be a dumb-ass. I'm sure you're heart broken.

[Sunic_Flames]

Hi Welcome

Please do not start picking this up...

Oh, but it's quite fitting. Also, Solo = Win, and SorO = Fail. Follow the form, fool.

Oh and midnight = Win also.

But we are still clear, I am the King?

Of Dumbfucks? Absolutely.

Than your king asks you to leave his court and domain.

You are to be royally banished from our lands.

King of Dumbfucks Dumbfuck. That means you have no jurisdiction over actually worthwhile people. Therefore you fail, and should go fuck yourself with a rusty drill.

And as I put it, even small chances to fail add up. I didn't bring random bad luck into it, though it was somewhat implied.

Also Mr. KoD, be sure to share the drill with juton. He needs it.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Yeah, though on the bright side once returning to life hits the tables your odds drastically improve, so long as enough of the party remains to respawn the rest.

Eh, revenance plus revivify/ last breath. Two fourth level spells for no level loss.

[oslecamo]

It doesn't really. Tome classes are pretty strong out of the bat yes, but then get downright insane if you optimize them, so an optimizer will still outshine a non-optimizer. And then the DM has to also optimize like mad or the players simply roll over any regular ecounter. But since there's still a power diference between optimizers and non-optimizers, we're back to the starting point.

While this is true, what we are primarily concerned with is transforming non-functioning PCs into functioning PCs. Having everyone at the table be able to pull their weight is something that would help a lot.

And thus my question is, how much weight is that? And counting how much optimization?

Even here, where the very tome material is hosted, it's aknowledged that an average fighter does well untill around lv9, and with optimization can face most monsters out there.

Isn't that pulling his own weight?

If not, then how much is pulling your own weight exactly? Auto-win against everything of their CR? What if the DM throws tome material back at them? Then they aren't able to "pull their own weight" by those standards anymore.

Pulling your own weight is directly dependant on how much weight the DM is puting on the player's shoulders to begin with.

[juton]

And thus my question is, how much weight is that? And counting how much optimization?

Even here, where the very tome material is hosted, it's aknowledged that an average fighter does well untill around lv9, and with optimization can face most monsters out there.

Isn't that pulling his own weight?

If not, then how much is pulling your own weight exactly? Auto-win against everything of their CR? What if the DM throws tome material back at them? Then they aren't able to "pull their own weight" by those standards anymore.

Pulling your own weight is directly dependant on how much weight the DM is puting on the player's shoulders to begin with.

In their examples they mention that the Fighter is on par with a Chain-gun tripper or an Ubercharger, both of which are highly optimized builds. So they are conceding that Fighters can work past level 5 if they are optimized, you can't rely on most players to actually do that. A Tome Fighter with a sub optimal feat selection (say the weapon focus chain) can still contribute with its class features.

In my consideration a class is viable if you can put it with a party of three other viable characters, have them win equal ECL combats with a small expenditure of resources and win +4 ECL encounters 99%+ of the time if they are well rested. That makes it look like every thing the DM uses will be walked over by the PCs, I think most of the small fights should be about winning with the smallest expenditure of resources and big fights should happen after the BBEG has tired the party, lured them into a trap or imposed some other situational penalty.