Balance. Why do we need it?

[Knaight]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

[CharonsHelper]

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

Conan does a pretty good job too, and that's without crazy demi-god style powers.

[Yahzi]

Conan does a pretty good job too, and that's without crazy demi-god style powers.

But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.

I think the best way to balance martials is to give them martials. That is, your 5th level fighter ought to have a half-dozen 1st level fighters hanging around all the time. The casters can summon monsters; the fighters ought to summon fighters.

If the 9th level Cleric got Raise Dead and the 9th Level Wizard got Teleport and the 9th level Fighter got a castle, a warship, hundreds of 1st level warriors, and a dozen guys between 2-5th level... then people might think things were a bit more fair.

[Fizban]

Which from what I hear is how it worked in older editions, with Fighters of 10th level and higher gaining keeps and command of troops. 3.5 went and made it into the Leadership feat, which can be taken by anyone and give you more casters. Whoops. Or at least, whoops until the DM uses their dominion over Leadership to declare it appropriate only for Fighters.

[RoboEmperor]

These types of arguments are always funny.

First we have a barbarian, who spent his entire life hunting. He can't read or write but he is a mountain of muscle.

Then we have a nerd, who spent his entire life in society, working with other humans, collaborating, and contributing. Eventually the nerd gets access to guns, computers, heat seaking missiles, and with enough money he builds aircraft carriers.

So now we have the barbarian getting angry that the nerd is overpowered, that his tanks make his spear look weak, that his thermonuclear bombs are flat out broken and shouldn't exist, and the world is wrong because the barbarian can't ever hope to kill the nerd in his space ship run by his army of robots armed to the teeth with computer guided weaponry. In fact he says nerds shouldn't even be allowed to have guns because guns alone can kill barbarians and it's not fair that a person who spent his entire life killing animals with his bare hands can die so easily and effortlessly to someone who spent his entire life indoors and without breaking any sweat.

The problem here isn't that the nerd is a part of an organization that spent thousands of years studying the world in attempt to understand how the world works, used that knowledge to their great advantage, and shares that knowledge to anyone who wishes to follow their methods. No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.

The solution is cooperation. A barbarian with a gun is always more dangerous than a nerd with a gun, so there is tremendous benefit when the two cooperate. The nerd builds the equipment, and the barbarian just needs to learn how to use the equipment without understanding how it works. Of course once the nerd starts building robots the barbarian becomes obsolete, but that's not the nerd's fault, it's the barbarian's fault for choosing to hone his muscles instead of his mind.

There's no reason a barbarian can't be a nerd, and why a nerd can't be a barbarian, which is why this is a solution too, but then there are some people who say pure barbarians should be able to do everything a pure nerd can do. So when someone tells me Barbarians should be able to destroy cities just as quickly as a thermonuclear bomb would, cut through metal tanks, survive point blank artillery fire unscathed, and solve theoretical physics problems just by training their muscles, I say go play a different tabletop rpg.

If you chose to play a character dedicated to muscles instead of intellect, that's fine but don't start whining when the smarter characters do everything you do better with technology (magic) because it was your choice to embrace ignorance and simplicity, not theirs. Players who play significantly more complex characters that require reading several books deserve to have more power than your core-only character.

Anyways to answer the OP's question, we don't need balance. This is a PvE game (player versus environment). It doesn't matter how strong or weak you are, everyone can contribute to the campaign and have fun. If you're a mundane and spellcasters have rendered your character obsolete, go read books and make your character stronger. Mundanes are far from dead weight even in TO tables so it is your fault your character is weak as ****, it is your fault your character is a one trick pony that is useless out of combat, and it is your fault you're not enjoying the game, not the spellcasters'. As to why people think we need balance, barbarians want to do everything nerds do without putting in the effort.

In my tables fighters are always welcome because they dish out ungodly amounts of damage with power attacks and buffs from the spellcasters. They put all my blasting shenanigans to shame so when i see people claiming fighters are too weak I question their system mastery. When I see people claiming spellcasters can do everything and fighters can't, I say play a smart character instead of a dumb one. Gishes are just as powerful as pure casters in the TO level so it's your fault for not wanting to gish and go pure mundane, who are just as powerful as pure casters in HO.

[CharonsHelper]

But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.

I never said that it was comparable to D&D - just that it was an example of a setting where a martial beats up on spell-casters.

Tolkein isn't a good example either since the 'wizards' in Middle Earth are really archangels which have most of their powers locked away.

[Cosi]

Which from what I hear is how it worked in older editions, with Fighters of 10th level and higher gaining keeps and command of troops. 3.5 went and made it into the Leadership feat, which can be taken by anyone and give you more casters. Whoops. Or at least, whoops until the DM uses their dominion over Leadership to declare it appropriate only for Fighters.

"Has minions" was always kind of stupid as a protected niche for Fighters. Lots of casters have minions. For example. Sauron has an entire empire. If you want to talk about heroes, Vin has an army of Koloss.

[137beth]

Well, since this is The Giant's site, I may as well quote what he has to say on the matter:

There is a huge difference between EVERY main character having such powers, and ONLY ONE main character in a group of supposed equals having such powers. There is no power—no power in the world—that is story-breaking all by itself, especially if the author has the freedom to detail the costs and drawbacks of that power (a luxury I don't have with OOTS).

Superman by himself is not a problem. Superman as part of the Justice League is not a problem. Superman as a member of an ensemble FBI team IS a problem, because sometimes Agent Fred is supposed to be the one to catch the serial killer. You end up resorting to a LOT of kryptonite.

[Morty]

Every one of those threads somehow winds up looking exactly the same. Discussions about the imbalance of 3E D&D have achieved a state where it simultaneously doesn't exist and exists as the right and proper way to do things. Schroedinger's Balance.

[Cosi]

Every one of those threads somehow winds up looking exactly the same. Discussions about the imbalance of 3E D&D have achieved a state where it simultaneously doesn't exist and exists as the right and proper way to do things. Schroedinger's Balance.

One might forgive a thread on the 3e subforum for being about 3e.

[Nifft]

What you've highlighted is one (amusingly literal) reading of many possible for a single passage. That's hardly "clear designer intent."

There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

There's a bunch of other supporting evidence, but it's quite telling that no evidence can be brought to bear for the contrary.

Nifft appears to be saying that, or at the very least that his PHB lied by making him think so.

Are you trying to help me communicate with others by saying something which you honestly believe to be true? Sadly, it seems you're really terrible at interpreting words, so you're saying something inaccurate while using my name.

Please don't ever try to speak for me again. Whether it's due to an honest failure or something else, you're not able to help.

I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool.

Yep, a Fighter should hae been able to contribute to the group's success.

The Fighter should have been able to do this when dice hit the table in desperation, when not supported by a friendly caster, when not given permission to shine by a superior character.

I never said that it was comparable to D&D - just that it was an example of a setting where a martial beats up on spell-casters.

Tolkein isn't a good example either since the 'wizards' in Middle Earth are really archangels which have most of their powers locked away.

When the Balrog came, it wasn't some Human Fighter who prevented its passage, nor who smote its ruin upon the mount.

On the other hand, it was a pair of Fighter-types who slew the Witch-King, and it was a Human archer who took down Smaug.

"Has minions" was always kind of stupid as a protected niche for Fighters. Lots of casters have minions. For example. Sauron has an entire empire. If you want to talk about heroes, Vin has an army of Koloss.

Interestingly, that wasn't a Fighter niche in 1e -- everybody got followers at a certain level.

The "fighter minions" thing from 1e and oD&D was more like:
- The party has a bunch of hirelings, who are fighter-types.
- These hirelings are largely disposable and nameless.
- Players with the fewest resources to manage could also manage proportionately more hirelings.

So, a player with fewer things to do in combat could also manage hirelings in combat. However now this seems like more of an indictment of early-edition Fighters than a facet of their utility.

[Fizban]

There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

There's a bunch of other supporting evidence, but it's quite telling that no evidence can be brought to bear for the contrary.

To be clear, you are defining "fighting" as "all the things that happen between 'you roll initiative' and 'you win,'" that's your own words yes? You take the line in the Fighter description that says they are the best all-around fighters as intending them to be the best at your definition of fighting, which is. . . what?

Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it.

The credible evidence that you are wrong is literally the very passage you say is wrong. The designers intent is that the fighter class should be the best all-around fighting class. If your definition of "fighting" says that cannot possibly be true, then your definition is wrong.

[CharonsHelper]

When the Balrog came, it wasn't some Human Fighter who prevented its passage, nor who smote its ruin upon the mount.

And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

[Nifft]

To be clear, you are defining "fighting" as "all the things that happen between 'you roll initiative' and 'you win,'" that's your own words yes? You take the line in the Fighter description that says they are the best all-around fighters as intending them to be the best at your definition of fighting, which is. . . what?

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

That's what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do, by the normal definition of fighting.

Not just "combat on a dead-magic plane", but rather all normal D&D combat that happens in all normal D&D circumstances, against all manner of normal D&D antagonists.

Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it.

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

This isn't really "my definition", it's just a normal reading.

The credible evidence that you are wrong is literally the very passage you say is wrong. The designers intent is that the fighter class should be the best all-around fighting class. If your definition of "fighting" says that cannot possibly be true, then your definition is wrong.

Well, maybe now you understand better.

[Gnaeus]

And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

And other non wizards beat Balrogs in canon. Glorfindel kills one (dying in the process) in a siege in Silmarillion. Not sure if it’s the same Glorfindel as in the books, but not really relevant.

[Cosi]

Your definition of "fighting" is not a role or specialization. It's not something you can make a class or prestige class for. If you have supporting evidence that the designers intended the Fighter class to be able to single-handledly end a combat faster than anyone else, as your definition implies is the only way to have the "all-around best fighting capabilities" as mentioned in the PHB. Well, provide it.

If you want to define "fighting" as "being good at the specific things the Fighter does", you are free to do that. I don't think it's terribly helpful, but whatever. What you should not do is insist that you somehow know that your definition is the correct one. If you have evidence the designers meant that, feel free to present it. If you do not, I don't see why we should prefer "the definition that makes Fizban right" over "the definition of the word that is in the dictionary.

And it wasn't a wizard in D&D terminology despite the same name. It was an archangel.

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

[Nifft]

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

There was an article about Gandalf being a Magic-User...

Here it is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content...vel-Magic-User

[Gnaeus]

But the spell-casters Conan fights are not Wizards. They're not even Clerics. They're, at best, sorcerers with 3 spells known.

Really? That’s what we are going with? That all the popular lore examples where the Barbarian or Fighter kills a wizard it just wasn’t a wizard, it was an adept or a sorcerer, or a wizard of way lower level? And a new player who expects that his Barbarian be like Conan should know that and know that if Thulsa Doon has been a real wizard or cleric he would have curbstomped him? He should know that D&D wizards are way more powerful than almost any fictional wizard because each individual D&D wizard can do almost anything that any wizard from any fantasy world can do, even if most of them only show a small subset of those powers? And rather than spend minutes chanting to turn into a snake or whatever the D&D wizard has all those powers in 6 seconds? That’s absurd. Why would anyone assume that from reading class descriptions?

[CharonsHelper]

If you make a character that has the abilities Gandalf demonstrates in LotR, that character would have Wizard (or maybe Sorcerer or some other caster) levels.

It would be an outsider/celestial.

[Fizban]

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

That's what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do, by the normal definition of fighting.

Not just "combat on a dead-magic plane", but rather all normal D&D combat that happens in all normal D&D circumstances, against all manner of normal D&D antagonists.

Contributing to normal D&D combat.

This isn't really "my definition", it's just a normal reading.

Well, maybe now you understand better.

No, that's a different definition than the one you gave before, and relies on the meaningless term "contribute," (thus your expectation of its self-evidence is flawed) but it betrays your expectations anyway.

For you see, "normal DnD combat" does in fact include combat on dead magic planes, or against monsters with anti-magic abilities, combat during times when your buffs have run out, against foes who resist your spells, combat on days when you've fought far more foes than expected, when you've run out of spells and are trying to sleep, when you were expecting friendly downtime, and on and on and on. These can be found in all sorts of published modules. In short, your conception of normal dnd combat seems to be lacking in variety of antagonists and circumstances.

Fighters contribute in all combats, not just in those above- even just being the guy who gets hit instead of someone else is in fact a contribution, however little you may value it. As Psyren has already pointed out, contributing at all times makes them by definition more all-around even if you demand that magic count as fighting.

The metagame in which you play (and the definitions used therein) that make you say magic is best at everything and Fighters are bad at fighting are your own. Not the game's.

If you want to define "fighting" as "being good at the specific things the Fighter does", you are free to do that. I don't think it's terribly helpful, but whatever. What you should not do is insist that you somehow know that your definition is the correct one. If you have evidence the designers meant that, feel free to present it. If you do not, I don't see why we should prefer "the definition that makes Fizban right" over "the definition of the word that is in the dictionary.

We could prefer "the definition the designers obviously intended," but clearly it's not obvious to some people. I could go over it in explicit detail, but I've already done so before to you, and I have no interest in arguing with you at length while suffering personal attacks for the umpteenth time.

-Edit: well technically I suppose I haven't done the exact definition of what "fighting" means before, but still.

[Cosi]

It would be an outsider/celestial.

What does Gandalf do that can only be done by being an outsider?

[Psyren]

It's notable that you picked a setting that is mostly pretty grounded except for the magic, where the wizards are essentially demigods to make this comparison. Other options are available, such as the way Hercules and Cu Chulain could beat on most sword and sorcery sorcerers for days on end.

Both of these have at least some divinity in their make-up though, so they're not exactly representative. There is no "plausibility gap" when a half deity is easily beating up a spellcaster. In D&D terms, these guys would almost certainly have a template of some kind, if not being a special race entirely with a boatload of LA.

There have been zero credible alternative readings presented so far.

As the "opposing party" in this debate, I can't exactly put much stock in *your* declarations of what is credible or not. Of course you don't think so, you fundamentally disagree, but that isn't persuasive.

Sometimes, a clear and obvious statement is exactly that: a clear and obvious statement.

But clear statements can still be read overly literally. When the Ranger's class description clearly and obviously states they are more powerful than owlbears and displacer beasts, and your 1st-level ranger dies to them, was your PHB lying to you then too?

Please don't ever try to speak for me again. Whether it's due to an honest failure or something else, you're not able to help.

Oh no, not boldface! Scary!

All I did was interpret your statement - something we have to do when communicating. If I got your meaning wrong, you're welcome to deny it (which you have yet to do.)

[CharonsHelper]

What does Gandalf do that can only be done by being an outsider?

1. Live for thousands of years. (please don't bring up obscure high level ability - he obviously isn't casting any high level D&D spells)

2. Be resurrected spontaneously after death in a transformed state.

3. Having a few spell like abilities fits his character far better than having a huge spell list which he never uses.

4. THE BOOKS FREAKIN' SAY THAT HE'S AN ARCHANGEL! Why do I have to prove that to you? Angel = celestial/outsider.

[Nifft]

No, that's a different definition than the one you gave before, and relies on the meaningless term "contribute," (thus your expectation of its self-evidence is flawed) but it betrays your expectations anyway.

For you see, "normal DnD combat" does in fact include combat on dead magic planes, or against monsters with anti-magic abilities, combat during times when your buffs have run out, against foes who resist your spells, combat on days when you've fought far more foes than expected, when you've run out of spells and are trying to sleep, when you were expecting friendly downtime, and on and on and on. These can be found in all sorts of published modules. In short, your conception of normal dnd combat seems to be lacking in variety of antagonists and circumstances.

We talked about that already:

Niche cases are technically included, but with the provision that they are niche, and don't generally apply.

If you had a point -- but your point was only valid in 0.001% of games -- then you'd technically have a point, but it would not be a very good point.

So far, you don't even have that.

Wizards vs. anti-magic, how unexpected. Golly, if only Conjuration (Creation) spells and Conjuration (Calling) spells existed, and spells like animate dead were available to Wizards.

If only a Druid had a big non-magical companion who came with perks like Pounce (which makes the Fighter envious).

If only Clerics could use the best armors in the game.

If only Craft: Alchemy existed.

Oh wait...

Spellcasters can make alchemical items and use them on dead-magic planes. Fighters can't even do that. Even a Ranger would have been better.

Fighters contribute in all combats, not just in those above

Here are some more common scenarios where Fighters fall flat:

- Fighting swarms.
- Fighting things that destroy your armor and/or weapons (oozes, constructs, outsiders, aberrations, etc.).
- Fighting underwater.
- Fighting low-CR, high-size monsters.
- Fighting creatures that force Will saving throws (fear, dominate, paralysis, confusion, etc.).
- Fighting in conditions that force skill checks to move around (platforms over boiling water, rope bridges, under-rigging of a sky-ship, wet & tilting deck of a regular ship, on the clouds outside a giant's castle, narrow ledges, etc.).
- Fighting high-mobility antagonists (perhaps because they're fleeing, or because you're fleeing).
- Fighting things that fly.
- Fighting spellcasters.

[Cosi]

1. Live for thousands of years. (please don't bring up obscure high level ability - he obviously isn't casting any high level D&D spells)

All that requires is that he has the outsider type (or some other undying type). You can get that for +1 LA if you happen to care to.

2. Be resurrected spontaneously after death in a transformed state.

Are there outsiders with this ability?

3. Having a few spell like abilities fits his character far better than having a huge spell list which he never uses.

Hence my suggestion that he might be a Sorcerer.

4. THE BOOKS FREAKIN' SAY THAT HE'S AN ARCHANGEL! Why do I have to prove that to you? Angel = celestial/outsider.

Why can't "Archangel" be a title?

[CharonsHelper]

Why can't "Archangel" be a title?

Because it goes into detail about how he watched the creator make Middle Earth from nothingness?

[Zanos]

Gandalf did way more killin' with his sword than magic, as I recall.

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

Does it really seem like such an insane assumption that the vast majority of people see a level 15 fighter and a level 15 wizard coming into D&D from any other media and assume they're equally as potent?

[Cosi]

Because it goes into detail about how he watched the creator make Middle Earth from nothingness?

Yes, I agree that Gandalf has the power to see and remember events he witnesses. Why exactly is that incompatible with him being a Sorcerer?

[Psyren]

Gandalf did way more killin' with his sword than magic, as I recall.


Does it really seem like such an insane assumption that the vast majority of people see a level 15 fighter and a level 15 wizard coming into D&D from any other media and assume they're equally as potent?

I honestly don't think the "vast majority" think that at all. Quite the opposite, I think most people hear "wizard" and assume he is going to be more capable (in general) than the guy with a pointy stick.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, I agree that Gandalf has the power to see and remember events he witnesses. Why exactly is that incompatible with him being a Sorcerer?

In the LotR universe, they're explicitly divine beings. That's not really a question. In D&D, there are many ways you could represent that, ranging from "custom-built Outsider" to "he's a Wizard, duh." 3.5 wasn't written as a Middle Earth roleplaying game, so it isn't going to match 1:1 unless you really carefully construct a character with the right abilities and limits (and even then it probably won't be quite right).

Gandalf's abilities were vague, and it was never clear how much had to do with his natural powers and how much came from his Ring. He certainly did a lot of Pyrotechnics, and maybe some Fire Acorns. He could break enchantments, Hold Portals, summon light, inspire people, come and go easily...he seemed to have some amount of telekinesis in the movies, he looked bigger and scarier when he got angry, he could fight as well as trained warriors, he could come and go more easily... I might be tempted to make him a Bard, honestly, but that's just me.