Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[Cosi]

So. A scythe. If your party is casters being liberal with spell slots isn't hard. Also you only need the scythe specifically if none of the casters are clerics or druids who will unilaterally have some method because the game tells them to have a weapon naturally.

Sure, at low levels you can make due with a guy using a scythe. But if your only option for winning a fight is blowing spell slots, it becomes very easier to wear down the party over a series of encounters. But melee capability comes from a Cleric or a Druid, who you want in the party already for restoration, raise dead, and other non-Wizard spells (also, I'm probably talking about a slightly lower level of optimization than you are).

I just have to point out that detect magic is entirely countered by a lead lined cloak, as long as the cloak itself isn't magical the spell cannot detect the magic on you through your lead barrier.

Well, sure, but that works just as well for the invisible caster as the sneaking mundane.

Because the argument is about actual game at actual tables. And in actual tables the martial is part of a party and can therefore expect magic support. I did detail it in my previous post, actually.

So then so does the animal companion. And it seems to me that the buffs that apply only to animal companions (shared Druid buffs, animal-only buffs, venomfire) are better than the buffs that apply only Fighters (uh, ... enlarge person?). Of course, its also possible that you could have a party of Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Samurai. At least, its possible to have a party of Druid/Beguiler/Wizard/Archivist, so if you can't have the corresponding mundane-only party that seems like proof positive that mundanes are in fact worse.

unless you knew the guys you want to infiltrate are specifically looking for magic, and you don't expect to fight in the infiltration. Then it becomes perfectly reasonable. I've done this.

Going in without your gear is stupid because it means if you get caught you just die. But sure, it worked for you one time so clearly it isn't a dumb plan at all.

getting those moderately skilled observers is not as easy as it seems. the scarcity of skill points dictates that the vast majority of common guards will not have ranks in spot.

They're guards. Of course they have ranks in the skill they use for detecting people sneaking into the area they're guarding. What the hell else are they spending skill points on? Craft?

and if you're looking at high level people, then there aren't two dozens of them, and it's only a class skill for a few classes. If you're a halfling rogue, you can easily get a +20 to hide by mid level without magic, and that's enough to enrsure that only someone else who invested signifficantly in spot (be it rogue, ranger, monk or whatever) can reasonably find you if you're trying to be stealthy.

I would expect a 10th level adventure to be able to field essentially arbitrary numbers of 4th level guards. Assuming you roll 11s for simplicity, you get caught when someone with +11 modifier (7 Ranks +2 modifier +2 for having Marshals with Motivate Wisdom as patrol leaders) rolls a 20, which happens more than 75% of the time after the 28th guard (1 - .95^28 ~ .24). You're caught half the time at around 15 guards. That's somewhere around 5 patrols, or just one room with a lot of guards.

I did specify that the mundane character needs magical support.

Which is exactly the problem. Because magical characters don't need mundane support. A Beguiler does a Rogue's job as well as a Rogue and doesn't demand that the party lay some buffs on her in order to be effective. And she provides magical utility in various forms. So why have a Rogue?

1) it assumes that said buff spells will always be available. Most of them have durations of 1 round per level or 1 minute pe level, so you can only use them for a fight, and only if you know a fight is going to be triggered shortly. A possible fix involve easy persist sheanigans, which is cheese most DM would not allow.

So we're supposed to assume the Fighter (who has no buff spells of his own) is always buffed but that the Cleric (whose class list is filled with buffs spells) doesn't? That seems like a reasonable assumption that is in no way a bad faith attempt to make bad classes look good. Assuming that Persistent Spell wouldn't be allowed seems basically like saying "they get DM pity, so they aren't bad", just in reverse. If you can only contribute in an environment where other people can't use all their toys, putting up with you is making the party worse.

2) it assumes that the martial will not be buffed. So you are assumed to always be able to have all your 1 round/level spells always active in any fight, but it's not even assumed the other guy can get a few 10 minute/level buffs from his allies?

The Fighter can have every buff his Rogue, Barbarian, or Saumrai allies can cast on him. If you say "but he needs casters" then you are admitting you are wrong and there is a fundamental asymmetry between casters and mundanes, because casters don't need mundanes.

3) it assumes that the party will never be ambushed or find itself in a situation where buff spells are not available. if they are always available via persistent sheanigans, see 1

Casters provide a variety of tools (rope trick, teleport, magnificent mansion) to ensure that they aren't in a position to be ambushed. What exactly do Fighters have? Oh, right, the same thing Fighters always have -- nothing.

4) it assumes nobody will spend 1 action to cast dispel magic on the buffed druid or cleric. Else, it assumes CL-increasing sheanigans are available get your caster level to the sky; again, most DM would put a stop to that. If we are looking at really high levels, it also assumes dissjunction is not in use.

dispel magic takes away the Fighter's buffs too. It also costs the enemy an action, and leaves a buffed Cleric or Druid with "just" their spell slots, which are still better in combat than the Fighter. Also, there are counters beyond just "CL cheese". Also, if you assume the party is eating disjunction with regularity, you're an idiot if you bring in any gear-dependent (i.e. mundane) characters. A caster who eats a disjunction is fighting fit tomorrow. A mundane who eats one is out millions of GP that they desperately need to be effective.

If you can buff a caster to the point that it fights better than that (maybe increase your caster level to over 40 and polymorph into a great wyrm dragon?), then I'd surmise we're in the "cheese most DM won't allow" territory

Well, yes, if "anything better than what I can do with mundanes" is "cheese" then obviously you can't be better than mundanes. I submit that such a standard is stupid because it makes it impossible for you to be wrong. But, yes, those numbers aren't terribly tough to beat. Something using Octopus Fu + either wraithstrike or sadism with a couple of damage buffs does more damage more accurately, greater dimension jumper gets you better mobility, and the defenses are fairly easy (though tedious) to beat.

[ryu]

It is preferable to have a cleric or a druid mixed in yes. I also want a psion to more or less complete the spell list. Just making the point that a scythe is perfectly capable of meeting your desired melee damage at low levels and at high levels you stop caring about it at all. Also the answer to spell slot scarcity could be having options when you run out, but I've found it's generally more effective to make them STOP being scarce. Would you like a primer on the various ways you can get significantly more spells per day? Not limitless at low levels but certainly not scarce?

[Aetis]

Tonymistu, or whatever his name was, already answered this thread to satisfaction. The DM controls everything including which material is legal and it hasn't even been established which house rules/material are in place. All of you guys' arguments are pointless because your house rules are going to be different from the other guy's. It's simply going to depend on the DM before anything else.

You might try to argue that "in absence of house rules..." but I'll tell you right now I've never met a 3.5/PF DM without a house rule or two, or three dozen. I've also never met two DMs that had the exact same house rules, either. Everyone has a different idea of what works because everyone literally plays a different game.

If you guys really want to argue, you should set which house rules/material are in place first. I suspect that people whose ideas deviate from the general consensus have very different house rules/materials allowed than the "norm".

[King of Nowhere]

They're guards. Of course they have ranks in the skill they use for detecting people sneaking into the area they're guarding. What the hell else are they spending skill points on? Craft?

Spot is not a class skill for warriors (which make the average guard). No, I do not expect an npc to keep a cross-class skill maxxed.

Which is exactly the problem. Because magical characters don't need mundane support. A Beguiler does a Rogue's job as well as a Rogue and doesn't demand that the party lay some buffs on her in order to be effective. And she provides magical utility in various forms. So why have a Rogue?

I thought I already answered those kind of questions: because a rogue with buffs and skill can do more than a caster with buffs but not skill.

So we're supposed to assume the Fighter (who has no buff spells of his own) is always buffed but that the Cleric (whose class list is filled with buffs spells) doesn't?

dispel magic takes away the Fighter's buffs too.

When did I ever give that impression? No, I am assuming that either both are filled with buffs to the brim, or both only have long duration ones. I am even admitting that the cleric has a few extra buffs on the martial. And in both cases the martial trounces the cleric. The fighter can fight reasonably well with just his equipment, while the cleric cannot. I am merely rebutting your claim that a buffed cleric can fight in melee better than a martial. This only happens if the cleric cast on himself every single buff spell on the list, including many with a duration of 1round/level, while the martial has nothing. I am not making any asymetrical assumption. I am merely looking at common conditions of a dungeon run, or a scry and die encounter.

The Fighter can have every buff his Rogue, Barbarian, or Saumrai allies can cast on him. If you say "but he needs casters" then you are admitting you are wrong and there is a fundamental asymmetry between casters and mundanes, because casters don't need mundanes.

Are we even reading the same thread? I absolutely admit there is a fundamental asymmetry between the classes. I did such an admission on practically every single post I made here. What I am actually claiming is that all the common boasts - that the only use a caster has for a martial is as pack animal, or that a cleric fights better than a fighter, or that a single 7th level spell can utterly dispose of any martial type - are utterly inflated.

There is a vast gulf between claiming "martial are not useless and they can get their spot to shine" and claiming "martials are equal to tier 1 casters".

Casters provide a variety of tools (rope trick, teleport, magnificent mansion) to ensure that they aren't in a position to be ambushed. What exactly do Fighters have? Oh, right, the same thing Fighters always have -- nothing.

Has that ever stopped a party from being ganked at a gaming session? If you are fighting opponents that are as powerful as you are (which should be the standard assumption here), assume that they have the same resources you do, and are as smart as you are. This means that for every time you ambush your enemies, you can expect to also be ambushed. Ambush scenarios happen in practical tabletop gaming.

But, yes, those numbers aren't terribly tough to beat. Something using Octopus Fu + either wraithstrike or sadism with a couple of damage buffs does more damage more accurately, greater dimension jumper gets you better mobility, and the defenses are fairly easy (though tedious) to beat.

As I said, you clearly have better system mastery than I have, so I am sure you can do better; but you also can make a better warrior. I don't know, maybe something about grafts to also have many limbs, coupled with some of the "near-infinite reach and attacks of opportunity" builds, or some ubercharger for 1000+ damage per round? i have no idea how that works.

Well, yes, if "anything better than what I can do with mundanes" is "cheese" then obviously you can't be better than mundanes. I submit that such a standard is stupid because it makes it impossible for you to be wrong.

Meh. That's not my standard at all, and I do nerf several things on mundanes too. I'm not going to discuss my definition of cheese, because that would take too long and would be pointless (although I can generally state that it is the level of both power at complexity at which me and my players are comfortable playing; I consider chees what goes vastly outside this level. And you may notice how I also consider the reach build or many martial sheanigans also cheese); but if you do not ban something for being overpowered, then you start chain-gating solars or getting infinite wishes. So you, the DM, should ban something for being overpowered. Where do you stop? that's an individual question, and there is no right answer to it.

[ryu]

Except you've done a good job of describing fighters as buff leeches who only do anything not related to pack mule status when given stuff by people who are actually useful. That's a DRAIN on resources, not useful.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I'd say if you are using invisibility, then your lead cloak is also magic, and will be detected. the cloak covers your gear, except for an headband, so you can mundanely infiltrate without being detected by detect magic.

exactly, which is why i love hide and move silently on any character.

Well, sure, but that works just as well for the invisible caster as the sneaking mundane.

small issue is if the cloak is invisible how does it not have a magic aura? i prefer items that boost my ability to sneak and then mundanely sneak around.

[MeimuHakurei]

Tonymistu, or whatever his name was, already answered this thread to satisfaction. The DM controls everything including which material is legal and it hasn't even been established which house rules/material are in place. All of you guys' arguments are pointless because your house rules are going to be different from the other guy's. It's simply going to depend on the DM before anything else.

You might try to argue that "in absence of house rules..." but I'll tell you right now I've never met a 3.5/PF DM without a house rule or two, or three dozen. I've also never met two DMs that had the exact same house rules, either. Everyone has a different idea of what works because everyone literally plays a different game.

If you guys really want to argue, you should set which house rules/material are in place first. I suspect that people whose ideas deviate from the general consensus have very different house rules/materials allowed than the "norm".

I'm seeing another Oberoni Fallacy here - it is true that a DM can address imbalances, but it doesn't make the casters having a vastly more powerful kit that can accomplish a lot more a lot easier less of a reality. It is important to realize the fact that those classes are in a completely different league from the mundanes and as such it is important for the DM to realize how casters overpower martials and what they should do to address the power gap (balancing the classes is one option, but so is restricting class choice, changing the level range of the campaign, manipulate item drops to favor the weaker characters etc.).

It is however legitimate to state that purely stating what a caster/mundane could potentially do may not be sufficient as proof for the disparity, so one could try a playtest where a group of non-casters and a group of full casters try the same challenges (I recommend a 1st Level, an 8th Level and a 15th Level challenge; three levels which span the width of RPGA adventures which cap at 16). Here's the rules by which the characters should abide:

-Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum are banned - those books add a layer of options that could make evaluating the disparity between mundanes and casters too difficult. Tome of Battle can be considered for mundanes, but it could also be run as a seperate team to see how much Martial Adepts approach the casters, or it could be banned also.
-Team Mundane may not have any spellcasting or manifesting classes whatsoever. Team Caster may only use classes that gain 9th level spells/powers. Gish-type classes with 4th/6th level casting are typically a blend between the two that could cause arguments which aspect of the class is getting the job done. If there's any ACFs that rid Paladins/Rangers off of their spellcasting, they can be run in the mundane team.
-25 Point buy and wealth as normal per level (including average starting gold for the Level 1 challenge). Unlike RPGA, Evil-aligned characters are permitted.
-Team Caster should not rely on infinite loops that are already known problems for the game. Nonmagical exploits that are well-known should not be used either by any team (like gaming the item prices with ladders/poles).
-While not strictly forbidden, Team Mundane should not attempt to get caster features onto them, mostly trying to play true to their class' kit.
-The DM may adjudicate stuff where the rules are muddy or undefined, but should try to stick with RAW/RAI when possible. Additionally, the hostiles and environments etc. should be the same for both teams.

[AnimeTheCat]

-Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum are banned - those books add a layer of options that could make evaluating the disparity between mundanes and casters too difficult. Tome of Battle can be considered for mundanes, but it could also be run as a seperate team to see how much Martial Adepts approach the casters, or it could be banned also.

Wait wait wait wait wait... so, you're saying that because options exist that a mundane character could take to cover a known weakness, the sources of those options should be banned? That makes little to no sense. Either the playing field is equally open to all involved or it's equally restricted to all parties involved.

-Team Mundane may not have any spellcasting or manifesting classes whatsoever. Team Caster may only use classes that gain 9th level spells/powers. Gish-type classes with 4th/6th level casting are typically a blend between the two that could cause arguments which aspect of the class is getting the job done. If there's any ACFs that rid Paladins/Rangers off of their spellcasting, they can be run in the mundane team.

How are you going to factor role-playing into this? Some facets of the game are simply not accounted for by simple I/O, pass/fail outcomes. Sure, coercing information from an unwilling target is one thing and would require a skill check, but introducing yourself to a church and offering to assist them with their problems in exchange for information is not something that should require a roll, unless you're trying to get more than what is offered out of the situation.

-25 Point buy and wealth as normal per level (including average starting gold for the Level 1 challenge). Unlike RPGA, Evil-aligned characters are permitted.
-Team Caster should not rely on infinite loops that are already known problems for the game. Nonmagical exploits that are well-known should not be used either by any team (like gaming the item prices with ladders/poles).

I appreciate you going with 25 PB. Nothing to say on infinite loops other than the fact that the lack of their inclusion should be a no brainer.

-While not strictly forbidden, Team Mundane should not attempt to get caster features onto them, mostly trying to play true to their class' kit.

Now, does this prohibit specific alternate class features like the rogue's reflect spell? How about spelltouched feats? You're severely limiting fair options without likewise doing the same for spellcasters, which is the opposite of your proposed playtest experiment.

-The DM may adjudicate stuff where the rules are muddy or undefined, but should try to stick with RAW/RAI when possible. Additionally, the hostiles and environments etc. should be the same for both teams.

Personally, I'm not interested in this silly game of attempting to play who's quarterstaff is stronger, because it seriously doesn't matter. What matters are the real people at real tables playing real games and sharing real friendship. If all of that is working, whether the wizard is stronger than the fighter is irrelevant.

[Acanous]

Is there a blurb in the rules that supports this?

Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)

Silent image is a Figment. Mindless creatures are not immune to it, and completely lack intelligence.

From Ability Scores:
Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information
-snip-
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons
-snip-

So to summarize, a mindless creature cannot reason out that a spellcaster just put an illusion of a wall in front of it, like an intelligent creature may suspect (especially if it dealt with casters before). If it has multiple senses like tremorsense, it cannot analyze the conflicting information. (It knows the creature is behind that wall, but also that there’s a wall in the way.)

Unless your mindless critters bang into walls on the regular, they have no basis for banging into this one, and they cannot reason out that there’s something off here.


Silent image is super good vs mindless things

[Nifft]

Wait wait wait wait wait... so, you're saying that because options exist that a mundane character could take to cover a known weakness, the sources of those options should be banned?

I think the post was saying that a mundane taking a Spell-Like Ability or Supernatural power as a feat would no longer be mundane.

But I might be wrong about that.

[Aetis]

Okay. WotC didn't know what balance was when they wrote 3.5, and melees as written are worth less than the dirt casters as written tread on. Maybe even less. I'm just saying what the DM does matters more.

I limit players to something like Core + PHB2 + Completes minus Divine/Psionic, every race with mental stat bonus banned, with entirety of Polymorph school banned, abrupt jaunt nerfed to swift action, Metamagic Persist banned, DMM legal but no nightsticks or any other trick to expand your turning pool except stuff like extra turning, Glibness banned, Glitterdust nerfed, bunch of other caster tricks and spells -I can't remember off top of my head- nerfed/banned, limit campaign to lv 1~10, and throw something like dozen or two combat encounters a day to thin out the spell slots to the breaking point. Everyone optimizes to hell and back, casters and melee contribute about the same to the campaign, and everyone has a lot of fun.

Casters might or might not be broken on your table. I don't know, because I don't know how you run your games. As written they are insanely strong, but I assure you they are quite balanced in my games.

[RoboEmperor]

Okay. WotC didn't know what balance was when they wrote 3.5, and melees as written are worth less than the dirt casters as written tread on. Maybe even less. I'm just saying what the DM does matters more.

I limit players to something like Core + PHB2 + Completes minus Divine/Psionic, every race with mental stat bonus banned, with entirety of Polymorph school banned, abrupt jaunt nerfed to swift action, Metamagic Persist banned, DMM legal but no nightsticks or any other trick to expand your turning pool except stuff like extra turning, Glibness banned, Glitterdust nerfed, bunch of other caster tricks and spells -I can't remember off top of my head- nerfed/banned, limit campaign to lv 1~10, and throw something like dozen or two combat encounters a day to thin out the spell slots to the breaking point. Everyone optimizes to hell and back, casters and melee contribute about the same to the campaign, and everyone has a lot of fun.

Casters might or might not be broken on your table. I don't know, because I don't know how you run your games. As written they are insanely strong, but I assure you they are quite balanced in my games.

No offense but I wouldn't play in your game. You turned 3.5 into 5e. Games run fine with the gentleman's agreement and everything allowed, and this results in very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles, but by removing everything unique about 3.5 you turned 3.5 into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e.

People who know what they're doing (especially with their wealth) create mundanes that excel in combat even at level 20. So with all your banning all you've done is stunt your game mastery of the game. You will never get better now.

Anyways to each his own, no judgment.

[ryu]

That and taking away a bunch of fun tricks from casters doesn't solve the imbalance. Even if mundanes could match casters in combat, they can't but lets pretend, they're still incapable of doing much of anything out of combat. The casters never stop being relevant while mundanes very much do.

[Aetis]

No offense but I wouldn't play in your game. You turned 3.5 into 5e. Games run fine with the gentleman's agreement and everything allowed, and this results in very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles, but by removing everything unique about 3.5 you turned 3.5 into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e.

People who know what they're doing (especially with their wealth) create mundanes that excel in combat even at level 20. So with all your banning all you've done is stunt your game mastery of the game. You will never get better now.

Anyways to each his own, no judgment.

Sorry, but I detest 5e. Every build is same to the second approximation, build ceilings were brought down, and bounded accuracy was one of the worst things I've seen in D&D. My game contains very unique characters with very unconventional playstyles. As for system mastery, I've already played the high levels of 3.5 repeatedly. Played for years and years and years and ran into all kinds of weird tricks and optimizations from books all over. Eventually, I got tired. I sat down and thought about it. Tried a bunch of different things. This is the best solution I've found, and if you disagree with me, then you disagree.

But I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of "removing everything unique about 3.5 and turned it into a standard dungeon crawl with identical characters all following stereotypical archetypes like 5e". Thanks.

[Aetis]

That and taking away a bunch of fun tricks from casters doesn't solve the imbalance. Even if mundanes could match casters in combat, they can't but lets pretend, they're still incapable of doing much of anything out of combat. The casters never stop being relevant while mundanes very much do.

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

[ryu]

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

[AnimeTheCat]

Casters stop being relevant the moment they run out of spells.

I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment, but wands, staffs, scrolls, and other restorative magic items kind of take that bit of resource management off the table for all spellcasters.

So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

I wouldn't agree with hundreds, but what you're saying is true. It's very difficult to exhaust a spellcaster's resources.

[Aetis]

So never then? Even with your listed restrictions I've hundreds of methods of ensuring that can't realistically happen.

Go ahead and name your hundreds of methods. I will let you know if they are banned or not.

[ryu]

Go ahead and name your hundreds of methods. I will let you know if they are banned or not.

No need to bother. Anything capable of doing it is almost assuredly banned. This is because you haven't turned the game into 5th. You've turned it into 4TH.

[Aetis]

No need to bother. Anything capable of doing it is almost assuredly banned. This is because you haven't turned the game into 5th. You've turned it into 4TH.

Ugh, I hate 4th even more than 5th. Everything is basically a warblade there.

Why would you want unlimited resources anyway? Don't you want a challenge of resource management?

[ryu]

Ugh, I hate 4th even more than 5th. Everything is basically a warblade there.

Why would you want unlimited resources anyway? Don't you want a challenge of resource management?

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

[eggynack]

When did I ever give that impression? No, I am assuming that either both are filled with buffs to the brim, or both only have long duration ones. I am even admitting that the cleric has a few extra buffs on the martial. And in both cases the martial trounces the cleric. The fighter can fight reasonably well with just his equipment, while the cleric cannot. I am merely rebutting your claim that a buffed cleric can fight in melee better than a martial. This only happens if the cleric cast on himself every single buff spell on the list, including many with a duration of 1round/level, while the martial has nothing. I am not making any asymetrical assumption. I am merely looking at common conditions of a dungeon run, or a scry and die encounter.

How is the fighter getting these buffs, precisely? You're saying they're short duration, so they're being cast in combat. Presumably the fighter's party and the cleric's party are the same, apart from themselves, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that the parties are literally just the character in question and a friendly wizard. In order to give the fighter buffs, the wizard needs to, y'know, cast them. At the same time, we can assume that the cleric is casting buffs on themselves. What is the cleric's wizard doing while this is going on?

Wizard stuff, I assert. Cause, y'know, they're a wizard. So, instead of tossing out some spell to get the cleric up to the competence level that they're attempting to acquire on their own, the they're casting, I dunno, black tentacles. If the fighter's wizard casts a second buff spell, the cleric's wizard also uses, say, stinking cloud. So, here's the question. Who is better at killing a group of monsters? A buffed fighter, or a buffed cleric facing down enemies that are being destroyed by crowd control spells?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. In order to not make asymmetrical assumptions here, the cleric party is necessarily putting out more spells, and spells are good. Maybe in a vacuum the buffed fighter is better than the self buffed cleric, but it makes no sense for the situation to be a vacuum in this sense. The end result is that the cleric party can kill the enemies significantly more efficiently. And, if the situation calls for something besides face hitting, they can do that as well.

[Aetis]

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

Well, if you hate resource management that much, maybe you should give 4th edition a try.

I think resource management is an interesting puzzle to solve, and one that the WotC, in all their glorious incompetence, wanted us to try and figure out.

(You have the wizard who can do 100% 3 times a day, 75% 5 times a day, 50% 7 times a day, and 25% 9 times a day, and then you have the fighter who can do 50% all the time. Devote your resources correctly and solve the X encounters and try to make it to next day, but you don't know many or how difficult the encounters are going to be.)

~~

ryu, I'm not trying to fight with you or whatever. I just have my way of doing things. If you think that's bad and that you'll never play in one, that's fine, but please don't bash. Or compare me to 4th or 5th ed.

[AnimeTheCat]

Not really. To quote Yahtzee "but I might need it later!" is one of the most obnoxious, unfun concepts ever devised to prevent people from using their most effective means of solving a problem because there might be a bigger problem around the corner. This is why the best RPG like Xenoblade Chronicles very deliberately make your only resource health that rapidly replenishes outside of combat, and every combat is balanced around you being at your best and free to work to whatever complex standard is necessary to win.

I think that resource management adds a very fun mechanic to most games, be they TTRPG or video game or family board game. Ensuring the game does not suffer from "Magalixir Syndrome" is the aim. Having limits on powerful abilities, especially when they are game altering, is necessary for continued play in most cases.

In the case of video games vs 3.5 specifically is that you have far more encounters in a standard video game day than in a d&d 3.5 day. Where in d&d you can expect 3-6 encounters at least, in a standard video game, you can expect 2-3 times as many, and that's a minimum.

That's just my opinion though, I enjoy a more strict resource management aspect to my games. Something like XCOM does it well by having restricted special resources per encounter, like abilities and grenades, while balancing that with unlimited use resources per encounter like ammunition and secondary attacks, all while being restricted by action point costs. In that instance, the playing field is leveled by resource management, not upheaved by it.

[ryu]

Well, if you hate resource management that much, maybe you should give 4th edition a try.

I think resource management is an interesting puzzle to solve, and one that the WotC, in all their glorious incompetence, wanted us to try and figure out.

(You have the wizard who can do 100% 3 times a day, 75% 5 times a day, 50% 7 times a day, and 25% 9 times a day, and then you have the fighter who can do 50% all the time. Devote your resources correctly and solve the X encounters and try to make it to next day, but you don't know many or how difficult the encounters are going to be.)

~~

ryu, I'm not trying to fight with you or whatever. I just have my way of doing things. If you think that's bad and that you'll never play in one, that's fine, but please don't bash. Or compare me to 4th or 5th ed.

4th is full of resource management. It's just that it's less noticeable because everyone's options are melee attack, move, or use one of your actually relevant limited resource actions. It has resource management and no meaningful decisions to make that are non-obvious. Possibly because they cut out all the fun spells. You may feel the comparison is unfair, but the reasons I hate the system are for having done exactly what you're describing.

[Aetis]

4th is full of resource management. It's just that it's less noticeable because everyone's options are melee attack, move, or use one of your actually relevant limited resource actions. It has resource management and no meaningful decisions to make that are non-obvious. Possibly because they cut out all the fun spells. You may feel the comparison is unfair, but the reasons I hate the system are for having done exactly what you're describing.

Really!? My experience with 4th goes: Fight Start - Per-Encounter - At-will - At-will - At-will, etc.

Unless Boss Fight Start, then Per-Daily - Per-Encounter - At-will - At-will - At-will, etc.

[ryu]

The fact your resource limited relevant actions are, in fact, sharply limited doesn't change the fact you're managing a resource.

[MeimuHakurei]

Well, the above was just me trying to set a baseline field in which mundane/caster performance can be balanced against one another. I just thought the wierd magic classes, the martial adepts and meldshapers would be too much of a distraction from the things we actually want to test. If you think that my means of testing are insufficient/lacking, by all means suggest a better method.

Maybe it would help if we post actual builds to demonstrate a competent martial/mundane or what kind of power level casters can achieve - I don't claim to be the best optimizer, but I think I can throw out a baseline 8th level wizard that should be a modest level of optimization. Not gonna bother with consumable items (leaving a bit money over for that) and gonna keep the spellbook to the level-up spells to save time.

Spoiler: Baseline Wizard

Show

8th Level Elf Wizard
8 STR, 16 DEX, 12 CON, 20 INT, 13 WIS, 8 CHA
29 HP (8d4+8)
15 AC, 14 Touch, 12 Flat-Footed (+3 Dex, +1 Deflection, +1 Natural)
+7 Init
+7 Fort, +7 Ref, +9 Will

Immune to Sleep
+2 saves vs. enchantment
Low-Light Vision
Weapon Familiarity (Elf)
+2 Listen, Search, Spot

School Focus (Conjuration)
Barred Schools (Illusion, Enchantment)
Familiar (Rat)
L1 Bonus Feat (Scribe Scroll)
L5 Bonus Feat (Craft Wondrous Item)

Level 1 feat: Improved Initiative
Level 3 feat: Extend Spell
Level 6 feat: Spell Focus (Conjuration)

Attribute Score Improvements: INT x2

Equipment:
-Spellbook + Robes (free)
-Lesser Metamagic Silent Rod (3000 gp)
-Headband of Intellect +2 (4000 gp)
-Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4000 gp)
-Cloak of Resistance +2 (4000 gp)
-Ring of Protection +1 (2000 gp)
-Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2000 gp)
-Quarterstaff (free)
-+1 Light Crossbow (2335 gp)
-Handy Haversack (2000 gp)
-3665 gp worth of scrolls, wands and bolts

Spellbook (all 0th level, 9 1st level, 4 2nd level, 4 3rd level, 4 4th level spells):
1st: Enlarge Person, Grease, Magic Missile, Summon Monster I, Shield, Ray of Enfeeblement, Reduce Person, Mage Armor, Obscuring Mist
2nd: Glitterdust, Web, Alter Self, Rope Trick
3rd: Dispel Magic, Phantom Steed, Stinking Cloud, Haste
4th: Dimension Door, Summon Monster IV, Wall of Ice, Polymorph

Spells per day:
0th: 4
1st: 7 (4 +2 from Int +1 Conj)
2nd: 5 (3 +1 from Int +1 Conj)
3rd: 5 (3 +1 from Int +1 Conj)
4th: 4 (2 +1 from Int +1 Conj)

Save DCs:
0th: 15 (16 Conj)
1st: 16 (17 Conj)
2nd: 17 (18 Conj)
3rd: 18 (19 Conj)
4th: 19 (20 Conj)

Edit: Altered one feat and added spells per day and Save DCs.

[Aetis]

The fact your resource limited relevant actions are, in fact, sharply limited doesn't change the fact you're managing a resource.

So your argument is that 4e has resource management, but 3.5e doesn't. Resource management is stupid, therefore 3.5 is awesome and 4e sucks.

I don't think I have ever met a person who has argued that 4e has more resource management than 3.5. I believe you are the first to do so.

I'm quite flabbergasted.

[ryu]

So your argument is that 4e has resource management, but 3.5e doesn't. Resource management is stupid, therefore 3.5 is awesome and 4e sucks.

I don't think I have ever met a person who has argued that 4e has more resource management than 3.5. I believe you are the first to do so.

I'm quite flabbergasted.

You can bring resource management into 3.5 if you decided not to take options that give you more resources than you'll ever feasibly spend. You cannot, to my knowledge, take the resource management out of 4E. You can argue that because you have only one or two things to manage that there isn't that much management. This is a sign of a deeper problem. You don't have OPTIONS. Believe it or not a system can suck for more than one reason.