Let us do that math people

[Hendrik]

Sure there is a balance in DnD... it's in the initiative, it's in the strengths and weaknesses of each class and it's in the DM. In PnP dnd there are no needed classes in any campaign or dungeon. In DDO due to the fact their is no DM, no initiative and no power checks in place a few classes are gods compared to the others.

Quite true!

Maybe I was not clear with my meaning...

I meant, A ROG cannot be balanced against a FTR. As a CLR cannot be balanced vs a WIZ. The balance I see is a party balance as a whole and not a class vs class balance. Hope I was able to be a bit more clear that time.



/respect

[Emili]

You don't NEED any class to do any quest. You shouldn't need any particular class for any quest.

The sooner people realize that the better.

This is true and is by design... due to the fact that DnD has a DM and Initiative... while DDO does not. The problem is that the power checks are not in place thus a certain number of classes become less significant while others more efficient at completing the goals.

Personally I have no answers for you... I will tell you what I truely am seeing happening around me in game... I see more and more arcane classes being made and played. Those melee who do play lately are there more for flavor and less for function, they hold the nicer loot usually pulled by peoples arcanes but are brought out to play less frequently. In my guild of 200 of the 50 active players it are the sorc's and wizards which are getting played more and more among the character classes... more and more people who's first characters were melee are building and playing arcane and divine casting classes more often. Eventually I assume many of the older melee may be shelved indefinately until the next cap. What complicates matters more is the fact that people run the same content over and over... it's a rehash of old content. We've run every quest, we know what's there, role playing is not the idea... loot takes the place of it eventually... it's the way you improve a capped build. The fastest, quickest most efficient way of getting the loot is the route taken. Thus if it's not a raid you'll see less diversity among a party grow more and more.

[MysticTheurge]

I was just thinking, in PnP casters DO NOT out damage moderately equipped fighters if I am correct.

Moderately equiped fighter with a 22 str, +3 weapon, and Specialization at level 14 would get 4 attacks if I remember right, using a great axe you would get 1.5 times strength with power attack. This is a style used by many dps builds in DDO btw, the two-handed axe style etc.

So 1d12(avg 6) +8 str, +3 weapon, +4 spec x 4 =84

Caster level 12 12d6 = average 36

Hmmmmmm

See what I am getting at.

Casters were never meant to take out huge groups of mobs unless they were low hd mobs. In fact, you almost never see room clearing fireballs in PnP except at lower level with low HD mobs.

Casters in DDO are drunk on power, quit your whining and except a nerf for the balance of the game.

Thanks for the correction,

so 63 points of damge on average if he scores 3 hits

vs. 36 for a comparable caster of the same level on average (if the mob fails its save).

Like I said....caster can damage alot of foes in PnP or destroy a small number quickly. They have never been able to outdamage melee classes, their role is more diverse. They are well overpowered in DDO.

Ok... I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps people have already addressed some of this, but your math has a lot errors in it.

In addition to the one MrCow pointed out that you acknowledged (3 attacks instead of 4) he pointed out another that you ignored (the third attack is at -10 vs. the first attack). We'll work these numbers in later

Second, the average damage from a d12 is actually 6.5, when we're talking about multiplying it makes a difference.

Third, you say a 22 strength and then give him +8 damage for strength. This is entirely incorrect. 22 gives a bonus of +6, times 1.5 for a 2-handed weapon gives you +9.

You claim to be using power attack but don't actually factor it into the equation at all. Given that it would be fairly complicated and would probably mean you would only hit on your first attack (especially against a single target, which is generally going to be more powerful than lots of little enemies), let's disregard it.

So, using the correct math, we're looking at: 6.5 (base weapon) + 9 (strength) + 3 (enhancement bonus) + 4 specialization or 22.5 per hit. (Notably, this is actually higher than your number per hit of 21)

But, let's just assume that the target's AC is only 2 points higher than our fighters overall to-hit bonus. This is probably being very generous, but since we're going to assume that the target doesn't save against the spell later one, well give this one to the fighter.

This means that the fighter hits on his first attack on a 2 or higher, his second attack on a 7 or higher and his third attack on a 12 or higher.

Thus, his overall "average" damage in a round is (22.5 * .95) + (22.5 * .7) + (22.5 * .45) or about 47.

If we set a more realistic AC, such that the fighter hits on his first attack at, let's say, an 8, then a 13, then a 18 you're looking at (22.5 * .65) + (22.5 * .4) + (22.5 * .15) or 27 points.

Now for the caster.

First, I can't figure out why your "comparable level caster" is level 12 while your fighter is level 14. So the very first change is that the spell should have a caster level of 14, meaning 14 dice of damage instead of 12.

Second, you don't really describe what you're doing, but you suggest that you're using a fireball. Clearly, that's the wrong tool for the job. Fireballs are great, as you say, for clearing out rooms full of weaker opponents, but they're not what you'd use if you really wanted damage. However, let's take your "room full of weaker opponents" example.

Let's assume that you cast your fireball at a room full of enemies. Let's assume that there are 6 of them in there and then let's assume that you manage to get five of them in the fireball without hitting your allies. This is probably fair (really, you'd open with fireball, so chances are you'd hit them all, but we'll just say five).

Now, fireball caps at 10d6 damage so it's not like your caster level of 14, rather than 12, really makes a difference. This makes your average base damage 35 (d6 is average 3.5 damage times 10 dice).

Now, to compare with our first fighter example, we'll say that the monsters only save on a 20. This means you're doing 35 * .95 + 17.5 * .05 or 34 damage. But wait, that's per enemy. Since you hit five enemies you do about 171 damage in the same time it took your fighter friend to do 47.

Using more reasonable saves, and assuming our beasties save on an 11 or better, you're looking at 35 *.5 + 17.5 * .5 or 26-ish per enemy for a grand total of 131 damage vs. your fighter friend's 27.

That sure seems like outdamaging to me.

But wait, you say, of course wizards do more damage to more enemies with Area of Effect spells. Fighters don't have area of effect abilities, so that's not really a fair comparison.

Alright then, let's take a look at single target damage.

Disintegrate is a pretty good single-target damage spell, and since our caster is level 14 and the spell is 6th level he can definitely use it. Disintegrate does 2d6 damage per caster level (max 40d6) on a failed save and 5d6 on a successful save. This means you're looking at 49 (14*3.5) on a failed save and 17.5 (5*3.5) on a successful save.

If we go with "only saves on a 20" again, you're looking at 47 damage. Right on par with our fighter's 47. But seriously, if things are that easy to hit, there's probably a lot of them and you should be using AoE spells.

For "saves on an 11" you're looking at 38, significantly above the fighter's 27.

And, of course, that's all without getting fancy. There's no metamagics involved (Quicken, Maximize and Empower can make a significant difference in a caster's damage output... for the better; and that's just using core stuff, other metamagics like Twin Ray or Energy Admixture go even further). There's nothing tricky involved, like save-or-die effects (which can make DP"S" a moot point) or crazy tactics like Time Stop. Any of these things is just going to boost casters up even further above your average fighter.

Plus, you're not factoring in some other fairly significant factors. A 2-handed fighter is significantly lacking in AC. Sure the caster is too, but none of the casters attacks have to be made from melee. Moreover, the caster probably has some other things (like blur, mirror image, displacement, stoneskin, etc.) at his disposal to mitigate incoming damage. The fighter only has his AC. Given that the 2-handed fighter is one of the best possible DP"S" build for a fighter in D&D and even he can't compare to a casters damage output is telling. Another fighter, especially a "sword-and-board" fighter, is only going to be worse off.

This is not all to say that this is a good thing. 4th edition seems to be making some significant changes to eliminate this fact and rebalance power a bit. It also adds the concept of roles, and makes a fighter a Defender (who's more concerned with mitigating incoming damage and protecting his allies from harm) while a wizard is a Controller (who manages enemies on the battlefield to give the party an advantage) and the Warlock is a Striker (who's really focused on dealing out damage). But as far as third edition goes, casters definitely outdamage non-casters. If you're going to "do the math" do it right and that should be fairly obvious.

[gravestone]

I play both a caster and a tank and switch between them everyday , theres a time and a place for tanks as there is for casters .. just let it be

[Taojeff]

Ok... I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps people have already addressed some of this, but your math has a lot errors in it.

In addition to the one MrCow pointed out that you acknowledged (3 attacks instead of 4) he pointed out another that you ignored (the third attack is at -10 vs. the first attack). We'll work these numbers in later

Second, the average damage from a d12 is actually 6.5, when we're talking about multiplying it makes a difference.

Third, you say a 22 strength and then give him +8 damage for strength. This is entirely incorrect. 22 gives a bonus of +6, times 1.5 for a 2-handed weapon gives you +9.

You claim to be using power attack but don't actually factor it into the equation at all. Given that it would be fairly complicated and would probably mean you would only hit on your first attack (especially against a single target, which is generally going to be more powerful than lots of little enemies), let's disregard it.

So, using the correct math, we're looking at: 6.5 (base weapon) + 9 (strength) + 3 (enhancement bonus) + 4 specialization or 22.5 per hit. (Notably, this is actually higher than your number per hit of 21)

But, let's just assume that the target's AC is only 2 points higher than our fighters overall to-hit bonus. This is probably being very generous, but since we're going to assume that the target doesn't save against the spell later one, well give this one to the fighter.

This means that the fighter hits on his first attack on a 2 or higher, his second attack on a 7 or higher and his third attack on a 12 or higher.

Thus, his overall "average" damage in a round is (22.5 * .95) + (22.5 * .7) + (22.5 * .45) or about 47.

If we set a more realistic AC, such that the fighter hits on his first attack at, let's say, an 8, then a 13, then a 18 you're looking at (22.5 * .65) + (22.5 * .4) + (22.5 * .15) or 27 points.

Now for the caster.

First, I can't figure out why your "comparable level caster" is level 12 while your fighter is level 14. So the very first change is that the spell should have a caster level of 14, meaning 14 dice of damage instead of 12.

Second, you don't really describe what you're doing, but you suggest that you're using a fireball. Clearly, that's the wrong tool for the job. Fireballs are great, as you say, for clearing out rooms full of weaker opponents, but they're not what you'd use if you really wanted damage. However, let's take your "room full of weaker opponents" example.

Let's assume that you cast your fireball at a room full of enemies. Let's assume that there are 6 of them in there and then let's assume that you manage to get five of them in the fireball without hitting your allies. This is probably fair (really, you'd open with fireball, so chances are you'd hit them all, but we'll just say five).

Now, fireball caps at 10d6 damage so it's not like your caster level of 14, rather than 12, really makes a difference. This makes your average base damage 35 (d6 is average 3.5 damage times 10 dice).

Now, to compare with our first fighter example, we'll say that the monsters only save on a 20. This means you're doing 35 * .95 + 17.5 * .05 or 34 damage. But wait, that's per enemy. Since you hit five enemies you do about 171 damage in the same time it took your fighter friend to do 47.

Using more reasonable saves, and assuming our beasties save on an 11 or better, you're looking at 35 *.5 + 17.5 * .5 or 26-ish per enemy for a grand total of 131 damage vs. your fighter friend's 27.

That sure seems like outdamaging to me.

But wait, you say, of course wizards do more damage to more enemies with Area of Effect spells. Fighters don't have area of effect abilities, so that's not really a fair comparison.

Alright then, let's take a look at single target damage.

Disintegrate is a pretty good single-target damage spell, and since our caster is level 14 and the spell is 6th level he can definitely use it. Disintegrate does 2d6 damage per caster level (max 40d6) on a failed save and 5d6 on a successful save. This means you're looking at 49 (14*3.5) on a failed save and 17.5 (5*3.5) on a successful save.

If we go with "only saves on a 20" again, you're looking at 47 damage. Right on par with our fighter's 47. But seriously, if things are that easy to hit, there's probably a lot of them and you should be using AoE spells.

For "saves on an 11" you're looking at 38, significantly above the fighter's 27.

And, of course, that's all without getting fancy. There's no metamagics involved (Quicken, Maximize and Empower can make a significant difference in a caster's damage output... for the better; and that's just using core stuff, other metamagics like Twin Ray or Energy Admixture go even further). There's nothing tricky involved, like save-or-die effects (which can make DP"S" a moot point) or crazy tactics like Time Stop. Any of these things is just going to boost casters up even further above your average fighter.

Plus, you're not factoring in some other fairly significant factors. A 2-handed fighter is significantly lacking in AC. Sure the caster is too, but none of the casters attacks have to be made from melee. Moreover, the caster probably has some other things (like blur, mirror image, displacement, stoneskin, etc.) at his disposal to mitigate incoming damage. The fighter only has his AC. Given that the 2-handed fighter is one of the best possible DP"S" build for a fighter in D&D and even he can't compare to a casters damage output is telling. Another fighter, especially a "sword-and-board" fighter, is only going to be worse off.

This is not all to say that this is a good thing. 4th edition seems to be making some significant changes to eliminate this fact and rebalance power a bit. It also adds the concept of roles, and makes a fighter a Defender (who's more concerned with mitigating incoming damage and protecting his allies from harm) while a wizard is a Controller (who manages enemies on the battlefield to give the party an advantage) and the Warlock is a Striker (who's really focused on dealing out damage). But as far as third edition goes, casters definitely outdamage non-casters. If you're going to "do the math" do it right and that should be fairly obvious.

Actually non of this is factoring in melee prestige classes or uber weapons. Truth be I simplified a fairly complicated thing, even your extensive example does not do it justice. Melee can do just as much damage as casters, having played D&D since the 1970s I can atest to that. DDO does not have the options for fighters and the like to what PnP does, which is part of the problem.

At higher levels to hit is not a problem with most monsters. Generally its 50/50 with creatures ability to save and there ability to avoid melee. So casters will miss with their spells just about as much as melee. In fact alot of monsters in PnP have certain immunities which further complicates it.

Saying casters out damage melee in PnP is kind of short-sited. Considering there are numerous prestige classes like weapon master that even the table. There is nowhere near the disparity that exists in DDO. AOE spells in PnP were always meant to damage large groups of enemies moderately. You usually do not see them wiping out groups. This is all exasperated by the fact that the AI is much more susceptible to spells then melee.

If people do not think the current system is overpowered here is a way we can check.

Right now most boss monsters do melee damage equivalent or greater then tanks of the same level. (Orange and Red). So lets get some orange and red bosses that have meta-magic, enhancements, and lore items similar to players. Then when said bosses wipe the party with 500 point fireballs, ball lightning, blade-barriers or what not... maybe people will realize how overpowered casters are.

[Aspenor]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Weapon Master evens the playing field damage-wise.....

That's just simply not true at all.

[Taojeff]

Actually non of this is factoring in melee prestige classes or uber weapons. Truth be I simplified a fairly complicated thing, even your extensive example does not do it justice. Melee can do just as much damage as casters, having played D&D since the 1970s I can atest to that. DDO does not have the options for fighters and the like to what PnP does, which is part of the problem.

At higher levels to hit is not a problem with most monsters. Generally its 50/50 with creatures ability to save and there ability to avoid melee. So casters will miss with their spells just about as much as melee. In fact alot of monsters in PnP have certain immunities which further complicates it.

Saying casters out damage melee in PnP is kind of short-sited. Considering there are numerous prestige classes like weapon master that even the table. There is nowhere near the disparity that exists in DDO. AOE spells in PnP were always meant to damage large groups of enemies moderately. You usually do not see them wiping out groups. This is all exasperated by the fact that the AI is much more susceptible to spells then melee.

If people do not think the current system is overpowered here is a way we can check.

Right now most boss monsters do melee damage equivalent or greater then tanks of the same level. (Orange and Red). So lets get some orange and red bosses that have meta-magic, enhancements, and lore items similar to players. Then when said bosses wipe the party with 500 point fireballs, ball lightning, blade-barriers or what not... maybe people will realize how overpowered casters are.

Oh I forgot to mention this does not even factor in that the caster needs to conserve his man and pick his spells in an intelligent way instead of just going for DPS and being able to get his spells back constantly like in DDO.

Melee by far outdamage casters of a course of an adventure. Casters will always be able to outdamage a single enemy with instant kills (barring spell resistance or immunities) then melee, but overall melee will do more damage over time...not so in DDO.

[MysticTheurge]

Actually non of this is factoring in melee prestige classes or uber weapons.

Right, that's not factoring those in, because when you factor those in you have to start factoring in other things, like Archmage and Mystic Theurge or metamagic rods (Maximized Disintegrate, anyone?) and so on? Those do complicate things a bit more.

Generally its 50/50 with creatures ability to save and there ability to avoid melee. So casters will miss with their spells just about as much as melee. In fact alot of monsters in PnP have certain immunities which further complicates it.

Right, which is why I was generally comparing the "Melee always hits" to the "Monsters never save" numbers and the "Melee hits about half" with the "monsters save about half" numbers.

And for every monster with SR or immunities, there's a monster with DR, miss chance or something else.

Saying casters out damage melee in PnP is kind of short-sited. Considering there are numerous prestige classes like weapon master that even the table. There is nowhere near the disparity that exists in DDO.

You're right. The disparity in D&D is worse. Check out the WotC character optimization boards, except in a few chases you're going to see a lot more spellcasters than not.

AOE spells in PnP were always meant to damage large groups of enemies moderately. You usually do not see them wiping out groups. This is all exasperated by the fact that the AI is much more susceptible to spells then melee.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here and you seem to be hinting at an entirely different topic.

If you're talking about the relative overpoweredness of Persistent Area of Effect spells (like Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier) in DDO, then yes, those spells do significantly more damage in DDO than in D&D. In D&D, those spells are generally battlefield control spells rather than damaging dealing spells, but I'm not really sure how that relates to the original premise of your thread.

If people do not think the current system is overpowered here is a way we can check.

Right now most boss monsters do melee damage equivalent or greater then tanks of the same level. (Orange and Red). So lets get some orange and red bosses that have meta-magic, enhancements, and lore items similar to players. Then when said bosses wipe the party with 500 point fireballs, ball lightning, blade-barriers or what not... maybe people will realize how overpowered casters are.

This is silly.

Not only is your premise wrong (that boss monsters do melee equivalent damage; they may do roughly the same in one hit, but they attack far less often) but it, again, has absolutely nothing with your original premise.

What you observe above is related to the relationship between PC and NPC defenses (including, but not limited to, hit points). PCs have fewer hit points than NPCs in DDO, by a pretty significant factor, and as a result NPC damage output has to be significantly less than PC damage output for the same rough effect.

Oh I forgot to mention this does not even factor in that the caster needs to conserve his man and pick his spells in an intelligent way instead of just going for DPS and being able to get his spells back constantly like in DDO.

Yes, this is quite true. The spell point system gives a great deal of power to casters, especially casters who would be, in a standard D&D game, "prepared" casters rather than "spontaneous" casters.

But, like the increase in melee attack speed, the removal of AoOs and a few other things, this is due to the change between a slow, tactical, turn-based game to a fast-paced, action-oriented, real-time game. If you didn't use a spell point system, you'd have a very hard time creating an entertaining, live-action game like DDO is today.

Melee by far outdamage casters of a course of an adventure. Casters will always be able to outdamage a single enemy with instant kills (barring spell resistance or immunities) then melee, but overall melee will do more damage over time...not so in DDO.

This is heavily dependent on the number of encounters per day in your "adventure." Given 4 encounters per day, it should be relatively easy for a 14th level sorcerer to cast a spell every round and not run out of spells. Even a wizard, with a decent intelligence has plenty of spells to throw around.

Not to mention, once a caster gets his hands on a few choice magic items (staffs especially, which are notably missing from DDO) the whole "I'm out of spells!" thing becomes much less of a limiting factor. And you know, if your DM isn't handing out what you want, you could always just craft them for yourself instead.

Casters, especially higher-level casters, are overpowered in D&D 3.5, and from what I hear it's one of the things that's shaping how 4th edition is going to be different (in good ways, from what I've heard). But trying to argue that they're not more powerful than non-casters is just naive.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Quite true!

Maybe I was not clear with my meaning...

I meant, A ROG cannot be balanced against a FTR. As a CLR cannot be balanced vs a WIZ. The balance I see is a party balance as a whole and not a class vs class balance. Hope I was able to be a bit more clear that time.



/respect

Yup, well said. And a good DM makes sure all the classes have a roll to play. That may be the place that Turbine has fallen down a bit, that and publishing the "last swing at the mob" list that has created a very un-D&D focus on kill counts.

[EinarMal]

Casters, especially higher-level casters, are overpowered in D&D 3.5, and from what I hear it's one of the things that's shaping how 4th edition is going to be different (in good ways, from what I've heard). But trying to argue that they're not more powerful than non-casters is just naive.

Then Turbine should be adopting the "spirit" of 4th edition rules ASAP. If melee DPS is not an option at high levels in most cases, then the game won't be an option for a lot of players who just plain like hacking away at mobs.

[EinarMal]

Yup, well said. And a good DM makes sure all the classes have a roll to play. That may be the place that Turbine has fallen down a bit, that and publishing the "last swing at the mob" list that has created a very un-D&D focus on kill counts.

Forget kill count, that is not what people are seeing, it is barely getting a swing in as the mobs just die left and right from insta kill spells or fry in firewalls.

You think they fell down a bit only in making anything other than "kill" quests? That is the understatement of the year, of course it is only the 1st!

Again if melee DPS killing isn't possible at high levels then this game is in serious trouble without balancing. Many people like to do that period. It is irrelevant at that point whether or not people think that is exactly like 3.5 PnP is.

[Luthen]

I was just thinking, in PnP casters DO NOT out damage moderately equipped fighters if I am correct.

Moderately equiped fighter with a 22 str, +3 weapon, and Specialization at level 14 would get 4 attacks if I remember right, using a great axe you would get 1.5 times strength with power attack. This is a style used by many dps builds in DDO btw, the two-handed axe style etc.

So 1d12(avg 6) +8 str, +3 weapon, +4 spec x 4 =84

Caster level 12 12d6 = average 36

Hmmmmmm

See what I am getting at.

Casters were never meant to take out huge groups of mobs unless they were low hd mobs. In fact, you almost never see room clearing fireballs in PnP except at lower level with low HD mobs.

Casters in DDO are drunk on power, quit your whining and except a nerf for the balance of the game.

Lets put aside the "Casters are drunk with power" comment first. Whether it be a tank a rogue or a ranger I have seen many a class out kill a "DPS" caster. Now where the "Drunk with power" comes more into effect is the casters ability to insta kill with PK or Finger OR Flesh to Stone at will making monsters trivial. The high damage of Fire Ball, Wall of Fire and so on pale by comparison to the total pwnage of those three spells.

Nerfing dmaage isn't going to "balance" the game. Not until they "Nerf" the outrageous HP and DC of the monsters. Since that will never happen then why continue to weaken classes that seem to excell? Making the game take longer or "harder" does not always equate to making it more fun.

[BillBob]

I'd have to say that the unbalance of casters and fighters in D&D (and DDO) is never gonna be totally solved. There is an assumption, based on tolkien/arthurian/greek and most mythologies that magic and the wielders of such power are more powerful than the warrior. This supernatural or godlike power is made manifest in what wizards/clerics/sorcerers/bards can do in D&D. The potential DPS is not really the issue. It's the nature of the spells that the characters can cast in this game. You could take all the potency, damage enhancements and metas out of the game tomorrow and the casters are still gonna become more and more powerful. The spells available to casters in D&D and DDO, right now and in the future, are gonna continue to vault them above most other classes. (clouds, FW, FoD, Holds, Dance, FtS, resists, DR, avoidance, charms, symbols right now) What happens when casters get symbol death, and other AoE death effects, mantles, school immunities?, mass hold monster, better summons etc.

Although, if you did revert to the spells per day system, you'd have to incorporate rules of encumbrance, fatigue and exhaustion for melee classes. After all, if a fighter can swing 96 times a minute the poor things gonna fall over from a massive coronary... These changes would, of course, slow down the game and require a massive overhaul. Something that most of the community and turbine, most likely, does not want to face.

Personally, i have no problem with the balance of melee and casters. On my tank, i like pullin' mobs through BBs and Symbols or holding choke points. If the caster wants to nuke all or buff me to kill then i'm happy either way. It gets the job done.

In the future i'd like to see 1) attention paid to what will pop onto the casters' spell lists so we don't face another firewall fiasco, 2) implementation of some more melee abilities to provide some more strategic variety to the class. (bullrush, knockback/out)

Oh and get rid of the Kill count! Anecdotal at best.

... and Aragorn looked at Gandalf and cried "Nerf!!"

[Hendrik]

Yup, well said. And a good DM makes sure all the classes have a roll to play. That may be the place that Turbine has fallen down a bit, that and publishing the "last swing at the mob" list that has created a very un-D&D focus on kill counts.

While I agree with you Lorien, I can remember threads where some were upset because there was a need for a specific class within a dungeon or two. Not saying it's a good or bad thing either way, but I can remember where needing a specific class to move on was not a very fond idea for some.

Yes, ditch the last hit on mob counter! Don't make it for each person, make it for the group as a whole.

[Invalid_86]

... and Aragorn looked at Gandalf and cried "Nerf!!"

I think that was in the director's cut extended edition. It also featured the cut scene where Sam showed Frodo how much better he looked in a thong than Gollum.....

[MysticTheurge]

While I agree with you Lorien, I can remember threads where some were upset because there was a need for a specific class within a dungeon or two. Not saying it's a good or bad thing either way, but I can remember where needing a specific class to move on was not a very fond idea for some.

There are lots of things you can do that would allow different character archetypes to shine without requiring specific classes.

[Hendrik]

There are lots of things you can do that would allow different character archetypes to shine without requiring specific classes.

Yea, that requiring part is the sticky point.

Love to discuss how we could find a way for them to shine without a required class but another topic for another thread...

[Hendrik]

I think that was in the director's cut extended edition. It also featured the cut scene where Sam showed Frodo how much better he looked in a thong than Gollum.....

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[Emili]

I'd have to say that the unbalance of casters and fighters in D&D (and DDO) is never gonna be totally solved. There is an assumption, based on tolkien/arthurian/greek and most mythologies that magic and the wielders of such power are more powerful than the warrior. This supernatural or godlike power is made manifest in what wizards/clerics/sorcerers/bards can do in D&D. The potential DPS is not really the issue. It's the nature of the spells that the characters can cast in this game. You could take all the potency, damage enhancements and metas out of the game tomorrow and the casters are still gonna become more and more powerful. The spells available to casters in D&D and DDO, right now and in the future, are gonna continue to vault them above most other classes. (clouds, FW, FoD, Holds, Dance, FtS, resists, DR, avoidance, charms, symbols right now) What happens when casters get symbol death, and other AoE death effects, mantles, school immunities?, mass hold monster, better summons etc.

Although, if you did revert to the spells per day system, you'd have to incorporate rules of encumbrance, fatigue and exhaustion for melee classes. After all, if a fighter can swing 96 times a minute the poor things gonna fall over from a massive coronary... These changes would, of course, slow down the game and require a massive overhaul. Something that most of the community and turbine, most likely, does not want to face.

Personally, i have no problem with the balance of melee and casters. On my tank, i like pullin' mobs through BBs and Symbols or holding choke points. If the caster wants to nuke all or buff me to kill then i'm happy either way. It gets the job done.

In the future i'd like to see 1) attention paid to what will pop onto the casters' spell lists so we don't face another firewall fiasco, 2) implementation of some more melee abilities to provide some more strategic variety to the class. (bullrush, knockback/out)

Oh and get rid of the Kill count! Anecdotal at best.

... and Aragorn looked at Gandalf and cried "Nerf!!"

Actually, it has been throughout human culture that the meek inherit the earth... and thus shows in it's myths. ie.) greek... It was Thesius, Odyseous, Jason who were the heros overcoming the grave odds against the supernatural, mere men. Ever read sagas -Beowulf by chance? Was not Arthur, a mere boy to become King and bring a peace throughout the land?, Saint George slew the dragon... then comes tolkien centuries later and a mere hobit destroys the ring Gandolf cannot bring himself to even entrust himself with. Point being, myth had always played the human endeavor to overcome all supernatural forces as a means of inspiration for us to follow.

Getting rid of the kill count does not change the results... people know who is doing what without the kill counter. That in itself is where the problem rises.

[captain1z]

I dont think classes should be balanced. I believe that classes are created to define specific roles a person is more capable of filling upon creation.

clerics healers better than fighters
wizards can do lots of things but cant heal (primarily) and die when you shake em hard
rogues are built to cope with lifes adversities (traps,bluff,UMD in a pinch) but generally dont fight cast magic or heal very well (generally speaking)

you get the picture. Its not balanced in all areas but the shared responsibility of finishing a quest is supposed to take a group effort.

Making due with what you got is part of the fun of this game. You dont have clerics but you have rangers and paladins..... lets make that work for us. No tanks but have clerics and wizards...... time to adjust the strategy.


I think the Imbalance some people may feel comes in the creation of quests that dont require any strategy or special skills beyond.... "kill everything to complete". There are a fairly high number of those and everything else in those particular quests is "optional" and worth very little in the way of xp and loot.


The imbalance is not in the classes its in the value placed upon certain objectives in the quest...... example below:



(optional) steal the key = 15xp
(optional) find the secret chamber = 10xp
(optional) speak with grandpill = 25xp
(optional) disable the traps = +2% per trap

Kill torg and his minions = 5000 xp


This is the imbalance and the reason "you/we" want to zerg a quest and pack as much firepower all the while skipping the sidequests and passing up taking along that rogue in favor of that extra wizard "2 wizards, mmmmhhhh.... unlimited haste".

We build our parties like we build the ultimate weapon and dont find room for a rogue unless there is a trap that cant be bypassed.

- dont take a fighter because all we have to do is kill everything to go forward..... no need for detect secret doors, dimension door, dispel magic and other utility spells..... I ll just pack my death dealing spells its not like I need to do anything else to finish this.


That sort of quest design is similiar to WOW and might even be an attempt to emulate them

D&D is about being creative...... so a player might need to drop a damage dealing spell because he will need Dispel Magic to bring down a magical barrier (not just his high Intelligence)

we may need true sight because after the rogue opens the vault and clears the traps we will have no other way of knowing which of the 3 chalices are real and which one will kill the 1st person who touches it and awake the gaurdian.


The imbalance is risk/reward creativity/combat