(Trying to) fix 3.5 - how to.

[Montrose]

So, care to tell me why you found my statement about character builds so laughable? Do you believe that "real DnD" requires that people have total system mastery to create competent characters? Do you not believe that it is possible to create optimized characters in 4E, and that it is difficult to do so?

So I'm going to argue a few different points here.

First, it's not hard to cheese 4e. It's harder than it was to do in 3.5, but depending on what sources your DM allows, it's really not that challenging (especially if you use Dragon Magazine).

As I am sure you are aware, there is an entire CharOp forum, and when the game first came out there were people 1-rounding Orcus. Wizards has been wielding the nerf bat ruthlessly. Take a quick glance through the errata (sorry, "rules updates") and see how many things got better, as opposed to worse: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateMay2010.pdf

So, empirically, building a broken character is not only possible, it happens with regularity.

Secondly, one of my main beefs with 4E (which I play on a bi-weekly basis and have occasionally DM'd) is that you basically need to optimize. The game is *highly* mechanical.

This is a continued by-product of a d20-based system, where a +1 bonus makes you 5% more effective (i.e. 5% less likely to die) than the guy standing next to you.

Even in trivial fights, optimizing for accuracy and damage is desirable because mobs (by and large) have huge numbers of hit points and do mediocre damage. So it's a long and drawn-out grind, and when you are repeating things over and over those averages start to really matter.

As a side note, I am disappointed by how wimpy monsters are in 4E. A level 18ish adult dragon went full attack on my barbarian for two rounds + an action point and barely scratched him. Fearful presence to stun, then two standard actions of attacks and an action point. Looking at the compendium, the max damage (w/o crits) would have been: 14+14+14+14+29 (claw/claw/claw/claw/breath) = 85 total points, 86 if the breath weapon recharged.

My character was level 10 at the time and had 90ish hitpoints. A *solo dragon* that was *eight* levels above me had zero chance of killing me in two rounds plus a standard action doing *max damage* using it's best attacks with *no reactions* allowed by my character. Pathetic.

I believe they are correcting this in MM3 by raising monster damage and lowering monster hitpoints.

[RictrasShard]

As I am sure you are aware, there is an entire CharOp forum, and when the game first came out there were people 1-rounding Orcus.

I remember those arguments. The people who claimed they were one-rounding Orcus were lying (at least, the ones in properly run games were). Their 'explanations' for how they did it sounded good on paper, but in practice were very unlikely to actually succeed.

[SquelchHU]

OP, your posts are too wordy. I recommend investing in some editing to make your point a little more digestable than ranting as much as you do.

Tried that. People act like they don't get it. Regardless of if they actually do not understand without more explanation, or are just being difficult I dunno.

Skipping past things that were mentioned months ago because the context isn't clear.

For the fighter to hit an ac of 26, he needs a total of a 27, after bonuses. With basic fighting feats, he will have a bab of +3, a weapon focus +1, masterwork weapon +1, and a str bonus of +1 - +6. So basically +6 - +12 to hit before rolling. A 15 would hit 27 if he maxed his str on creation.

Also non magical masterwork armor is doable for the fighter by lvl 3. So why not adamantine full plate?

Because adamantine full plate costs 16,500 gold, which over six times as much as his life savings by itself.

Adamantine Cost Modifiers Type of Adamantine Item Item Cost Modifier
Ammunition +60 gp
Light armor +5,000 gp
Medium armor +10,000 gp
>Heavy armor +15,000 gp<
Weapon +3,000 gp
Shield +2,000 gp
Adamantine

And the net effect over normal full plate is DR 3/-.

I don't agree that 3.5's melee combat is inferior to a spell casters ability to deal wins.

From lvls 1 - 20 and beyond, all spell casters can cast at most one or two spells per combat round (depnds on variants before combat starts, and abilities or spells used). As the levels increase for a melee user, they can attack more times in a combat round.

I don't recall anywhere in PnP 3.5 a way for casters to deal out ddo damage, so in a single attack, a spell caster can do about as much as a melee with their preferred weapon. It is part of the damage balance in 3.5.

Stop. Right there. Here is your problem. You are assuming that casters do damage. They don't. The optimal damage output of a caster is ZERO. And while in practice it will be slightly higher (trivial damage from Black Tentacles, trivial damage from saves vs Finger of Death) the power of the caster is not damage, but the ability to bypass damage. Conversely, the failure of melee is being stuck auto attacking for HP damage only.

So the melee guy can swing five times at say... level 16, with haste boots and unless he's optimized 2-3 will miss, and the other 2-3 will do like 20 each, or something pathetic. At which point the dragon, or undead, or whatever level 16 enemy thanks you for giving their balls a good scratch, and apologizes as this favor does not dissuade them from mauling you. They then proceed to do that.

If he is heavily optimized, he might do something (read: kill, since HP is binary) but this will require a great deal of optimization indeed, as you seriously need a minimum damage per round of 200+++ at that level if you cannot bypass HP damage, or you might as well not exist (and soon won't, due to death).

Yes, the caster is casting one, perhaps two spells a round. There are ways he can do far more than this, but as even one has a very high chance (vs a 0% chance) of ending the encounter on the spot, all the caster has proven is that quality > quantity. The EF to KA, if you will. If you actually get this reference I will give you a cookie.

And even comparing to the optimized melee, the melee has to be rooted in one place to take out one enemy, whereas the caster is not rooted and can take out one or more enemies. So still quality > quantity.

Though you are right that blasting is made of fail.

Ok, I diverged. Back tot he thought experiement. Can a equally levelled fighter take on a mage of the same level. Sure I say. As a mage levels, they get new spells. They select spells to help them the best. They make some items or find some that help them. But one thing that stays the same; all mages must be adaptable at combat through pre-combat preperation. Picking the right spell arsenal, scrolls, items, etc. If their memmed spells are not tailored for their opponent, they are at a serious disadvantage. A fighter of the same level has one thing to deal with; which gear is active when he fights. A wizard knowing the upcomming threat is a melee will prepare some offensive spells, mez or controls, and buffs. A fighter knowing a wizard is coming up to fight will thank his items for SR to compensate where his will fails, his rings for ways to bypass some of the offensive spells, his armor to absorb some of the direct damage. Maybe even some low level spells from items that help against unsavables (magic missile vs shield).

This has been done many times by bigger minds than you (and me for that matter). Ultimately the discussion comes down to wizard vs wizard 2 levels lower... because the Fighter took leadership, and that's seriously the only tactical factor to consider.

As for a mage's preparing, the same things that stop a wide array of melee brute enemies work on the fighter. No special preperation or foreknowledge is even required, he just treats the fighter like any other mook, it goes down like a sorority girl, end encounter.

A fighter knowing a wizard is coming up lays down and dies because 1: SR is completely irrelevant even in high amounts. And by high amounts, I mean your level + 20 or better. 2: You don't get high amounts on items, instead you just waste a lot of money on very low amounts, that wouldn't work even if SR itself did work. He also can't do jack to help him against the offensive spells ring wise, nor does he have enough money to do it even if he could, his armor doesn't help vs pewpewpew even if he faced a ******** wizard (instead of ya know, a genius one), and magic missile is simply not going to be cast, so it's a moot point.

I remember many games where my twinkers, minmaxers, and powergamers said they had the ultimate character. I watched them revel in their glory. I also watched them stopped, challenge by challenge, level by level, as their opponents outwitted, outsmarted, or outlived them.

In the end, PnP is about fun and enjoyment. If you are pitting two players against eachother, then your players are very easy to entertain. LOL

Who said anything about PvP? And somehow I have the feeling you have no idea what optimization is.

[SquelchHU]

If you build your character the obvious way (high attack stat boosted when possible, take weapon/implement expertise) you are down by about 2 attack bonus relative to monster AC at level 30 vs. level 1. This is easily made up for by the tactical options you have by then. It's usually easy to gain combat advantage, and most leader classes (clerics, warlords, etc.) give out attack bonuses. Solid teamwork (tactics!) more than make up for the mathematical disadvantage.

Thanks for making my point.

That has not been my experience. The party I DM for is hardly optimal, yet combats take about an hour and a half, two hours for the really big ones. We usually run one combat per 4 hour session.

Holy ****ing ****. 90 minutes on a routine encounter, with two hours for bigger ones? And you don't see the problem? Wow.

Here's the thing: winning in one move is not "tactically interesting". Chess is a platonic ideal of a tactical game, and it takes many moves of give and take. A good tactics game is about responding to your enemy's tactical decisions, and adapting to them. Casting the particular spell they are not immune to and immediately winning is not the mark of a good tactics game.

Because an enemy making themselves immune to spell x is totally not a tactical decision right? Fail.

You can do that in a 4E campaign, it's just that the result will be a significant advantage in whatever combat results, not an auto-win. Do you really think it's realistic for a group of people to come up with a fool-proof plan in hours to invade the home of a mage who's had years to harden it? No, they'll find the weakest point, hit that, but still face a challenging fight.

You mean like a +1 for 1 round that is insulting to even remember, and does nothing but make routine combats into movie length grindfests? Not movie fight length, the whole **** movie.

And a good DM sets up combats that matter, that have consequences on the world. The problem with those abilities you list is that only casters generally get them. This means to have a character that leaves a mark on the world, you are shoehorned into specific archetypes you can roleplay.

Yes, I said that. Thing is, having some classes that can't influence the world means there are some that CAN. This is still an improvement over 'no one can influence the world, because this game is about dungeon crawling' that is 4th edition.

Rituals aren't perfect, but they do provide many of the options you listed above. Making a demiplane requires a spell in 3.5, right? Is it so terrible that it takes a ritual in 4E?

LOL! Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you? I'm going to give you one more out here.

First, they are combat moves, so they typically are implicitly useless out of combat. Kind of like how a full round attack generally isn't that useful outside 3.5 combat. Second, many powers (especially utilities) do have out of combat applicability. "Until end of encounter" is just shorthand for 5 minute duration, not a prohibition against using it out of an encounter.

Facepalm. The point. You missed it.

Or 4E is an interesting to play, well-designed tactics game whether you have baseline easily created characters or optimized characters.

LOL! 4th edition fails by its own design tenets. See, when you make a tactical game you have to make choices matter, and ranges matter too. Funny how that doesn't happen. Like at all. Auto attack, sammich. Done.

And that's a huge problem. If someone wants to play a character with a big sword, it should be able to play at the same table as someone else with a wizard. That's just fundamentally good RPG design.

Uh huh. And that's why you don't take everyone else's real options away, then reduce the options still further.

Sure, in a tactics game dedicated to action economy. That's not the only way to make a tactics game.

Um, no. Fail. Action Economy will always be the most important thing in a tactical game, because it means you get more meaningful actions than they do. Grinding on a mob is not tactical.

[SquelchHU]

So I'm going to argue a few different points here.

First, it's not hard to cheese 4e. It's harder than it was to do in 3.5, but depending on what sources your DM allows, it's really not that challenging (especially if you use Dragon Magazine).

As I am sure you are aware, there is an entire CharOp forum, and when the game first came out there were people 1-rounding Orcus. Wizards has been wielding the nerf bat ruthlessly. Take a quick glance through the errata (sorry, "rules updates") and see how many things got better, as opposed to worse: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateMay2010.pdf

So, empirically, building a broken character is not only possible, it happens with regularity.

Secondly, one of my main beefs with 4E (which I play on a bi-weekly basis and have occasionally DM'd) is that you basically need to optimize. The game is *highly* mechanical.

This is a continued by-product of a d20-based system, where a +1 bonus makes you 5% more effective (i.e. 5% less likely to die) than the guy standing next to you.

Even in trivial fights, optimizing for accuracy and damage is desirable because mobs (by and large) have huge numbers of hit points and do mediocre damage. So it's a long and drawn-out grind, and when you are repeating things over and over those averages start to really matter.

As a side note, I am disappointed by how wimpy monsters are in 4E. A level 18ish adult dragon went full attack on my barbarian for two rounds + an action point and barely scratched him. Fearful presence to stun, then two standard actions of attacks and an action point. Looking at the compendium, the max damage (w/o crits) would have been: 14+14+14+14+29 (claw/claw/claw/claw/breath) = 85 total points, 86 if the breath weapon recharged.

My character was level 10 at the time and had 90ish hitpoints. A *solo dragon* that was *eight* levels above me had zero chance of killing me in two rounds plus a standard action doing *max damage* using it's best attacks with *no reactions* allowed by my character. Pathetic.

I believe they are correcting this in MM3 by raising monster damage and lowering monster hitpoints.

And in normal encounters you could afk for a full minute with no risk. Seriously, who are these people fooling when they say choices matter in 4th?

[Chai]

Fail, fail, fail, fail, and fail.

Your first fail is using average results instead of the highest. This is a particularly bad fail given the second condition, but even standalone it fails.

Incorrect. DnD is based on the law of averages. Only an absolutist would call getting hit 50% of the time or less ineffective.

Your second fail is assuming investing heavily into AC (and yes, a 36 at level 10 is heavy investment) and only getting something as good as a basic Displacement is a good idea. Hint: It's not. If it were very cheap, that would be acceptable, but getting even 36 AC at level 10 will require quite a lot of money (you have under 50k... basic +5 items are 25k + base cost) if it is possible at all (and if it is, it means taking an IMMENSE DPS hit, at a level where if you aren't doing three digit damage a round every round, and can't bypass HP like a real character you might as well not exist.

You are bantering the "all or nothing" arguement again, which is what min maxers do. Go ahead and create your "all or nothing" characters. Once you encounter a mob that attacks your "nothing" you are done dancing for the evening. Better roll up 3 or 4 toons right off the bat so you have replacements at the ready.

Your third fail is assuming that attacks are regressive. They aren't, because only weapon based attacks do that, and we're discussing actual melee threats here meaning their maximum penalty is -5, and more likely -2 or 0. Because that's how actual natural attacks actually work.

The attack chain is regressive. -0, -5, -10 and so on for a full attack. Attacks of opportunity are at full bonus, as are cleaves etc.

Your fourth fail is claiming 20 always hits is a house rule. It's not, and never has been in any edition but thank you for further demonstrating your incompetence.

As a min maxer who is also an absolutist, I would not expect you to know what the word "if" means, because that word implys that something is situational in nature, which is a concept you are not grasping here. My actual statement was referring to IF you use nat 20 as auto success. Some people do and some people dont. Welcome to the gray area.

Your fifth fail is handwaving away hit on a 20 only as something only optimizers want, as opposed to something everyone needs to actually be protected against physical attacks.

Please show me where I actually stated this. You cant because its all in your absolutist mind.

Even a 5% chance is still going to come up very, very often when it's the enemies using it against you. And it doesn't take very many hits to die, particularly since they might as well PA for full. Which means 50+++ damage, very very easily.

Your absolutism is shining through yet again. In my example the mob would need a 21 to hit on the third swing ona full attack, which is ONLY possibly on a NAT 20 and ONLY if you house rule nat 20 in as auto success. If you do not, its auto fail because you cant roll a 21 on a 20 sided dice. Unless your fearsome mob pulls a +1 out of its hiney, it ONLY gets 2 possible attacks against a 36 AC opponent.

Now, how many HP do you have? Under one hundred? That's pretty **** likely, considering your Con won't be higher than 16 (can't afford better than a +2 con item) giving you 59.5 + 30 = 89 HP. So even with the impossible to actually obtain AC of 50, two hits will take you from full to dead. And the 50 damage example uses a gimped enemy to do it. Normal enemies will do more. Optimized enemies will kill you in one hit. Because PA adds quite a bit, and if they're only hitting on a 20 anyways they might as well go Casey Bat on you.

Anyone can be killed by the dice. Most 50 point + single hits at level 10 will be crits, unless you are playing in a convoluted min maxer campaign where your stats are either maxed or dumped. In that case, even with pure random encounters and nothing planned (which is an extreme example which favors you and not me here) its still only a matter of time before your weakness is attacked, and you are put down like a sick dog.

Now, the important detail here is that you're not going to get even a Displacement level AC (41) while still maintaining the minimum baseline of competence for DPS (100+++ a round, every round). Hell, you probably can't do it at all, but I'm sure you'll come back with a dex based gimp who can't kill a level 1 in 3 rounds, but that does (barely) have an AC of 41. And since I know you will latch onto any little thing that supports your rampant hatred for effective characters, I'm wording it that way to block you out.

LOL at your dex based gimp reference you pay homage to every third post. You keep tapping this like its a reality, when in fact you are the only person who has ever brought this up.

You certainly are not going to get an AC of 50. The AC you will actually get is 20-30... with the high end involving a lot of ultimately wasted money, and the low end being the natural result of someone who realizes it's not going to make a lick of difference anyways. So you get hit by everything on a 2. And it PAs for up to 10 points, so +10 damage on every attack. How long will that 89 HP last? Not very long. A round, maybe 2. And your HP is your only defense, so by taking just under a hundred damage, you drop to -10 and go splat.

Show me this breakdown of someone who has huge HP in PnP DnD when they have to roll for hp every level and are allowed one roll, per level. I want to see stats, class, and HP amount.

At this point your options are:

1: Try and get AC. You'll get 30, so you're not Power Attack bait. But you're still automatically hit. Unfortunately this will make your DPS full of fail, so you will die. Each and every time.

How does AC relate to DPS exactly? They are 2 completely different discussions, other than the max money allocation per level, which you seem to ignore, as I pointed out earlier.

2: Realize that the physical defense stat doesn't actually protect you against physical attacks in this game, and that if you wanted to have some durability in combat you should have played a Wizard. So your AC is 20. Jack your DPS up so you might actually do > 100 a round every round at level 10, and hope that you can kill the enemy before it kills you. It's still not a good situation, but at least you have a non zero chance of contributing beyond a single combat.

Again situational. If your only method of playing a melee is to waltz into the enemy's threat range and start pounding, you might have a point, however, there are many other ways to play a melee. They can also get magical items that give them an advantage by leveraging certain characteristics of the encounter. Your arguement only holds water in an absolutist sense, where your only option is to build 12 foot tall gorillas that hammer on eachother until one drops and always stay in each others threat range.

Again, this "hp is my only defense" playstyle doesnt last long on the gaming tables, unless everyone else is an absolutist who thinks like you do. The minute divination magic enters the campaign, and your extreme weakness has been determined, its curtains. You are one standard action that cant be countered by massive HP away from death. Those types of actions are many.

[RictrasShard]

And in normal encounters you could afk for a full minute with no risk. Seriously, who are these people fooling when they say choices matter in 4th?

Please show me these normal encounters where your character does nothing for a minute and is still alive.

[dkyle]

Thanks for making my point.

Wha? You say you need to optimize to avoid getting thrown off the d20. I say anyone not being completely stupid can make a character that avoids that. How does that prove your point?

Holy ****ing ****. 90 minutes on a routine encounter, with two hours for bigger ones? And you don't see the problem? Wow.

I don't run routine encounters. Every combat means something, has something at stake. I don't throw some random orcs at the party to give them something to do. I'd rather play one 2 hour, interesting to play, important combat than 10 no-challenge insta-win combats vs meaningless mooks.

Because an enemy making themselves immune to spell x is totally not a tactical decision right? Fail.

By deciding to be undead or a construct? And generally, it's not a tactical decision, because that choice is usually made (from an in character perspective) without any knowledge of what the PCs are capable of. In practice, it's usually just the DM trying desperately to reign in the caster so the other people have something to do.

You mean like a +1 for 1 round that is insulting to even remember, and does nothing but make routine combats into movie length grindfests? Not movie fight length, the whole **** movie.

Or fewer/weaker monsters, tactically superior starting position/area to fight in. More information on the monsters' abilities. An item which provides an ability the monsters are weak to. An easier objective (kill the monsters vs. kill them, vs. kill them before they raise an alarm). Any number of things.

Yes, I said that. Thing is, having some classes that can't influence the world means there are some that CAN.

This isn't a yin/yang thing. You can have all characters capable of influencing the world in some essentially equally powerful, but different, way.

This is still an improvement over 'no one can influence the world, because this game is about dungeon crawling' that is 4th edition.

Wanna know how my players transformed my campaign world in ways I didn't expect when I started? By roleplaying and making significant choices. They didn't need super-powerful spells and abilities.

Throughout human history, the world has changed due to the actions of a few; they didn't need magic to do it.

LOL! Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you? I'm going to give you one more out here.

3.5 spell Genesis vs 4E ritual Primal Grove. Both require significant time and resources, both create a sheltered area where a caster can call home.

Facepalm. The point. You missed it.

You said powers can't be used outside of combat. I corrected you. I got the point. I understand that powers are not earth shattering things. It's my opinion that they shouldn't be. Requiring teamwork, cooperation, and clever use of limited tools is better RPG design than just giving the wizard an all-powerful spell and calling it a day.

LOL! 4th edition fails by its own design tenets. See, when you make a tactical game you have to make choices matter, and ranges matter too. Funny how that doesn't happen. Like at all. Auto attack, sammich. Done.

Uh... ranges do matter in 4E. The difference between burst 1 vs burst 2 is significant. The difference between ranged 5 and 10 also comes up a lot. How much 4E have you played?

Um, no. Fail. Action Economy will always be the most important thing in a tactical game, because it means you get more meaningful actions than they do. Grinding on a mob is not tactical.

Is chess a tactical game? Does it feature action economy? No, it's all about board position and number/qualtiy of pieces. Ergo, it's possible to have a tactical game that doesn't even feature action economy, let alone one which allows it, but deemphasizes it (like 4E).

In DnD, you win (usually) by killing your opponents while sustaining as little losses as possible. If tactics help you accomplish this, then it's a tactical game. Forcing your opponent to take damage for taking an action is a win. Forcing your opponent to use a weaker attack is a win. Forcing your opponent to attack the full-health, high defenses Fighter instead of finishing off the high-damage, lower-defenses sorcerer is a win. You don't need to completely lock down your enemies or kill them in one shot to gain significant tactical advantage.

[Montrose]

Please show me these normal encounters where your character does nothing for a minute and is still alive.

A full minute may be a stretch, but against a non-elite non-solo at-level opponent you can literally do nothing for a long time.

I randomly picked a standard level 10 brute, the Rockfist Smasher. The Smasher can do a maximum of 26 points of damage (without crit).

Assuming that it hit on every attack and did maxmimum damage, it would take three full rounds to knock out a 10-con wizard (who would have approx 56 hitpoints).

So Bon the Squishy Caster could decide to pick his nose for two rounds while letting the Rockfist hump his leg and not be in any danger of dying. If you figure average damage (17) instead of max damage (still hitting every round) you get 4 rounds until the wizard falls down.

Now add in at least one leader class who can heal you for 25-50% of your life in a given round, and you can basically go link dead for most of the fight without issue.

[dkyle]

Now add in at least one leader class who can heal you for 25-50% of your life in a given round, and you can basically go link dead for most of the fight without issue.

And now that healer is out of healing for the combat, the wizard has squandered 4 turns of damage (likely enough to kill an enemy), and the rest of the party has been taking damage from the other monsters. The wizard may not be dead now, but he will be when the party wipes because they didn't kill the monsters before their cumulative damage overwhelmed their HP and healing.

I do appreciate what Wizards is doing in MM3, and I suspect it is an improvement. Can't expect them to get everything right the first time around.

[Montrose]

And now that healer is out of healing for the combat, the wizard has squandered 4 turns of damage (likely enough to kill an enemy), and the rest of the party has been taking damage from the other monsters. The wizard may not be dead now, but he will be when the party wipes because they didn't kill the monsters before their cumulative damage overwhelmed their HP and healing.

I do appreciate what Wizards is doing in MM3, and I suspect it is an improvement. Can't expect them to get everything right the first time around.

I'm not arguing that doing nothing is optimal or beneficial. Clearly in the vast majority of cases it is not. I'm stating that 4E combat is very grindy, and that individual actions matter less than they did in 3.5 due to the vastly reduced lethality of the game.

[SquelchHU]

Incorrect. DnD is based on the law of averages. Only an absolutist would call getting hit 50% of the time or less ineffective.

Fail. D&D is based on stacking the odds in your favor, because if you fail once it's game over, but if the enemy fails once it's just round 2.

Spending a massive amount of cash, and it truly is massive if it is possible at all to get even AC 36 at level 10, when a simple Displacement does the same **** thing is indeed fail.

You have nothing to show for it except that you got ripped off.

So let's review.

You have 49,000 gold. Like, ever.

Basic full plate = 1,500 gold. With Dex 12, your AC is now 19. You have 47,500 gold left for ALL your other gear. That means stat boosters, save boosters, your weapon, and the various mandatory utility items. Ok.
+1 Animated Heavy Shield = 9,165 gold. Your AC is now 22, and you have 38,335 gold left. Why Animated? So you don't gimp your DPS out of course, since even a THF (the only valid melee) will have an uphill battle to do 100+++ a round every round. Some sword and board gimp has no chance.
You make your full plate +3, which adds 9,000 gold to the cost. You have 29,335 left. So far 40% of your cash has gone towards AC and only AC. You have an AC of 25 to show for it. And you get diminishing returns. So you get hit on a negative five. Yeah, some investment that 40% is. But let's say you don't get a clue, and you keep going. Ok.
The next cheapest upgrades are +1 natural armor and +1 deflection, as those are only 2k each, instead of 3k to improve the shield, and 7k to improve the armor. 25,335 gold left, or about half. Your AC is 27, so you're still well into auto hit territory. HALF YOUR GOLD WENT TO AC AND YOUR AC MEANS JACK. Say it out loud until it sinks in. And this is just at level 10. It only gets worse from here.
Because I enjoy utterly crushing your rampant illogical hatred with facts and numbers, let's keep going. What is the minimum amount required for even AC 36?
Well, you're 9 points short. So you spend 5k on a dusty rose ioun stone, then 6k to make your natural armor +2, then 6k more to make your deflection +2, then 7k to make your armor +4, then 7k to make your shield +2, then 9k to make your armor +5, then 9k to make your shield +3, then 10k to make your natural armor +3, then 10k to make your deflection +3. That's the cheapest way to get AC 36, which again is not even comparable to a Displacement (you'd need 41 for that). And you have little room to expand further... +2 natural armor, +2 deflection, +2 shield, and mithril armor + dex item, and that's it. So your AC is 8 away from the maximum possible ever period. But how much did it COST YOU?

Hm...

25,335 - 5,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 - 7,000 - 7,000 - 9,000 - 9,000 - 10,000 - 10,000 = -43,665. That's negative 43,665. As in you spend almost double the amount of cash you actually have on just AC, and have nothing but a sub displacement effect to show for it. This is complete, utter, and total fail.

And in case you try and argue the character should actually hold the **** shield, it doesn't matter, because they're still in the red financially JUST FROM AC GEAR, AND NOT COUNTING ANY OTHER ITEMS AT ALL, PERIOD except now they'll be doing approximately as much damage as a 4th edition character. Read: Near zero.

You are bantering the "all or nothing" arguement again, which is what min maxers do. Go ahead and create your "all or nothing" characters. Once you encounter a mob that attacks your "nothing" you are done dancing for the evening. Better roll up 3 or 4 toons right off the bat so you have replacements at the ready.

Thank you Sherlock Holmes, for that brilliant deduction. Yes, melees are red shirts. I've said this for years, but so glad you finally understand. Now, go ahead and make yourself about 10 toons, because see all or nothing means you get 'all' sometimes. Whereas those that don't do this simply die. Early and often. Because the only way they can 'fight' mobs is by boxing them in with their corpses.

LEEROY JENKINS!

The attack chain is regressive. -0, -5, -10 and so on for a full attack. Attacks of opportunity are at full bonus, as are cleaves etc.

Fail. Learn to read. I said natural attacks. You know, the ones that matter?

As a min maxer who is also an absolutist, I would not expect you to know what the word "if" means, because that word implys that something is situational in nature, which is a concept you are not grasping here. My actual statement was referring to IF you use nat 20 as auto success. Some people do and some people dont. Welcome to the gray area.

Fail. When you say x is a house rule, and it is a default rule you are WRONG. Black and white, completely and utterly WRONG.

Here are the actual words you actually said.

and the third attack would only hit if you use nat20 = success house rule, because the mob would need a 21. Even then the third and all remaining attacks would have a 5% chance. No house rule that 20 is auto success, no chance

The only 'if' there is if you use a 'house rule' that is in fact a standard rule. So you keep on backpedalling away when you get nailed hard with facts and numbers. Do it enough and maybe you'll run away.

Please show me where I actually stated this. You cant because its all in your absolutist mind.

>Negitive captain. 50 AC is only necessary for absolutist min maxers< who "never" want to get hit at level 10, and only consider themselves effective if they always hit and never get hit. Everything else to them is gimped. These people dont last too long in real sessions, because in order to cultivate one or two things that are really powerful, they have to dump something else, and to do so means leaving the door wide open for a weak spot to be attacked.

Yes, when you say a hit only on a 20 AC is only necessary for group x, you are in fact saying that a hit only on a 20 AC is only necessary for group x. And when someone calls you on it by saying more than just group x needs it, that is very much a valid rebuttal.

Your absolutism is shining through yet again. In my example the mob would need a 21 to hit on the third swing ona full attack, which is ONLY possibly on a NAT 20 and ONLY if you house rule nat 20 in as auto success. If you do not, its auto fail because you cant roll a 21 on a 20 sided dice. Unless your fearsome mob pulls a +1 out of its hiney, it ONLY gets 2 possible attacks against a 36 AC opponent.

Fail again. You're still latched onto your nat 20s do NOT auto succeed house rule as if it is the actual rules, and you're still assuming he ever takes an attack penalty greater than -5, ever at any point in time when he does not. Learn to keep up.

Anyone can be killed by the dice. Most 50 point + single hits at level 10 will be crits, unless you are playing in a convoluted min maxer campaign where your stats are either maxed or dumped. In that case, even with pure random encounters and nothing planned (which is an extreme example which favors you and not me here) its still only a matter of time before your weakness is attacked, and you are put down like a sick dog.

Again, learn to read. With Power Attack hitting for 50+ is trivial. And if you actually did manage an AC of 50, which I already demonstrated that you won't, they hit on a 20 and only a 20 regardless, so might as well full PA to jack the damage up on a 20.

Of course, once again, and I will say this v e r y s l o w l y because I know you have trouble with big words. You won't have an AC of 50. You'd be lucky to have half that. So it's a moot point, because you're auto hit.

Look Chai, we get it. An absolutist min maxer slept with your girlfriend, kicked your dog, and jacked your car. Sucks to be you, but no one cares so put the hate on back in your pants.

LOL at your dex based gimp reference you pay homage to every third post. You keep tapping this like its a reality, when in fact you are the only person who has ever brought this up.

You're the one who brought it up, with your spring attack gimp vs body builder thing.

Show me this breakdown of someone who has huge HP in PnP DnD when they have to roll for hp every level and are allowed one roll, per level. I want to see stats, class, and HP amount.

What the hell are you talking about? Since when is 89 huge?

How does AC relate to DPS exactly? They are 2 completely different discussions, other than the max money allocation per level, which you seem to ignore, as I pointed out earlier.

Everything. Spending money on AC is money not spent on weapons (DPS), saves (a defense that actually does defend against the things it is supposed to defend against), and utility items like flight and such. That you kinda need to keep playing D&D.

Furthermore, many things act as a toggle. For example holding a shield, instead of having it float in front of you negates your DPS. PA and CE cannot be used together, so if for some reason you have the latter you negate your own DPS by using it.

Again situational. If your only method of playing a melee is to waltz into the enemy's threat range and start pounding, you might have a point, however, there are many other ways to play a melee. They can also get magical items that give them an advantage by leveraging certain characteristics of the encounter. Your arguement only holds water in an absolutist sense, where your only option is to build 12 foot tall gorillas that hammer on eachother until one drops and always stay in each others threat range.

You don't have the money for that. You don't even have the money to get the basic stuff that will come up every single time. So go ahead, try and count on something that only has a small percent chance to actually be relevant. You will die, repeatedly. Your party will love you though, because see, they can loot your corpse repeatedly for the vendor trash.

So no, there aren't any other ways. Nice try though.

Again, this "hp is my only defense" playstyle doesnt last long on the gaming tables, unless everyone else is an absolutist who thinks like you do. The minute divination magic enters the campaign, and your extreme weakness has been determined, its curtains. You are one standard action that cant be countered by massive HP away from death. Those types of actions are many.

Yes, we've already established that even the good melees have nothing on casters. Thank you for finally joining us in 2010.

But HP is in fact your only defense, because AC isn't working for ya at all and this is why Wizards are better at tanking - they can actually do things that actually make physical attacks not hit them.

[SquelchHU]

Required reading:

Pathfinder's many flaws, in detail: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083

Why 4th edition fails, in detail:

Class roles: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=90907

Itemization: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50388

Non combat (skill challenges): http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=90004

Repetitive nature of actions: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50735&start=0

What being a good 4th edition character actually means: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50814

General details on 4th edition fail: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49978&start=0

On the grindy nature of 4th edition combat: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50196

And one more: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49818

[Seikojin]

Tried that. People act like they don't get it. Regardless of if they actually do not understand without more explanation, or are just being difficult I dunno.

Skipping past things that were mentioned months ago because the context isn't clear.

That sucks. It takes alot of time to read the biblical level of content. LOL

Because adamantine full plate costs 16,500 gold, which over six times as much as his life savings by itself.

And the net effect over normal full plate is DR 3/-.

That is the point, DR 3/- would stop whittling pretty well The bigger point is being prepared. A wiz memming those spells is geared towards a specific path. Those spells do little to help deal with non-combat situations.

Stop. Right there. Here is your problem. You are assuming that casters do damage. They don't. The optimal damage output of a caster is ZERO. And while in practice it will be slightly higher (trivial damage from Black Tentacles, trivial damage from saves vs Finger of Death) the power of the caster is not damage, but the ability to bypass damage. Conversely, the failure of melee is being stuck auto attacking for HP damage only.

When I said deal wins I meant in any way possible. I figured by the way the example was posted, the discussion wasn't about dps, it was about winning. Even though, later on, there are mentions of casters dealing more dps than melee.

Also in a PvE aspect, casters auto win spells are less effective against the monsters at their CR because of the defenses the enemies have innately. Like you said, saves are the key.

In that regard, saves are 10+spell level+modifications from stats. A lvl 2 spell that needs to be saved against would be 16. A melees save bonus by lvl 3 is 1+ stat. So they would need a 15 or less to save against said caster spells.

And in the 'now ancient' example of a lvl 3 caster against a lvl 3 melee, the setup was a caster out melee-ing a fighter/melee. After that battle, the caster would have to rest to regain their spells. Whereas a melee after fighting has plenty of stamina to continue on, and their weapons generally survive the battle.

So the melee guy can swing five times at say... level 16, with haste boots and unless he's optimized 2-3 will miss, and the other 2-3 will do like 20 each, or something pathetic. At which point the dragon, or undead, or whatever level 16 enemy thanks you for giving their balls a good scratch, and apologizes as this favor does not dissuade them from mauling you. They then proceed to do that.

If he is heavily optimized, he might do something (read: kill, since HP is binary) but this will require a great deal of optimization indeed, as you seriously need a minimum damage per round of 200+++ at that level if you cannot bypass HP damage, or you might as well not exist (and soon won't, due to death).

The definition of the CR formula is for a party of four composed of a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and a rogue. So a lvl 16 fighter could never solo a cr 16 dragon or whatever. And this would be the same for all classes trying to single handidly take the cr 16 down.

The level to experience ratio per cr is 13 encounters of equal cr to provide a level. So a party of four lvl 16 players would be a cr 16 group. They would need to go through 13 cr 16 challenges to go from 16 to 17. There is no way that group can do that without rest to regather resources. Except for melee. In another section someone mentioned resources being a key factor.

Yes, the caster is casting one, perhaps two spells a round. There are ways he can do far more than this, but as even one has a very high chance (vs a 0% chance) of ending the encounter on the spot, all the caster has proven is that quality > quantity. The EF to KA, if you will. If you actually get this reference I will give you a cookie.

And even comparing to the optimized melee, the melee has to be rooted in one place to take out one enemy, whereas the caster is not rooted and can take out one or more enemies. So still quality > quantity.

Though you are right that blasting is made of fail.

I didn't get the EF to KA reference. I do understand quality trumping quantity. What I see your perspective assuming a melee with some pretty basic gear. Even in the tamest magical realms, fighters I have seen had gear relative to their level that allowed them to overcome obstacles. I cannot say that there was a reward preference or not, but I just know that gear quality for a melee increases their effectiveness.

Also ending an encounter on the spot. A melee can vorpal a living creature on the spot for a long time. Or use a dismissal type weapon for others. And conveniently, that wizard friend of theirs can help them get that item faster than looting.

This has been done many times by bigger minds than you (and me for that matter). Ultimately the discussion comes down to wizard vs wizard 2 levels lower... because the Fighter took leadership, and that's seriously the only tactical factor to consider.

As for a mage's preparing, the same things that stop a wide array of melee brute enemies work on the fighter. No special preperation or foreknowledge is even required, he just treats the fighter like any other mook, it goes down like a sorority girl, end encounter.

The topic here does not seem to have input from the designers of 3.5. So what they have to offer is not present. As you are aware (given you have sat through hordes of discussion in many places on the subject), much has gone into 3.5 to offer flexability and balance to all playstyles and players. That is what makes 3.5 soo epic. It is a framework if you will, of rules and guidelines that allow gamers with the creative mind to make their stories come to life in new and detailed ways.

The core mechanics and balance of each class, like you have said, has been checked against eachother heavilly by bigger minds than us. And in their efforts, they have made melee classes the way they are, and casting classes the way they are.

For some reason, sometime after, people have determined a flaw was there? Maybe, but a flaw as gaping as the one you pose? No.

A fighter knowing a wizard is coming up lays down and dies because 1: SR is completely irrelevant even in high amounts. And by high amounts, I mean your level + 20 or better. 2: You don't get high amounts on items, instead you just waste a lot of money on very low amounts, that wouldn't work even if SR itself did work. He also can't do jack to help him against the offensive spells ring wise, nor does he have enough money to do it even if he could, his armor doesn't help vs pewpewpew even if he faced a ******** wizard (instead of ya know, a genius one), and magic missile is simply not going to be cast, so it's a moot point.

Who said anything about PvP? And somehow I have the feeling you have no idea what optimization is.

To counter:
1. The SR was explained as not necissary, but useful for lowered saves. It is just one more check the caster can fail to lock a mez on the melee.
2. Who said anything about using money? It is like someone else said, using things to counter spells to hit the melees weaknesses. Like having freedom of movement available trumping web or grease. Same witht he SR. It is a fighter of moderate intelligence doing the best it can to survive against a caster of equal level.

PvP would be the only situation where you would have one person of lvl X versus another person of lvl X. As a GM it would be irresponsible of you to put a soloer against a cr of the players level and expect the player to win.


If I were a lone fighter, I would have gear to compensate where my other party members were not. Potions for buffs, items for buffs, and tools to help mitigate issues with traps.

As far as optimization, it is a bit overrated IMPO.

[SquelchHU]

That sucks. It takes alot of time to read the biblical level of content. LOL

Too much detail is better than not enough.

That is the point, DR 3/- would stop whittling pretty well The bigger point is being prepared. A wiz memming those spells is geared towards a specific path. Those spells do little to help deal with non-combat situations.

First, I remembered the context of the alter self now. It was Aspenor having some fun by showing how a wizard beats a fighter at fighting even at low levels. It wasn't meant to be a serious example, since a single Glitterdust would be a better use of actions and resources. And since adamantine armor costs over 6 times your life savings, you can't have it.

Also in a PvE aspect, casters auto win spells are less effective against the monsters at their CR because of the defenses the enemies have innately. Like you said, saves are the key.

In that regard, saves are 10+spell level+modifications from stats. A lvl 2 spell that needs to be saved against would be 16. A melees save bonus by lvl 3 is 1+ stat. So they would need a 15 or less to save against said caster spells.

And in the 'now ancient' example of a lvl 3 caster against a lvl 3 melee, the setup was a caster out melee-ing a fighter/melee. After that battle, the caster would have to rest to regain their spells. Whereas a melee after fighting has plenty of stamina to continue on, and their weapons generally survive the battle.

You got it backwards. If the DC is 16, and save is +1 that means he needs 15 or MORE to save. Only a 30% chance to resist. As in, 70% chance to work, and end the encounter on the spot. That's good odds. 16 isn't an optimized DC either, just max Int on a non Int race, and nothing else.

The definition of the CR formula is for a party of four composed of a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and a rogue. So a lvl 16 fighter could never solo a cr 16 dragon or whatever. And this would be the same for all classes trying to single handidly take the cr 16 down.

False. The definition of CR is that a creature of CR x is equal to a creature of CR x. In other words, the Fighter is just as strong as a dragon, and has a 50% chance to kill it, and a 50% chance to be killed by it in solo combat. Replace dragon with any other level 16 enemy, as I said. Now the odds may be greater or less than 50% in one fight, but if you run a Same Game Test in which you pick 10 different level 16 encounters, and the Fighter wins less than 5 of them (which he will) he is below par (if he won more than 5, he'd be above par but this won't happen). Google Same Game Test.

The level to experience ratio per cr is 13 encounters of equal cr to provide a level. So a party of four lvl 16 players would be a cr 16 group. They would need to go through 13 cr 16 challenges to go from 16 to 17. There is no way that group can do that without rest to regather resources. Except for melee. In another section someone mentioned resources being a key factor.

Hit points are an extremely finite resource. They are replenished by spells. So yes, the melee will run out, and since run out = die...

By the way, I have seen parties take on many encounters. At level or higher. Without rest. The casters still had about 25% of their spells left. This isn't typical (it requires a strong (read: caster heavy) party, that knows their stuff and doesn't screw around and waste buff timers) but it can happen.

I didn't get the EF to KA reference. I do understand quality trumping quantity. What I see your perspective assuming a melee with some pretty basic gear. Even in the tamest magical realms, fighters I have seen had gear relative to their level that allowed them to overcome obstacles. I cannot say that there was a reward preference or not, but I just know that gear quality for a melee increases their effectiveness.

Also ending an encounter on the spot. A melee can vorpal a living creature on the spot for a long time. Or use a dismissal type weapon for others. And conveniently, that wizard friend of theirs can help them get that item faster than looting.

Both EF and KA are the initials of guilds on my server. The former is a very high quality, but small guild so while there's usually only about 3 people on at any given time, those 3 people can go into any quest, with no one else at level and get it done... or pull a few more from the uber channels and shortman raids, assuming it isn't 3 man material. The latter... well let's just say blind invites are bad, mmkay?

And by Wealth By Level, Fighters Cannot Get Enough Nice Things. Just to get an AC of 36 (something that ranges from Blur level to Displacement level mitigation at level 10) requires almost 200% of their total wealth, again at level 10 and comes near the maximum AC they could possibly have. And it only gets worse from there. That's why this thread exists, and why a part of it involves making AC a lot cheaper and more available.

Vorpal is trash because you're spending, minimum 72k for something that has a sub 5% chance of doing anything. Combat is fast, and I mean FAST. You won't get 20 swings before one side or the other is dead. You'd be lucky to get 10. That enhancement works in DDO because mob DPS is pathetic, but mob HP is even higher. In D&D? Waste of time and resources.

Dismissal (I'm assuming you mean disruption) is about the same. DC 14 Will save = only fail on a 1. Granted 5% > sub 5%, but that's still not reliable enough to be useful, especially when it ONLY works on undead. Which is a much smaller group than living creatures (and a few exceptions).

The topic here does not seem to have input from the designers of 3.5. So what they have to offer is not present. As you are aware (given you have sat through hordes of discussion in many places on the subject), much has gone into 3.5 to offer flexability and balance to all playstyles and players. That is what makes 3.5 soo epic. It is a framework if you will, of rules and guidelines that allow gamers with the creative mind to make their stories come to life in new and detailed ways.

The core mechanics and balance of each class, like you have said, has been checked against eachother heavilly by bigger minds than us. And in their efforts, they have made melee classes the way they are, and casting classes the way they are.

For some reason, sometime after, people have determined a flaw was there? Maybe, but a flaw as gaping as the one you pose? No.

I hope you're joking. Because the designers? Yeah, they can't be trusted to make the correct decision at all.

Let's look at some of the things that the designers have actually done:

Making Overrun literally do nothing. Well, unless you're using Trample.

Nerfing Power Attack with TWF. Why? Because Andy Collins didn't like that a dual wielding Rogue did more DPS than his Dwarf Fighter with a Greataxe. Seriously, that was the actual reason. Personal ***** envy.

And I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about now. I said fighter vs wizard has been done by bigger minds than us yes. And that is true. Check any board with a competent optimizing base. TGD, BG, WotC... You've gone so far into left field, you've left the stadium.

Now, let's look at what the playtesters actually did:

The Wizard pewpewpewed with damage spells, because that's what the designers told him he should do. Which would have worked fine in 1st and 2nd edition, but now that everything has several times more HP, and evocation does the same or less damage he wastes his turn, over and over and over. Why do enemies have so much more HP? Because the designers made them that way.

The Cleric in combat healed. Despite the fact that heals do not keep up with incoming damage at any level of the game except 11-15, and then only as long as your Heal spells lasted. Why? Because it's what the designers told him he should do. Even though they made every enemy in the game able to outdps the best healing effects, at level.

The Rogue did locks and traps, and not much else. Because that's what the designers said they do. Except that once again, the designers didn't actually make them any GOOD at it.

And lastly, the Fighter was expected to tank. Even though he has no way of making enemies attack them, and no way of mitigating that damage aside from a far too small HP total due, again, to the designer's not making AC keep up with enemy to hits.

So we have a record of the designers telling people to do stuff that they themselves made NOT WORK. This means they are either incompetent, or liars. Choose one.

Now, let's discuss what actually works:

Wizard: Save or die/lose/win spells. Because HP damage makes no impact on an encounter until the last HP goes away, but these make a marked difference right now. Buffs and support spells are nice too, but for primary combat application one shot spells win.

Cleric: Buffs, save or die/lose/win spells. Damage mitigation is not a bad concept, just that healing isn't good enough at it, and making an enemy do 0 DPS, or mitigating it with the proper buff is.

Rogue: SA, Flasks. Nuff said.

Fighter: Um, what?

To counter:
1. The SR was explained as not necissary, but useful for lowered saves. It is just one more check the caster can fail to lock a mez on the melee.
2. Who said anything about using money? It is like someone else said, using things to counter spells to hit the melees weaknesses. Like having freedom of movement available trumping web or grease. Same witht he SR. It is a fighter of moderate intelligence doing the best it can to survive against a caster of equal level.

So now he's getting SR and FoM for free? That still doesn't address the fact the former does nothing to help him and in fact hinders him. To reiterate, a SR check will not be failed. Ever. Unless it's someone casting a beneficial spell on the Fighter, but that isn't what you want.

PvP would be the only situation where you would have one person of lvl X versus another person of lvl X. As a GM it would be irresponsible of you to put a soloer against a cr of the players level and expect the player to win.

Nope, try again.

If I were a lone fighter, I would have gear to compensate where my other party members were not. Potions for buffs, items for buffs, and tools to help mitigate issues with traps.

As far as optimization, it is a bit overrated IMPO.

Except that you can't afford it, or it doesn't exist at all. And even if ya could, guess what? It'd be called optimization.

[Seikojin]

... snip...
First, I remembered the context of the alter self now. It was Aspenor having some fun by showing how a wizard beats a fighter at fighting even at low levels. It wasn't meant to be a serious example, since a single Glitterdust would be a better use of actions and resources. And since adamantine armor costs over 6 times your life savings, you can't have it.

Using average wealth by level never was designed to determine the worth of a players gear. It was a way for a DM to quickly deliver some basic funds beyond gear to help over lvl 1 players start off. It even says so right in the DMG.

You got it backwards. If the DC is 16, and save is +1 that means he needs 15 or MORE to save. Only a 30% chance to resist. As in, 70% chance to work, and end the encounter on the spot. That's good odds. 16 isn't an optimized DC either, just max Int on a non Int race, and nothing else.

You are right, my bad. I meant same or higher. In the world of saves ties go to the defender. Optimized = minmax, so again overrated and underpowered. Your 20 int lvl 1 wizard will go only so far without help from other members. And by so far, I do mean dead before lvl 2.

False. The definition of CR is that a creature of CR x is equal to a creature of CR x. In other words, the Fighter is just as strong as a dragon, and has a 50% chance to kill it, and a 50% chance to be killed by it in solo combat. Replace dragon with any other level 16 enemy, as I said. Now the odds may be greater or less than 50% in one fight, but if you run a Same Game Test in which you pick 10 different level 16 encounters, and the Fighter wins less than 5 of them (which he will) he is below par (if he won more than 5, he'd be above par but this won't happen). Google Same Game Test.

I am a bit of a purist when it comes to the framework of the rules, so using a third party assumption tool does not help sway my view. My definition of CR comes from WoTC and the game designers for 3.5. I believe the DMG or the Monster Manual Spells it out like I said.

Hit points are an extremely finite resource. They are replenished by spells. So yes, the melee will run out, and since run out = die...

By the way, I have seen parties take on many encounters. At level or higher. Without rest. The casters still had about 25% of their spells left. This isn't typical (it requires a strong (read: caster heavy) party, that knows their stuff and doesn't screw around and waste buff timers) but it can happen.

For the most part, true, anything with 0 hp dies. Spell slots per rest and components too are finite resources. Without those a caster is useless, spell wise.

True, as have I. Again, not typical or the norm in any regard, and also not balanced for every scenario.

Both EF and KA are the initials of guilds on my server. The former is a very high quality, but small guild so while there's usually only about 3 people on at any given time, those 3 people can go into any quest, with no one else at level and get it done... or pull a few more from the uber channels and shortman raids, assuming it isn't 3 man material. The latter... well let's just say blind invites are bad, mmkay?

Oh ok. But that has nothing to do with PnP 3.5. It is DDO. Which is vastly different than PnP and not in the scope of my responses or discussion.

And by Wealth By Level, Fighters Cannot Get Enough Nice Things. Just to get an AC of 36 (something that ranges from Blur level to Displacement level mitigation at level 10) requires almost 200% of their total wealth, again at level 10 and comes near the maximum AC they could possibly have. And it only gets worse from there. That's why this thread exists, and why a part of it involves making AC a lot cheaper and more available.

Disarmed above by pointing out WBL's function and limits.

Vorpal is trash because you're spending, minimum 72k for something that has a sub 5% chance of doing anything. Combat is fast, and I mean FAST. You won't get 20 swings before one side or the other is dead. You'd be lucky to get 10. That enhancement works in DDO because mob DPS is pathetic, but mob HP is even higher. In D&D? Waste of time and resources.

Dismissal (I'm assuming you mean disruption) is about the same. DC 14 Will save = only fail on a 1. Granted 5% > sub 5%, but that's still not reliable enough to be useful, especially when it ONLY works on undead. Which is a much smaller group than living creatures (and a few exceptions).

Those were references to autokill melee options in the form of magical weapons. Other ones include Coup de Grace (spelling, not french enough) and using reach weapons with AOO.

I hope you're joking. Because the designers? Yeah, they can't be trusted to make the correct decision at all.

This here shows your Bias, perception shortfalls, and direction with your opinion.

Let's look at some of the things that the designers have actually done:

Making Overrun literally do nothing. Well, unless you're using Trample.

When? It is a combat option that is free to use or not. Are you saying changes in Overrun in 3.5 vs 4.0? I see it as a way to prone a target for others or myself to take advantage of. Risky move with a big payoff.

Nerfing Power Attack with TWF. Why? Because Andy Collins didn't like that a dual wielding Rogue did more DPS than his Dwarf Fighter with a Greataxe. Seriously, that was the actual reason. Personal ***** envy.

So the logial real world idea that having two hands on a melee weapon doing more per hit damage than using one hand on a weapon makes no sense to you? I see nothing nerfing PA for TWF. Unless you think flimsy light weapons should get the benefit of PA.

[quote]
And I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about now. I said fighter vs wizard has been done by bigger minds than us yes. And that is true. Check any board with a competent optimizing base. TGD, BG, WotC... You've gone so far into left field, you've left the stadium.
[\quote]

I was using your words to point out that yes, 'bigger minds' did the work. Before they released 3.5 And that is why 3.5 rocks as much as it did.

Now, let's look at what the playtesters actually did:

The Wizard pewpewpewed with damage spells, because that's what the designers told him he should do. Which would have worked fine in 1st and 2nd edition, but now that everything has several times more HP, and evocation does the same or less damage he wastes his turn, over and over and over. Why do enemies have so much more HP? Because the designers made them that way.

See CR = party of 4.

The Cleric in combat healed. Despite the fact that heals do not keep up with incoming damage at any level of the game except 11-15, and then only as long as your Heal spells lasted. Why? Because it's what the designers told him he should do. Even though they made every enemy in the game able to outdps the best healing effects, at level.

Really? I didn't see that. I thought the Cleric could heal while fighting as well. At least in PnP they can. Oh and they have buffs that are useful too.

The Rogue did locks and traps, and not much else. Because that's what the designers said they do. Except that once again, the designers didn't actually make them any GOOD at it.

Rogues are almost as much of a glass cannon as Wizards. Low hp and a slow increase in AC, but the big payoff is sneak attack rules. As long as someone else maintains aggro, a rogue can do more damage than alot of people would give them credit for.

And lastly, the Fighter was expected to tank. Even though he has no way of making enemies attack them, and no way of mitigating that damage aside from a far too small HP total due, again, to the designer's not making AC keep up with enemy to hits.

Much like in DDO, intimidate the enemies into attacking them. Or trap the enemy so they have to get through the fighter first. The sheer number of aoo's possible would drop an enemy fast if they tried to move through a players square to get to someone behind him. The enemies to hits are never too high to imbalance the encounter on an equal cr basis.

So we have a record of the designers telling people to do stuff that they themselves made NOT WORK. This means they are either incompetent, or liars. Choose one.

Based on your biased opinion about people who you have some invisible grudge against.

Now, let's discuss what actually works:

3.5 party of 4 rules. 'nuff said.

So now he's getting SR and FoM for free? That still doesn't address the fact the former does nothing to help him and in fact hinders him. To reiterate, a SR check will not be failed. Ever. Unless it's someone casting a beneficial spell on the Fighter, but that isn't what you want.

Didn't say free, but then again, according to your weath generation methods, no one (not even casters) can equip themselves to handle the fantasy world of dnd.

Nope, try again.



Except that you can't afford it, or it doesn't exist at all. And even if ya could, guess what? It'd be called optimization.

Optimization in your weirdo world = minmaxing in mine.

[Chai]

Squelch, if you bring that absolutism based gaming to a CON sometime, you wont last 5 encounters on one of our tables - not in the past, and certainly not nowdays. DnD is a game of HUNDREDS of possibilities, and you narrow it down to 1 and call that the bible of the class. Sit down with one of the authors and play with them if you show up to a CON and see how long this kind of bantering lasts.

It wouldnt even be an arguement, or an adversarial conversation, like this banter on the web site seems to always turn out to be. They would all politely grin at you and nod at eachother in clear understanding of the situation the minute they saw your min maxed to all bajesus character sheet. The next few encounters would be a clear lesson to how many weaknesses a min maxed toon has. They would even allow you to forego each character death in order to watch you flop again.

Around these parts, in old TSR HQ land, the days of 5 minute combat sessions leading to 45 minute adversarial rules lawyer based Glen Beck chalkboard slamming discussions have come to a close a long time ago. That was all fun and games when we were 11 years old, but we all have jobs and lives now and cant pull a Francis and argue our way through the entire ruleset each time a point needs to be stated. The minute you try to pull this sheist at an originator's table, we convene next week at a different location, and you somehow didnt get invited.

We do discuss semantics of a certain situation from time to time, however, it doesnt get done in the session, nor does it occur in uncivil tones prefaced with "fail!!" and "you dont know what youre talking about." This kind of stuff does happen at the MAGIC tables the sixth graders are all rambling away at, and we see how much playtime -vs- arguing time they put in. The ratio isnt pretty.

[Seikojin]

Squelch, if you bring that absolutism based gaming to a CON sometime, you wont last 5 encounters on one of our tables - not in the past, and certainly not nowdays. DnD is a game of HUNDREDS of possibilities, and you narrow it down to 1 and call that the bible of the class. Sit down with one of the authors and play with them if you show up to a CON and see how long this kind of bantering lasts.

It wouldnt even be an arguement, or an adversarial conversation, like this banter on the web site seems to always turn out to be. They would all politely grin at you and nod at eachother in clear understanding of the situation the minute they saw your min maxed to all bajesus character sheet. The next few encounters would be a clear lesson to how many weaknesses a min maxed toon has. They would even allow you to forego each character death in order to watch you flop again.

Around these parts, in old TSR HQ land, the days of 5 minute combat sessions leading to 45 minute adversarial rules lawyer based Glen Beck chalkboard slamming discussions have come to a close a long time ago. That was all fun and games when we were 11 years old, but we all have jobs and lives now and cant pull a Francis and argue our way through the entire ruleset each time a point needs to be stated. The minute you try to pull this sheist at an originator's table, we convene next week at a different location, and you somehow didnt get invited.

We do discuss semantics of a certain situation from time to time, however, it doesnt get done in the session, nor does it occur in uncivil tones prefaced with "fail!!" and "you dont know what youre talking about." This kind of stuff does happen at the MAGIC tables the sixth graders are all rambling away at, and we see how much playtime -vs- arguing time they put in. The ratio isnt pretty.

+1 and agreed.

I hail from the WoTC land. Did you game with designers?

I may not have read most of the replies and may be focusing on old points, but I tend to respond to the Origional Post first and foremost.

[Chai]

+1 and agreed.

I hail from the WoTC land. Did you game with designers?

I may not have read most of the replies and may be focusing on old points, but I tend to respond to the Origional Post first and foremost.

Alot of those cats live in or around Wisconsin here and used to show up regularly at the CONS we had back in the day in Milwaukee. One of my friends got the hook up for us to become a younger player test group, when we were all in middle school and high school, back in the 80s. We got our hands on quite a few of the modules pre release and got to evaluate 2e before it came out. Sitting in on their tables at CONs was a blast. I even got to REF a few years.

[KKDragonLord]

Around these parts, in old TSR HQ land, the days of 5 minute combat sessions leading to 45 minute adversarial rules lawyer based Glen Beck chalkboard slamming discussions have come to a close a long time ago. That was all fun and games when we were 11 years old, but we all have jobs and lives now and cant pull a Francis and argue our way through the entire ruleset each time a point needs to be stated. The minute you try to pull this sheist at an originator's table, we convene next week at a different location, and you somehow didnt get invited.

bold part

3e or 4e fix = play 2e.

IMO this is the main reason why 2e is simply superior
it doesn't work without the DM ruling over all, and that makes the game have infinite possibilities more than any other version that came for the makers of magic the gathering...

(not arguing or anything, just throwing 2 cents randomly at the air)