AD&D magic system sucks!!!
Alex Kharlamov
years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more fun
to play??
That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
chris_l
You might well get a few... Although the challenge of playing a M-U is fun, most
of the time he is the brains of the group and has to learn to get by without
getting into trouble. It can pawl. the sysem is okay as far as it goes but you
do have to stretch the imagination a bit. I quite like the idea of having to
decide what to use before you set off. However like many DMs something else is
needed (I don't have 2nd Ed). Any good suggestions for a replacement. I like the
idea of a M-U memorising a certainly number of spells and then being able to
cast any of them at the cost of spell points.
After some though here's the cost progression that would seem to fit. i've seen
a simple each level doubles but it means high-level spells cost out of all
proportion for the effect.
1st level 2 spell points
2nd 3
3rd 5
4th 8
5th 12
6th 17
7th 23
8th 30
9th 38
Mmmm, now you need a spell power point value for spells you can memorise and
cast, two values, adjusted by intelligence and level. Bingo new system. you can
keep it relatively in character by giving 1st level M-U a cast power of 2 and a
memorising power of say 6. Giving the M-U a single spell from a menu of 3, not
increasing the power significantly but making things much more flexible, perhaps
now you'll use comprehend languages.
Any suggestions/additions and all that?
Chris Lloyd
Si6H6
>years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
>it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
>what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
>memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
>can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
>balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
>1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
>just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
>points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
>HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
>In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
>your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more fun
>to play??
>That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
I have a much better system that I use. Its based on one from Unearthed
Arcania, though modified a bit. This allows a mage to cast as much as he wants,
though he wont always be succesful, and sometimes screwups can occur. I'm also
considering implementing a "spell aiming" system(probably by introducing a
Magic THAC0 and magic AC), rather than just a save vs spell for magic you can
dodge(magic missile, disintigrate, etc).
The Magic Roll
by Luis Mejia, modified byTtheresa Smith
The number a caster needs to successfully cast a spell is called the "To-Cast"
number.
To-Cast = Base Magic Roll + Spell level x 2 + Special Modifier
BASE MAGIC ROLL: This number is used to calculate the number needed to cast a
spell. It is refigured each time the character increases in level.
For a mage: BMR = 11 - Caster Level - Ability Modifier
When a caster reaches level 11, this formula no longer applies. The following
formula applies:
BMR = (caster level - 11) / 2 - ability modifyer
CASTER LEVEL: This modifier is the level of experience of the spell caster.
Thus, a 5th level mage would subtract 5.
SPELL LEVEL: The level of the spell being cast. Thus, the 3rd-level wizard
spell fireball adds +3 to the "To-Cast" number.
ABILITY MODIFIER: This simulates the bonus or penalty a mage or priest would
get to cast a spell because of unusually high or low ability scores. Of
course, wizards use Intelligence and priests use Wisdom.
Ability Scores Ability Modifiers
1-2 N/A
3-4 -8
5-6 -4
7-8 -2
9-15 0
16-17 +1
18-19 +2
20-22 +3
23+ +4
SPECIAL MODIFIERS: These include all of the various adjustments to spell
casting that are applied only under certain circumstances:
Wizard casting spell in specialized school -2
Wizard casting a cantrip-like spell -3
Attempting stylish change on known spell (e.g., a green fireball, or blue
continual light) + 1
Attempting minor variation of known spell (e.g., "fire cube" based on fireball,
or smaller radius, or something like that) +2
Attempting major variation of known spell (e.g., "frostball" based on fireball)
+6
Attempting spell not known* +10
Attempting a purely creative effect* (This means trying a spell effect not
listed as a spell in any accepted source for spells. The DM should assign
effective spell level.) +10
Magic for area modifyer (easier to cast necromancy spells in an area
full of death than in an area full of life, or fire spells near water, etc)
-3 to +3
Cast a spell on the previous round +1
Cast a spell on the previous round, and the round before that +2
Cast a spell on the last 3 rounds +4
For every round past 3 a spell was cast on +3(so if a mage cast 4 magic
missiles in a row, the 5'th will have a +7 modifyer, 4 + 3)
Caster at or below 50% HP +1
Caster at or below 25% HP +2
Certain magic items can also affect this.
*Failure with this modifier means the caster must roll a successful system
shock or age the difference between the number needed and the number rolled,
multiplied by the level of the ruined spell.
After all of the modifiers are totaled, the player should roll a 20-sided die
to determine if the spell is cast successfully. IF the player fails by more
than 8 points(rolling a 3 when an 11 was needed), a wild surge will occur.
Also, if the player fails by more than 2 when trying to cast a spell not known,
a wild surge will occur.
1 is always a failure, though a 20 is not nessasarily a success. It is also
possible to cast a spell of a higher level than normally possible. For
example: A 4th-level wizard with a 17 Intelligence (BMR = 11 - 4 - 1 = 6) can
cast fireball (3rd-level spell) if he or she gets a 19 or higher (6 + 3 + 10
because it's an unknown spell for the wizard).
A mage may cast any spell in his spellbook. A priest, however, prays to their
deity for a number of spells at the beggining of the day. A priest may cast as
many spells as they memorize(memorize cure light wounds, and they can cast cure
light wounds as many times as they can succesfully roll).
Tristan Demonspawn
>That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
I tend to agree with you that the wizard in AD&D is vastly below the
power level of a beginning warrior or cleric. After all, he must
gather a spellbook, and choose the spells he will memorize from that
book. His closest counterpart, the cleric, enjoys the ability to
choose from all the available spells, is able to wear armor, and
recieves a generous Wisdom bonus, allowing him to cast upwards of 4
spells a day at first level.
To offset this large disadvantage, my players and I have created a
Magic Point system. The system draws heavily from existing AD&D rules,
allowing for the exact same number of spells to be cast. However, it
loosens the rules greatly, allowing the wizard to draw his magic from
a pool of Magic Points. The priest, and druid, also have Magic Points
assigned to them.
The system has been played for nearly 8 years now, and we have gone a
long way towards getting the bugs out. If you are interested you can
find the entire thing at:
Once you visit the site than go into the "RuleBook" section and follow
the link to "Magic". You will find all the neccessary information
there.
Tristan Demonspawn
DURANLEAU Francois
There is a whole spell point system magic system in Player's Option:
Spells & Magic, and new systems of magic. I personally like and use the
chaneller (which is much closer to mana-like system).
___________________________________________________________________
"There once was a boy who dreamed of being a hero,
who believed sincerily in the battle
to banish Darkness from a world of Light.
But Light and Darkness are equal,
and where one exists, so too must the other.
And when the boy finally realized this,
he had taken the first step toward being a true hero."
- from Record of Lodoss War
Francois Duranleau Etudiant au baccalaureat bidisciplinaire
Mathematique-Informatique Universite de Montreal
<dura...@jsp.umontreal.ca>
DURANLEAU Francois
> Ok here's some thoughts about AD&D magic. I've played AD&D for about 3
> years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
> it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
> what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
> memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
> can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
> balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
> 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
> just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
> points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
> HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
> In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
> your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more fun
> to play??
> That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
Although I've decided to use the spell point system in Player's Option:
Spells & Magic, I personaly find ok the current system. On a long term
basis, the mage is balanced (a high level mage is quite a powerful
character). Playing a weak character in the beginning, IMO, can prove to
be quite interesting. It requires more work from your brain to survive,
and you must choose carefully your single spell. A wise wizard would not
choose a spell like magic missile, but rather something like color spray,
sleep or more subtle spells which could give greater effects. After all,
you are just a 1st-level mage, not yet a wizard capable of throwing away
masses of spells in a few rounds...
Unknown
amount a M-U can memorise, keeping the casting limits the same allowing higher
for lower swapping. no need for new tables or anything and flexible M-Us.
Chris Lloyd
Mike Wilson, UCE Account
> balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
> 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
1d12 damage each? Funny, my longswords do 1d8 each... not to mention the
fact I don't let PCs have the same sized weapons in both hands REGUARDLESS
what the Fighter Handbook says about it.
--
---
Mike Wilson http://www.drwho.org
http://www.pobox.com/~mwilson
Larry Mead
: Ok here's some thoughts about AD&D magic. I've played AD&D for about 3
: years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
: it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
: what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
: memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
: can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
: 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
You have it backwards; it is not the mage who is underpowered, it is the
ranger who is *overpowered*. Such rules do not exist in a reasonable
campaign. Lastly, many spell point systems vastly overpower mages as well.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Graey
spells are written (power wise) for the system as is. The simplest mana
system would be to add up all the levels of spells a mage can cast in one
day and that is his mana total, possibly adding a bonus for Int. In theory
this is more or less perfect. It exactly reflects a mage's spell power for
one day. The problem? Most spells get more powerful as you go up in level.
Eg. (this ignores area of effect)
A 20th level mage can cast 2 meteroswarms and 5 fireballs per day. For a
total of 20d4 plus 50d6 damage; average being 225.
Or he can cast 11 fireballs per day. For a total of 110d6 damage; average
being 385.
This doesn't take into effect the greater area of effect of MS, but it also
doesn't take into effect that the mage could learn many more fireballs by
using more spell points. I only counted those for 3rd and 9th level spells.
This also assumes you are using the max d damage for spells from 2nd
edition. The averages would be 400 and 770 if you are using 1st edition.
(assuming the MS hasn't been changed since 1st edition).
That having been said, I still like the idea of a mana system. There are
some spells. however, that I would not want them to be able to cast that
many times during a day. One solution is to make uncommon spells cost twice
as much and rare spells cost thrice as much. Also, instead of having more
mana points for specialty mages, have spells from their schools cost less,
I'd say 2/3 rounded down, min 1. Like I said, I've toyed with it, but I
haven't actually tried it out.
- Graey
-----------------------------
| sla...@mediacity.com |
| www.mediacity.com/~slayer |
-----------------------------
dbac...@ionet.net
>
> Although I've decided to use the spell point system in Player's Option:
> Spells & Magic, I personaly find ok the current system. On a long term
> basis, the mage is balanced (a high level mage is quite a powerful
> character). Playing a weak character in the beginning, IMO, can prove to
> be quite interesting. It requires more work from your brain to survive,
> and you must choose carefully your single spell. A wise wizard would not
> choose a spell like magic missile, but rather something like color spray,
> sleep or more subtle spells which could give greater effects. After all,
> you are just a 1st-level mage, not yet a wizard capable of throwing away
> masses of spells in a few rounds...
That mage goes from being pathetically weak to (in some people's eyes)
the most powerful class does not mean that things are balanced. All that
has happened is that the direction of imbalance switches over time.
Donald
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mark Haslam
One method that has worked well for me is a duel spell point magic system.
Basically you split spell points in to two catagories: Spell points (the
absolute number of spell that can be cast) and power points (the number
of spell levels that can be cast). If a mage casts a 3rd level spell, for
example, he or she would use 1 spell point, and 3 power points.
By limiting both the absolute number of spells, and the spell levels,
you get a system that doesn't have the problem of balancing low level vs.
high level spells, which is one of the main drawbacks in a system like you
propose.
The system winds up being a little more complex then the standard D&D fire
and forget method, but not as bad as some spell point systems I've seen.
Syth Ohnanka
Alex Kharlamov <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<01bddb3a$945f46a0$b777bfa8@mkharl>...
But what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have
to
> memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
> can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
> balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
> 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
> just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
> points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really
simple
> HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
> In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
> your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more
fun
> to play??
> That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
>
I like Mage, but the problem is that the system would make AD&D wizards too
powerful! :)
You're right though. AD&D's magic system IS crap. It's biggest flaw is
lack of REAL spell points (ie. spell energy which can be used to cast
spells they know as many times as they want, till they run out of magic
power of course.)
The other problem you kind of touched on is that AD&D magic is only any
good at High levels! But the levels system for AD&D makes high levels
really boring, spell casters should get more power at lower levels.
Alex Kharlamov
Alex Kharlamov
What about if this character has proficiences Ambidex - 2 slots, each
weapon - 1 slot, and Endurance???
My character is a dwarven fighter who has 2 medium sized Battle Axes, and
my DM had no problem with that....=)
Bruce L. Grubb
(Graey) wrote:
>I've toyed with the idea of a mana system for AD&D. The problem is the
>spells are written (power wise) for the system as is. The simplest mana
>system would be to add up all the levels of spells a mage can cast in one
>day and that is his mana total, possibly adding a bonus for Int. In theory
>this is more or less perfect. It exactly reflects a mage's spell power for
>one day. The problem? Most spells get more powerful as you go up in level.
Another and IMHO greater problem is that spells of vastly different raw
power potentials share the same level.
For example compare Lighning Bolt to Fireball; both are are AD&D1 3rd
level spells and both do equal abounts of damage to the sujects that they
effect. But there the similarities end - Lighning Bolt only effects
subjects in a straight line while Fireball effect an area (1257 to 1963
ft^2 depending on how you use it).
From the stand point of raw destructive force Fireball is more 'powerful'
than Lighning Bolt even thought they are both 3rd level spells. And the
problem is not just Fireball; compare Read magic or Detect magic to Magic
Missle or Knock to Ray of Enfedblement. Equal levels but vastly
difference in 'raw power'.
>That having been said, I still like the idea of a mana system. There are
>some spells. however, that I would not want them to be able to cast that
>many times during a day. One solution is to make uncommon spells cost twice
>as much and rare spells cost thrice as much.
IMHO a problem here is tha the spell most likely to cause problems are the
ones that TPTB would want their mages to have.
One of the ways I have seen a mana system work is -each- spell has its own
energy cost. Furthermore damage dealing spells need to have some sore of
ratio between damage and energy cost to deal with the (at times) rapid
increace in power. Of course trying to do such a system in AD&D is
nothing short of herculean project.
The Mystic
Alex Kharlamov wrote in message :
>Ok here's some thoughts about AD&D magic. I've played AD&D for about 3
>years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
>what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
>memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
>can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
>balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
>1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
>just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
>points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
>HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
>In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
>your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more fun
>to play??
>That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
Well if you consider that a 10th level m-u can pretty much fry a 10th
level ranger if he's at a slight distance or gets the jump on initiative. I
understand your feelings as such but honestly you picked the wrong class to
bitch about...Look at a monk for instance...talk about pathetic at low
levels. D4 damage, Ac 10...etc...or take the illusionist. Even worse than
a m-u if you consider spell capability. You have to consider that these
classes start off weak but soon exceed the ranger in both damage dealing and
special abilities.
That's my 2 cents...
Constantine Vetoshev
> Alex Kharlamov <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <01bddb3a$945f46a0$b777bfa8@mkharl>...
> But what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have
> to
> > memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
> > can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
> > balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
> > 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
> > just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
> > points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really
> simple
> > HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
> > In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
> > your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more
> fun
> > to play??
> > That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
> >
>
> I like Mage, but the problem is that the system would make AD&D wizards too
> powerful! :)
> You're right though. AD&D's magic system IS crap. It's biggest flaw is
> lack of REAL spell points (ie. spell energy which can be used to cast
> spells they know as many times as they want, till they run out of magic
> power of course.)
> The other problem you kind of touched on is that AD&D magic is only any
> good at High levels! But the levels system for AD&D makes high levels
> really boring, spell casters should get more power at lower levels.
I don't agree about the magic spells being only ``any good'' at high
levels... On the contrary, low-level spell use can be much more fun in
a role-playing scenario. You don't always have to be saving the world,
you know.
All this aside, however, I must agree that the default AD&D magic
system leaves a lot to be desired. A magic point system tends to
overbalance spellcasters. Someone in an earlier post pointed out that
a high-level mage using a spell-point system could cast 10+ fireballs
in a day, and this is obviously absurd.
An excellent magic system that balances this is outlined in Dragon
#216. The article is called Paths of Power and it's available for
download from TSR's website. I've used it in my campaigns since the
article's publication and it absolutely rocks.
--
Regards,
Constantine Vetoshev
Bruce L. Grubb
>That mage goes from being pathetically weak to (in some people's eyes)
>the most powerful class does not mean that things are balanced. All that
>has happened is that the direction of imbalance switches over time.
This very point was raised in Dragon somewhare in the #60's. Unfortuntly
IIRC no decent solution to address the problem was presented.
Most of the time a 1st level mage cowers in the back of the group wonder
if -this- is the proper time to use that one spell he has. Many times the
mage does not use that spell for fear he may need it latter. The result is
that the 1st level mage effectively becomes an EX leach on the party.
If the mage does use his one spell you now have the fun problem of
preventing any monster from turning this person who cannot wear armor and
has the crapiest hp around from becomeing worm food.
Also why does the mage still have a 'normal' AC. If the job of the
fighters in the front row are to keep him from becoming monster kibble
than why isn't there in the core rules an AC adjustment to reflect this?
Chris W. Nikolauk
Just trying to complicate things....sorry.
Chris.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
> Mike Wilson, UCE Account wrote:
> >
> > Alex Kharlamov <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
> > > 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
> >
> > 1d12 damage each? Funny, my longswords do 1d8 each... not to mention the
> > fact I don't let PCs have the same sized weapons in both hands REGUARDLESS
> > what the Fighter Handbook says about it.
>
> d8 versus Size T-M, d12 versus Size L-G. Still, a ranger is as limited
> in what weapons he can use in his two-weapon style as anyone else, i e
> secondary weapon must be smaller than primary weapon, unless it's a
> dagger or knife.
> --
> Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
> It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
> (Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms)
Thomas K. Javoroski
> Ok here's some thoughts about AD&D magic. I've played AD&D for about 3
> years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
> it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
> what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
> memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
> can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
> balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
Not nessesarily, to the balanced question.
> 1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
> just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
> points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
> HPs, why they complicated magic so much?? Or let's take White Wolf games.
> In "Mage the Ascension" you, as a mage, can do EVERYTHING, if it's within
> your powers, you can cast any spell, at any time. Which wizard is more fun
> to play??
> That was my point of view about AD&D magic... Any response?
If you see balance in the game, and character playability, in terms of
damage inflicted, and nothing else, then perhaps you are on target, and at
low levels the mage is underpowered. Now compare the mage to the ranger,
when both are at 25th level...the Ranger still does 1d8 (actual long sword
damage) with two swords, while the mage can do any number of dice of
damage with, say delayed blast fireball. Now the Ranger is underpowered,
again if you only look at ability to inflict damage. I choose to look at
more than that.
Tom J
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress is made by the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw
Duane VanderPol
> Most of the time a 1st level mage cowers in the back of the group wonder
> if -this- is the proper time to use that one spell he has. Many times the
> mage does not use that spell for fear he may need it latter. The result is
> that the 1st level mage effectively becomes an EX leach on the party.
I know that in any party _I'm_ gonna be a player in once a mage has cast his
one and only mighty spell at first level he'd damn well better start throwing
daggers, darts, or Molotovs, or do _something_ rather than just stand there or
my characters will give him what-for. The fact that a mage only has one spell
should be taken as an encouragement to creative play not as an invitation for
the mage or anybody else to simply whine about his inadequacy.
> If the mage does use his one spell you now have the fun problem of
> preventing any monster from turning this person who cannot wear armor and
> has the crapiest hp around from becomeing worm food.
So what's the difference between this and say a 5th level wizard whose just
cast his last spell? How about a 12th level wizard whose cast all his spells
and there's still combat to be resolved? Just because these other cases are
more likely to have wands or other magic items to fall back on doesn't change
the fact that they'd DO something. It's amazing to me that just because a mage
_character_ is 1st level and has cast his only spell that the _player_ just goes
brain dead and assumes his character's useless when at just about any other
level he'd be thinking of all kinds of things to try and do.
> Also why does the mage still have a 'normal' AC. If the job of the
> fighters in the front row are to keep him from becoming monster kibble
> than why isn't there in the core rules an AC adjustment to reflect this?
Well, there may be something to be said in that regard, but aren't there
rules about AC bonuses for hard cover (and fighters in the front row could
qualify as hard cover), parrying, etc? How about just grabbing up a spare
shield in desperation? Just because you aren't allowed to go totin' one on your
arm all day long doesn't mean that your hand will explode into flame and fall
off if you pick one up to save your life.
I'm not trying to pick a flamewar with you Bruce - I guess I just get tired
of seeing this same "Mages suck! Magic sucks! Game balance is a joke! Gurps
is better!" sort of whine repeatedly popping up without anyone mentioning the
obvious ploy of simply going with the flow and getting some FUN into it. Yours
just happened to be the post with statements that led easily into my responses.
--
Duane VanderPol
Mail: dua...@earthlink.net or dua...@aol.com
Castle of the Glowing Sky: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/index.html
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger"
- Tolkien
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
- Clarke
Biomenace
>> Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
>> sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
>> 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
>>
>> As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
>> that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
>> has switched from one class to another.
>>
>
>How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
>
>The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
>Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
>a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
>mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
Ranger removes his longbow, and fires 2 shots doing 2d8 damage,
assuming no +'s. An average of 8 damage to the mage.
2d6 bears, druids, lower level rangers, wolves, etc start moving
toward the mage.
>Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
>Ranger saves and loses 18 HP's.
Alright. 42HP for the ranger, 22 for the mage.
> Round 2: Ranger continues running and is
>about to reach Mage, but since he spends the entire round with running, Mage
>may cast spell before he arrives. Mage has many options. He can either
>teleport away, he can Web the ranger, he can cast Hold Person, Dump Cone of
>Cold, Fake him with an Illusion, Distract him with some summoned monsters,
>you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away.
Lets assume the ranger keeps shooting. Another 8(average) damage. 14hp
for the mage.
2d6 brownies, falcons, wolves, thieves, etc tear 1d6 summoned
creatures to shreds, and continue moving towards the mage.
> Round 3: Ranger
>resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
>rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
>throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
Or how about rangers buddies rip up the summoned creatures, and he
shoots a couple more times at the mage. 8 damage the third time(6hp
left), and 8 more the fourht time(-2hp). Also, 2d6 bears, rangers,
wolves, etc finally get close enough to the mage to start hurting
him(bear vs mage in melee, hmm, who wins?).
This is, of course, assuming that the mage is quite a distance away
from the ranger. If its in close, his odds decrease.
>You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
>
>O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each day,
>while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
>Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic AS
>LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
As long as whatever he's fighting doesnt shoot back, or have his
buddies come after the mage. Vs a regular fighter, the mage has to
contend with 10-40 0 level cavalry/infantry, a 5-7 level leader, and
10-30 1'st-2'nd level fighters, rangers, berserkers or fighter/mages.
- Biomenace
I used to be completely clueless but since then I've done a complete 360. - Dilbert
Email me at bi0menac@---->
------->@bestweb.net
Note that the 0 is a zero.
NOT tos...@aol.com or ab...@hotmail.com. They are spamtraps.
Staffan Johansson
>
Donald Bachman
:
:
: Well if you consider that a 10th level m-u can pretty much fry a 10th
: level ranger if he's at a slight distance or gets the jump on initiative. I
: understand your feelings as such but honestly you picked the wrong class to
: bitch about...Look at a monk for instance...talk about pathetic at low
: levels. D4 damage, Ac 10...etc...or take the illusionist. Even worse than
: a m-u if you consider spell capability. You have to consider that these
: classes start off weak but soon exceed the ranger in both damage dealing and
: special abilities.
: That's my 2 cents...
How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
10 yards? Or 100 yards?
As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
has switched from one class to another.
Donald
:
:
:
Rekovin
seers. They can't know what teh GM will throw at them. Sure, educated guesses
are possible, but there are always random encounters. Clerics have it tougher
than mages because they can never memorize enough Cure Light Wounds.
Out of Spells & Magic, I don't really care for any of the alternatives.
Channeling is nice, but aftert casting one spell, the mage is so fatigued he's
can't do anything for the rest of the combat. If he rests around and hopes he
makes a save, he's still losing a precious round of action. Plus, more spells
make him more fatigued, making the mage usless for turns and/or hours, instead
of just rounds.
Another system allows for bargains in casting cost, which is also nice.
However, the drawback is that it effectively takes 2 *rounds* to cast a spell.
Again, precious rounds are wasted.
Don't even get me started on the insanity system. YUCK!
I at least like the school and sphere allocations.
Gerald Katz
It's not armageddon for a PC to be really good at something.
Michael Scott Brown
>How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
Power Word: Duh.
(With a spell!)
>Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
>sppells?
No need.
> What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
>10 yards? Or 100 yards?
Either will do, assuming you're willing to at least let
the wizard actually have some spells memorized. One Polymorph
and the ranger is done for the afternoon...
>As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
>that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
>has switched from one class to another.
True enough, and a legitimate flaw in the unmodified game.
-Michael
Donald
:
:
:
iz...@my-dejanews.com
> How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
> Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
> sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
> 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
>
> As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
> that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
> has switched from one class to another.
>
How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
Ranger saves and loses 18 HP's. Round 2: Ranger continues running and is
about to reach Mage, but since he spends the entire round with running, Mage
may cast spell before he arrives. Mage has many options. He can either
teleport away, he can Web the ranger, he can cast Hold Person, Dump Cone of
Cold, Fake him with an Illusion, Distract him with some summoned monsters,
you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away. Round 3: Ranger
resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each day,
while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic AS
LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
By the way, I had a party and I have a 7/7 Mage/Fighter seen beating the hell
out of a Level 8 Priest and a 7/9 Fighter/Rogue. And that was WITHOUT
teleport.
--
The Jedi
--
Only real XT-users know that January 1st 1980 was a Tuesday
Donald Bachman
:
: If you see balance in the game, and character playability, in terms of
: damage inflicted, and nothing else, then perhaps you are on target, and at
: low levels the mage is underpowered. Now compare the mage to the ranger,
: when both are at 25th level...the Ranger still does 1d8 (actual long sword
: damage) with two swords, while the mage can do any number of dice of
: damage with, say delayed blast fireball. Now the Ranger is underpowered,
: again if you only look at ability to inflict damage. I choose to look at
: more than that.
This comparison is slanted. You presume that the Ranger will be using
a regular sword and that the mage will have found better than his starting
allotment of spells. Why was the mage able to find whatever spells it
takes to support the idea that a mage will be more powerful and the
ranger not able to find any items to make himself more powerful (to say
nothing of the fact that he attacks twice as often at 25th level as he
did at 1st).
Donald
Donald Bachman
: From: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman)
: >How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
:
: Power Word: Duh.
:
: (With a spell!)
Be careful where you aim that Power Word. . .you seem to have hit yourself.
Should I take your lack of concrete example as proof of inability to do so?
:
: >Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
: >sppells?
:
: No need.
Find. Detail what happens.
:
: > What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
: >10 yards? Or 100 yards?
:
: Either will do, assuming you're willing to at least let
: the wizard actually have some spells memorized. One Polymorph
: and the ranger is done for the afternoon...
What? They did away with saving throws? At 10th level the ranger has
somewhere around a 50% (dont' have a book handy, going off memory)
of making his save. The mage doesn't have a 50% of being missed by
the ranger's responding attack (by sword or bow if at range).
:
: >As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
: >that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
: >has switched from one class to another.
:
: True enough, and a legitimate flaw in the unmodified game.
:
Donald
Donald Bachman
:
:
:
: > 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
: >
: > that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
: > has switched from one class to another.
: >
:
:
: The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
are factored in. With a 15 Con, he'll average 65 hps.
: Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
A 10th level mage averages 25hps without con bonuses.
: a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
: mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
Why wouldn't the Entangle work if the mage is standing in an entanglible
area? Given that taking damage while casting disrupts spells, why didn't
the ranger pull out a range weapon (surely with all the weapon proficiencies
the ranger has by 10th level he has learned to handle one range weapon)
and cover the mage as he approached?
: Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
How did you get this average correct and not the others above?
: Ranger saves and loses 18 HP's. Round 2: Ranger continues running and is
Half the time the ranger saves, half the time he fails. You can compute
the average damage he takes, and it is 26hps.
: about to reach Mage, but since he spends the entire round with running, Mage
: may cast spell before he arrives. Mage has many options. He can either
So not only did the ranger spend one round running, but is starting another?
What an idiot. There is no good reason he shouldn't have the mage covered
or be under cover.
: teleport away, he can Web the ranger, he can cast Hold Person, Dump Cone of
: Cold, Fake him with an Illusion, Distract him with some summoned monsters,
Ever hear of casting times? These spells aren't going to go off automatically.
: you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away. Round 3: Ranger
: resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
: rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
: throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
:
: You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
Indeed, the ranger must be really stupid to do the things your are suggesting.
:
: O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each day,
: while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
: Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic AS
: LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
If you define "big combat" to mean using all your spells, then sure.
I don't think that is a good definition. Further, I suspect that a
mage will handily defeat non-magic using, non-magic resistant creatures
that stay at range AND DON'T HAVE A MEANS OF MAKING RANGE ATTACKS.
:
: By the way, I had a party and I have a 7/7 Mage/Fighter seen beating the hell
: out of a Level 8 Priest and a 7/9 Fighter/Rogue. And that was WITHOUT
: teleport.
Well, if you play as described above, I'm not surprised. However, let me
suggest that most people don't play fighter types quite so weakly.
Donald
Bruce L. Grubb
<dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bruce L. Grubb wrote:
>
>> Most of the time a 1st level mage cowers in the back of the group wonder
>> if -this- is the proper time to use that one spell he has. Many times the
>> mage does not use that spell for fear he may need it latter. The result is
>> that the 1st level mage effectively becomes an EX leach on the party.
>
> I know that in any party _I'm_ gonna be a player in once a mage has
> cast his one and only mighty spell at first level he'd damn well better
> start throwing daggers, darts, or Molotovs, or do _something_ rather
> than just stand there or my characters will give him what-for.
Which as the c#60 Dragon article pointed an NPC with a single spell scroll
can do. Also as I have pointed out before these are not abilitis
intrinsic to the class. So once your 1st level mage cast his one spell
you can stick a fork in him because *as a mage* he is done. :-)
> The fact that a mage only has one spell
>should be taken as an encouragement to creative play not as an invitation for
>the mage or anybody else to simply whine about his inadequacy.
In practice I have generally found the exact opposite. Things get worse
if you play the lower level monsters with the brains that the MM said they
have. Any monster with a missle weapon and a decent distance between them
and the party is going to try to take out the mage.
Even if they don't know about mage magic there can still good reasons why
they would try to hit the mage. For example, say they know of a human
game similar to chess. Now the most important piece on the board is the
king but it is also the weakest. To protect it at the beginning of the
game (battle) the king is in the back row surrounded by all these other
pieces.
This generally fits the positon of a mage just before a battle to a 'T'
and would be a good insentive to start shooting every missle weapon you
have at the adventurer group's 'king' (mage).
>> If the mage does use his one spell you now have the fun problem of
>> preventing any monster from turning this person who cannot wear armor and
>> has the crapiest hp around from becomeing worm food.
>
> So what's the difference between this and say a 5th level wizard whose just
>cast his last spell?
Better hit points for one. Barring high CON a 1st level mage has an
average of 2.5 HP while a bow generates and average of 3.5. One arrow
shot and the 1st level mage is gone while the 5th level mage can take
three such shots before expiring.
>How about a 12th level wizard whose cast all his spells
>and there's still combat to be resolved?
At this high a level mage usially have magic items which makes exhusting
their spells that much harder or provide them which a better AC.
>Just because these other cases are
>more likely to have wands or other magic items to fall back on doesn't change
>the fact that they'd DO something.
But since the magority of magic item are created by mages the mages
ability to have this back up is due to the intrinsic abilities of his
class. A 1st level mage has nothing intrisic to his class to fall back
on.
As the c#60 Dragon article pointed out an 1th level NPC with a one spell
scroll is about as usefull as a 1st level mage and has a better chance of
surviving.
As far as NWPs goes at 1st level the cleric has the same number of slots
as the mage. So any abilities the mage has the cleric also can have.
>It's amazing to me that just because a mage _character_ is 1st level and
>has cast his only spell that the _player_ just goes brain dead and
>assumes his character's useless when at just about any other level
>he'd be thinking of all kinds of things to try and do.
You are missing the whole point. The problem is not that the player 'goes
brain dead' but there is nothing *intrinsic* to the mage class that they
can do. Clerics and fighters can still fight and theives can use their
abilities again and again. The mage has nothing relating to his class
that an 1st level NPC couldn't do once his spell is cast.
>> Also why does the mage still have a 'normal' AC. If the job of the
>> fighters in the front row are to keep him from becoming monster kibble
>> than why isn't there in the core rules an AC adjustment to reflect this?
>
> Well, there may be something to be said in that regard, but aren't there
>rules about AC bonuses for hard cover (and fighters in the front row could
>qualify as hard cover), parrying, etc?
Note I said "in the core rules". These abilites certainly are not in the
AD&D1 core rules (DMG1, PHB1, MM) and given that people use S&P when
refereing to them they don't seem to be part of the AD&D2 core rules
either.
>How about just grabbing up a spare shield in desperation?
Your forgetting the key reason that AD&D mages don't wear armor - they
don't have the 'training'. While having a shield is better than nothing
the mage's inability to know how to use it properly in all likelyhood
eliminates its ACs benefits.
> I'm not trying to pick a flamewar with you Bruce - I guess I just get
> tired of seeing this same "Mages suck! Magic sucks!
The reality is that these problems have been coming up for years. The
whole reason cantrips were created was to give the mage something
instrinsic to his class to do. Unfortunitly in AD&D1's larger focus on
combat redered many of these spells useless.
'What do you want me to do? Sweep them to death?' :-)
> Game balance is a joke!
Depends on which version you are taking about. AD&D1 certianly had more
balance problems than AD&D2 though some problems in AD&D1 still remain
(what to do to make a 1st leve mage more useable *as a mage*)
>Gurps is better!"
Depends on what your criteria is. For high level fantasy AD&D is 'better'
- character creation is much faster and basic combat is simpler to
explain.
AD&D is certainly better at dealing with earth shaking magic than GURPS
but GURPS has a better spell point system for spells.
Both systems have problems just in different areas. You can do the
equivalent of a 10th level AD&D campaign in GURPS but it take far more
planning on the GMs side to do so (creating class templates, desiding on
relevent cinematic rule, etc) than AD&D does.
DURANLEAU Francois
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98090...@epsom.jsp.umontreal.ca>,
> DURANLEAU Francois <dura...@JSP.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
> > On 8 Sep 1998, Alex Kharlamov wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Although I've decided to use the spell point system in Player's Option:
> > Spells & Magic, I personaly find ok the current system. On a long term
> > basis, the mage is balanced (a high level mage is quite a powerful
> > character). Playing a weak character in the beginning, IMO, can prove to
> > be quite interesting. It requires more work from your brain to survive,
> > and you must choose carefully your single spell. A wise wizard would not
> > choose a spell like magic missile, but rather something like color spray,
> > sleep or more subtle spells which could give greater effects. After all,
> > you are just a 1st-level mage, not yet a wizard capable of throwing away
> > masses of spells in a few rounds...
>
> That mage goes from being pathetically weak to (in some people's eyes)
> the most powerful class does not mean that things are balanced. All that
> has happened is that the direction of imbalance switches over time.
If you see this that way, fine. Anyway, I do not care that much about
balance (since it does not even exists in reality... oh I hate myself for
saying that...), as long as it is playable, and as long as the DM can have
decent and honest control over the situation.
___________________________________________________________________
"There once was a boy who dreamed of being a hero,
who believed sincerily in the battle
to banish Darkness from a world of Light.
But Light and Darkness are equal,
and where one exists, so too must the other.
And when the boy finally realized this,
he had taken the first step toward being a true hero."
- from Record of Lodoss War
Francois Duranleau Etudiant au baccalaureat bidisciplinaire
Mathematique-Informatique Universite de Montreal
<dura...@jsp.umontreal.ca>
Tony R Leon
: In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98090...@epsom.jsp.umontreal.ca>,
: DURANLEAU Francois <dura...@JSP.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
: > On 8 Sep 1998, Alex Kharlamov wrote:
<whole lot a snipping goin' on>
: That mage goes from being pathetically weak to (in some people's eyes)
: the most powerful class does not mean that things are balanced. All that
: has happened is that the direction of imbalance switches over time.
: Donald
I agree with this statement completely. A first level mage cannot
stand against a first lever fighter, but an eighteenth lever fighter
cannot match an eighteenth lever mage in sheer raw power, IMHO.
I don't claim this balances out the game by any means, but from
the point of view of someone who has taken a character from first to
twenty-first lever mage, I can say it was worth the struggle.
For those Game Leaders who feel that mages are at a disadvantage
at low levels, be generous to them then. Give them bracers of defense AC2
(a gift from their teacher?), or maybe a ring of wizardry that doubles
1st through 3rd level spells. Or let them start at two levels above the
level of the group. Or just let them have the armor and see if it works
well in your game.
: -----==Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
: http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
Tony Leon
tony...@bc.seflin.org
Ye, though I walk through the Shadow of the Valley of Death......
Ooh, Donuts!
Michael Scott Brown
>This comparison is slanted. You presume that the Ranger will be using
>a regular sword and that the mage will have found better than his starting
>allotment of spells. Why was the mage able to find whatever spells it
>takes to support the idea that a mage will be more powerful and the
>ranger not able to find any items to make himself more powerful
Your objection is ill-considered. When attempting to compare
the inherent capabilities of two classes, the correct analytical
framework is one that absolutely rejects any assumption that the member
of said class "should" have powerful magical items.
The wizard's spell allotment is a basic class ability. Suggesting that
it is inappropriate to assume that he has access to more spells than
his first-level list is just plain stupid, pardon my french.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>Be careful where you aim that Power Word. . .you seem to have hit yourself.
>Should I take your lack of concrete example as proof of inability to do so?
No - instead, consider it a concrete example of your total
lack of imagination, given that the possibilities are extensive
and painfully obvious.
: >Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
: >sppells?
: No need.
>Find. Detail what happens.
The combat starts, and the wizard starts casting spells.
Perhaps you've played the game near a wizard character before?
:
: > What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
: >10 yards? Or 100 yards?
:
: Either will do, assuming you're willing to at least let
: the wizard actually have some spells memorized. One Polymorph
: and the ranger is done for the afternoon...
>What? They did away with saving throws? At 10th level the ranger has
>somewhere around a 50% (dont' have a book handy, going off memory)
>of making his save. The mage doesn't have a 50% of being missed by
>the ranger's responding attack (by sword or bow if at range).
Pay attention to what you just wrote - the wizard has a 50%
chance of obliterating the ranger *outright* with that spell
(4th level - several available) and that one has plenty of range.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Does the ranger enjoy
the same offensive capability? No way. His attacks can miss and
they can only do damage. The offensive advantage is wholly on
the wizard's side; he has access to many "save or die" types of
incapacitating magics which totally bypass the warrior's hit points-
and against which they have abysmal saving throws. Hold Person is
just 3rd level for a wizard (IIRC) and it's more effective than
Fireballing. Failed save (at -4, no less) and the Ranger is done.
Further - the Ranger has to get himself up to the wizard
and start hacking - which can be prevented with perfect ease
by using something as simple as Levitate, Fly, possibly Dig,
Wall of X, and so on. Alternatively the ranger
might try to rely on missile fire, but this can be stymied just
as easily (protection from missiles, for instance, or stoneskin,
or mirror image, or improved invisibility, or wind wall, or
feather fall, etc). The wizard will have a counter for all of the lone
warrior's attacks after 2 rounds - and his spells will come faster
than the ranger's attacks. If the ranger managed to get an attack in,
the wizard will survive at least once - and after those two counters
are raised (whatever they are), it's just a matter of time before the
ranger gets annihilated.
Bottom line: The wizard can easily neutralize the warrior.
Arguing otherwise is foolish.
-Michael
Timothy W. Johnson
Constantine Vetoshev wrote in message
<84g1e2j...@Mypp.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...
>All this aside, however, I must agree that the default AD&D magic
>system leaves a lot to be desired. A magic point system tends to
>overbalance spellcasters. Someone in an earlier post pointed out that
>a high-level mage using a spell-point system could cast 10+ fireballs
>in a day, and this is obviously absurd.
This "overbalancing" seems to be the major complaint of most people about
making ANY changes to the wizard class. The only reason people find changes
overbalancing is because they've always seen wizards as being ineffective at
low levels, so it must be right. All the designer-suggested changes (i.e.
"official" optional rules such as presented in PO: S&M) continue to keep
wizards impotent at low levels.
It doesn't seem absurd that a thief can attempt to pick every lock that he
finds; or that a cleric can attempt to turn every undead creature
encountered; or that a fighter can swing the same sword thousands of times a
day. All the other character classes have abilities that can be used
repetitively (most of which are not available to any other class). This is
not true of wizards.
The biggest problem seems to be the power that wizards gain at higher
levels. I agree with this. Most "spell point" systems end up giving
wizards greater power across the board. In such a way, if a 1st-level
wizard gains 50% more power, so will a 20th-level wizard.
The trick is to devise a method to increase the power of low-level wizards
(to make give them more equity when compared to other classes at the same
levels) while decreasing power at high levels (once again, maintaining class
equality).
I have been able to do this with a system I created. My players really like
the system. It's a complete revision of the wizard character class, though.
Most people don't want to go through that much work to correct the problem.
It's much easier just to come up with the same lame-ass arguments about more
role-playing or problem-solving opportunities for low-level wizards, and
leave the system as-is.
That's just my 8% of a quarter on the subject.
Tim J.
Michael Scott Brown
>I agree with this statement completely. A first level mage cannot
>stand against a first lever fighter,
Bah.
-Michael
Timothy W. Johnson
Donald Bachman wrote in message <6t5pd6$btp$2...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>Michael Scott Brown (mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: From: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman)
>: >10 yards? Or 100 yards?
>:
>: Either will do, assuming you're willing to at least let
>: the wizard actually have some spells memorized. One Polymorph
>: and the ranger is done for the afternoon...
>
>What? They did away with saving throws? At 10th level the ranger has
>somewhere around a 50% (dont' have a book handy, going off memory)
>of making his save.
60% (9 or higher on a d20 v. polymorph). And that's considering, of course,
without any magical protection.
Tim J.
Staffan Johansson
>
> Then why is it that Drizzt has two scimitars?
I have to confess to not having read the Drizzt books, but I can see two
reasons:
1. Drizzt has the Two-weapon style from the Complete Fighter's Handbook,
which allows using equally sized weapons in both hands. There is a
slightly weaker version in Combat & Tactics, that requires you to spend
two slots to get that benefit.
2. R. A. Salvatore didn't care one whit about the rules of the game when
he wrote the books.
Seeing as the first Drizzt book predates the Complete Fighter's Handbook
(I think it does, at least - now that the complete product list is gone
from the TSR website, I can't tell), my guess is on option 2.
Kusanagi
you're basically gambling that you can reach 4th-5th level (when things
really start to get interesting for mages) before you die. 'Til then,
you're an interesting tagalong with a few helpful spells, a staff, and a
dagger. Most low-level wizards I've seen spend more time swinging a
staff than spellcasting.
Just my $.02 -
k
dbac...@ionet.net
mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> From: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman)
> >Should I take your lack of concrete example as proof of inability to do so?
>
> No - instead, consider it a concrete example of your total
> lack of imagination, given that the possibilities are extensive
> and painfully obvious.
Admittedly I lack the imagination required to be able to ignore the fact that
you haven't supported your arguments at all. Painfully obvious is that you
are in danger of burning yourself on the crack pipe.
>
> : >Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
> : >sppells?
> : No need.
>
> >Find. Detail what happens.
>
> The combat starts, and the wizard starts casting spells.
> Perhaps you've played the game near a wizard character before?
In 20 years I've even played a few.
> :
> : > What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
> : >10 yards? Or 100 yards?
> :
> : Either will do, assuming you're willing to at least let
> : the wizard actually have some spells memorized. One Polymorph
> : and the ranger is done for the afternoon...
>
> >What? They did away with saving throws? At 10th level the ranger has
> >somewhere around a 50% (dont' have a book handy, going off memory)
> >of making his save. The mage doesn't have a 50% of being missed by
> >the ranger's responding attack (by sword or bow if at range).
>
> Pay attention to what you just wrote - the wizard has a 50%
> chance of obliterating the ranger *outright* with that spell
> (4th level - several available) and that one has plenty of range.
Pay attention to common sense. First is the matter of initiatives and
speed factors. The casting time for Polymorph Other is (and I'm guessing
again, but have played enough wizards to know the general progression)
is 4. How sure are you that the wizard is going to get to go first?
Second is the matter of protections. Against any 10th level fighter
without protections, the wizard has a 50% chance of success. Though
I've played under DMs who worked hard to keep characters from acquiring
magic items, by 10th level, every campaign I've been in has featured
characters with magic items--some of which modified saving throws.
> And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Does the ranger enjoy
> the same offensive capability? No way. His attacks can miss and
> they can only do damage. The offensive advantage is wholly on
> the wizard's side; he has access to many "save or die" types of
> incapacitating magics which totally bypass the warrior's hit points-
> and against which they have abysmal saving throws. Hold Person is
> just 3rd level for a wizard (IIRC) and it's more effective than
> Fireballing. Failed save (at -4, no less) and the Ranger is done.
Barring a Ring of Free Action. I admit the possibilities are endless for
how the various opponents are equipped, but that is no reason to assume
a naked ranger because applying the standard the other way would result in
a mage who has never gained a spell from 1st level onward.
>
> Further - the Ranger has to get himself up to the wizard
> and start hacking - which can be prevented with perfect ease
> by using something as simple as Levitate, Fly, possibly Dig,
> Wall of X, and so on. Alternatively the ranger
> might try to rely on missile fire, but this can be stymied just
> as easily (protection from missiles, for instance, or stoneskin,
> or mirror image, or improved invisibility, or wind wall, or
> feather fall, etc). The wizard will have a counter for all of the lone
> warrior's attacks after 2 rounds - and his spells will come faster
> than the ranger's attacks. If the ranger managed to get an attack in,
> the wizard will survive at least once - and after those two counters
> are raised (whatever they are), it's just a matter of time before the
> ranger gets annihilated.
The wizard has to not only survive the 2 rounds, he has to be able to
cast in those rounds, and I don't see any particular reason to assume
automatically that he does. It is not the cakewalk you present by any
stretch of a reasonable imagination--short of ridiculously artificial
situations.
>
> Bottom line: The wizard can easily neutralize the warrior.
> Arguing otherwise is foolish.
Bottom line: It isn't as straightforward as you presume.
Crack is an illegal substance, and you shouldn't be smoking it.
Donald
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
dbac...@ionet.net
mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> From: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman)
> >a regular sword and that the mage will have found better than his starting
> >allotment of spells. Why was the mage able to find whatever spells it
> >takes to support the idea that a mage will be more powerful and the
> >ranger not able to find any items to make himself more powerful
>
> Your objection is ill-considered. When attempting to compare
> the inherent capabilities of two classes, the correct analytical
> framework is one that absolutely rejects any assumption that the member
> of said class "should" have powerful magical items.
Precisely.
>
> The wizard's spell allotment is a basic class ability. Suggesting that
> it is inappropriate to assume that he has access to more spells than
> his first-level list is just plain stupid, pardon my french.
Your French needs work. The wizard's allotment of spell slots has increased.
But in order to have spells to fill them, the must find and learn them. This
is equivalent to the ranger finding and becoming proficient, where necessary,
with magic items. As you will not assume that this occurs for the ranger,
you should presume the wizard has his starting allotment of spells--1 to 4
first level spells.
Mark Scheper
the kick ass charecter to have. At 9th level his simple first level spells
will do more damage then any two swords (i.e. Magic Missle would at that
point do 5d4+5 points of damage (enough to take down a couple orcs or maybe
a good size ogre). Plus you add in the higher level spells and the use of
the more powerful magic items (and the ability to identify what that items
do) and I would take a mage on my side over a ranger almost any day in the
week. So overall the charecter classes even out and have there own
advantages and disadvantage at any level (like the mage not wearing armor).
JMO
Mark S.
Alex Kharlamov wrote in message <01bddb3a$945f46a0$b777bfa8@mkharl>...
>Ok here's some thoughts about AD&D magic. I've played AD&D for about 3
>years, so i can be considered a newbie=) And i pretty much like the game,
>it's very balanced, and has some GENIUS features - for example, THAC0. But
>what i don't like about AD&D is magic. I mean, look at this, you have to
>memorize all those spells, and only limited amount of, and on level 1 you
>can memorize only 1!!! All character classes have to be pretty much
>balanced right? Well compare 1st level ranger with 2 long swords that do
>1d12 damage each, and 1st level brave mage, who knows Magic Missile... I
Jeff Stehman
> I
> just don't understand why TSR couldn't go with straight good-old spell
> points/mana system.. I mean they did this with damage, using really simple
> HPs, why they complicated magic so much??
They didn't complicate magic, they simplified it (and simulated the
magic system in a book that had caught their fancy). I've seen a lot
of spell point systems for AD&D. I've yet to see one that I thought
worked. The problem is with the spells. Some increase significantly
in power with the level of the mage, some have a moderate increase,
and some pretty much stay the same.
It's easy to say a Magic Missile spell costs one point when it's cast
by a 1st level mage, but what about when it is cast by a 9th level
mage? What about Improved Invisibility cast by a 7th level mage as
opposed to cast by an 18th level mage? Same point cost? Then there's
spells like Ice Storm, where the only difference between a 7th level
mage and an 18th level mage is the range (assuming you're using the
damage version of the spell). Any point cost differences for the two
mages? IMHO, a good spell point system for AD&D would list the cost
for each spell, not the cost for all spells of the same level.
We opted for a simple way of dealing with this problem: spell slots.
Works the same way as the standard system, except you don't have to
memorize your spells for the day, just study/meditate/whatever to
regain spent slots. Thus a 4th level mage can cast 3 1sts and 2 2nds.
Which spells of those levels she actually casts is up to her at the
time of each casting. Simple, tidy, and significantly increases the
flexibility of mages. (As a side effect, we've found that utility
spells get cast *much* more often than under the standard system,
which is the opposite of what Gygax thought would happen under this
system.)
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
Thomas K. Javoroski
>
>
>
> > How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
> > Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
> > sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
> > 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
> >
> > As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
> > that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
> > has switched from one class to another.
> >
>
> How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
>
> The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
> Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
> a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
> mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
Ranger draws back bow, waits until mage has *begun* casting, fires off two
arrows, hitting (most likely) the mage, disrupting his spell, and, even
only using flight arrows, does 7 points of damage.
This continues until Mage is dead, Ranger runs out of arrows (but, if the
mage has a full compliment of spells, the LEAST we can do is give the
Ranger 30 arrows), or Mage wins enough initiatives to plink away at the
Ranger's HPs. If the mage does not win initiative (and it is more likely
that he *won't* win initiative, as the Ranger does not have casting times,
and has to have a Dex from 13 to 18, which means he is more likely to have
init bonuses than the mage), the ranger will continue to fill him full of
holes, AND disrupt his spells, until the mage is not a problem anymore.
Thomas K. Javoroski
> Thomas K. Javoroski (tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
> :
> : If you see balance in the game, and character playability, in terms of
> : damage inflicted, and nothing else, then perhaps you are on target, and at
> : low levels the mage is underpowered. Now compare the mage to the ranger,
> : when both are at 25th level...the Ranger still does 1d8 (actual long sword
> : damage) with two swords, while the mage can do any number of dice of
> : damage with, say delayed blast fireball. Now the Ranger is underpowered,
> : again if you only look at ability to inflict damage. I choose to look at
> : more than that.
>
> This comparison is slanted. You presume that the Ranger will be using
> a regular sword and that the mage will have found better than his starting
> allotment of spells. Why was the mage able to find whatever spells it
> takes to support the idea that a mage will be more powerful and the
> ranger not able to find any items to make himself more powerful (to say
> nothing of the fact that he attacks twice as often at 25th level as he
> did at 1st).
>
Big deal. My point was not to say that they are unbalanced anyway. My
point is to say that damage dealing does not a balance make. Yes, my
example might have been unbalanced, but look at it this way: spells are
the mages job. Magical weapons are not the ranger's job. Yes, they are
handy, but that are not intrinsic to the ranger doing his job, as spells
are to the mage. We could sit here all day and compare damage potentials
of classes, but the thing is, given *standard spells*, and *standard magic
items* for mages and rangers, respectively, can the ranger do 10d6+10
damage in one round? Can he do all the damage an ice storm can, or a
prismatic spray? Most likely not. That's my point.
Toim J
Bruce L. Grubb
<tjc...@ticnet.com> wrote:
>It doesn't seem absurd that a thief can attempt to pick every lock that he
>finds; or that a cleric can attempt to turn every undead creature
>encountered; or that a fighter can swing the same sword thousands of times a
>day. All the other character classes have abilities that can be used
>repetitively (most of which are not available to any other class). This is
>not true of wizards.
I agree that wizard need some sort of inate repeatable ability like
theives lockpicking or clerics turn undean ability.
>The biggest problem seems to be the power that wizards gain at higher
>levels. I agree with this. Most "spell point" systems end up giving
>wizards greater power across the board. In such a way, if a 1st-level
>wizard gains 50% more power, so will a 20th-level wizard.
>
>The trick is to devise a method to increase the power of low-level wizards
>(to make give them more equity when compared to other classes at the same
>levels) while decreasing power at high levels (once again, maintaining class
>equality).
>
>I have been able to do this with a system I created. My players really like
>the system. It's a complete revision of the wizard character class, though.
>Most people don't want to go through that much work to correct the problem.
Agreed though there may be a quick fix for those who don't want to go
though a complete revision or come up with a bunch of house rules to use
some other FRP's magic system in AD&D.
Basicly it involves turning Read Magic and Detect Magic into innate
abilities of mage as well as adding alchemy at lower levels.
Note that as an ability Read Magic would simply allow a mage to read and
write the magical language/code but would NOT grant the ability to
properly imbue the words with power. This would also serve to explain why
high level theives can read and use magic scrolls but not create them:
they understand the language/code itself not the methods for imbueing it
with power.
Similarlly Alchemy at low levels would not involve the creation of elixirs
but could help in other ways. For example knowing how to utilize inate
magic forces could allow the mage to improve herbal mixtures (perhaps to
double normal strength)
Given their training mage should have some chance to determine if an item
is magical without resorting to an spell. Perhaps direct sight or if the
GM feels this would short circuit things when the mage handles an item.
Note at best this would only give a mage a rough idea to 'strength' of
item; it would never identify an item.
>It's much easier just to come up with the same lame-ass arguments about more
>role-playing or problem-solving opportunities for low-level wizards, and
>leave the system as-is.
This seem to sum it up perfectly. No one wants to really deal with the
problem so they avoid it by saying their isn't a problem.
Biomenace
>> a regular sword and that the mage will have found better than his starting
>> allotment of spells. Why was the mage able to find whatever spells it
>> takes to support the idea that a mage will be more powerful and the
>> ranger not able to find any items to make himself more powerful (to say
>> nothing of the fact that he attacks twice as often at 25th level as he
>> did at 1st).
>>
>
>Big deal. My point was not to say that they are unbalanced anyway. My
>point is to say that damage dealing does not a balance make. Yes, my
>example might have been unbalanced, but look at it this way: spells are
>the mages job. Magical weapons are not the ranger's job. Yes, they are
>handy, but that are not intrinsic to the ranger doing his job, as spells
>are to the mage. We could sit here all day and compare damage potentials
>of classes, but the thing is, given *standard spells*, and *standard magic
>items* for mages and rangers, respectively, can the ranger do 10d6+10
>damage in one round? Can he do all the damage an ice storm can, or a
>prismatic spray? Most likely not. That's my point.
His buddies can. Fighters and rangers get followers. Mages dont, other
than possibly a couple of apprentice henchmen. Thats how
fighters/rangers deal out large amounts of damage at higher levels. 12
bears can do 24d3+12d6 damage(144 vs a mages 70) per round. Other
followers can do similar amounts of damage. In a straight out and out
battle, at any point in their careers, the fighter has a very good
shot at winning, if he can use all his resources(and this includes his
army).
- Biomenace
I used to be completely clueless but since then I've done a complete 360. - Dilbert
Email me at bi0menac@---->
------->@bestweb.net
Note that the 0 is a zero.
NOT tos...@aol.com or ab...@hotmail.com. They are spamtraps.
Gebhard Blucher
> I agree with this statement completely. A first level mage cannot
> stand against a first lever fighter, but an eighteenth lever fighter
> cannot match an eighteenth lever mage in sheer raw power, IMHO.
[snip]
A sleep spell can ruin a 1st level Fighter's day. Seems like I remember
someone wrote a program that worked out this very problem. IIRC, the
1st level M-User with a sleep spell stacks up pretty darn well against a
first level fighter...
GB
Thomas K. Javoroski
> >It's much easier just to come up with the same lame-ass arguments about more
> >role-playing or problem-solving opportunities for low-level wizards, and
> >leave the system as-is.
>
> This seem to sum it up perfectly. No one wants to really deal with the
> problem so they avoid it by saying their isn't a problem.
While I like some of your ideas, namely the innate read and
sort-of-detect magic, maybe the reason that some people, myself included,
say that there isn't a problem, is because we've played the damn game for
years, and never felt that there WAS a problem. If you think there is, by
all means go ahead and fix it. But when someone ASKS MY OPINION ON THE
MATTER, which is what a post to this group is doing, I'm going to inform
them that I have no problem with the system. Don't presume to tell me
what I think.
I like mages the way they are, I have played mages the way they are.
Sometimes, my fellow gamers and I alter the rules a bit, from character to
character. Sometimes, we don't. That goes for all classes and races.
Once more for the cheap seats: I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH
WIZARDS IN AD&D.
Tom J
towo...@concentric.net
>And again, what weapon the Ranger uses and how likely he is to win or lose
>depends on range. At the shortest of missle ranges, speeds for missles
>can be as low as 2, and can be tried more than once per round. With the
Sounds like a house-rule to me. Weapon speeds are NOT modified by
distance, according to the "official" rules.
>So weak, it shouldn't be attempted. Care to advance a better tactic?
Five magic missile spells, all directed at the ranger. At 10th level,
that's an average of 25 points of damage per round, at up to 160 yards,
with *no chance of missing*. Also, if using weapon speeds, it's almost
garunteed to go faster than a long bow (init range of 2-11, vs long bows
9-18), and almost as well against a shortbow (init range of 8-17).
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Biomenace
> ab...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
>> >> Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
>> >> sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
>> >> 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
>> >>
>> >> As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
>> >> that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
>> >> has switched from one class to another.
>> >>
>> >
>> >How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
>> >
>> >The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
>> >Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
>> >a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
>> >mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
>>
>> assuming no +'s. An average of 8 damage to the mage.
>> 2d6 bears, druids, lower level rangers, wolves, etc start moving
>> toward the mage.
>>
>> >Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
>>
>>
>> Lets assume the ranger keeps shooting. Another 8(average) damage. 14hp
>> for the mage.
>> 2d6 brownies, falcons, wolves, thieves, etc tear 1d6 summoned
>> creatures to shreds, and continue moving towards the mage.
>
>Allright, Mage is getting tired of arrows flying at him, so he casts Minor
>Globe of Invulnarability (so far for the summoned creatures).
Boy, that'l show the ranger. Now he wont be able to cast 1-3 level
spells at the mage.
>> Or how about rangers buddies rip up the summoned creatures, and he
>> shoots a couple more times at the mage. 8 damage the third time(6hp
>> left), and 8 more the fourht time(-2hp). Also, 2d6 bears, rangers,
>> wolves, etc finally get close enough to the mage to start hurting
>> him(bear vs mage in melee, hmm, who wins?).
>
>If the bears really get annoying (despite the Minor Globe,
Which wont do squat to em. They arent summoned creatures.
> fly, improved
>invisibility,
-4 penalty to attacks.
> web,
Only useful in a few places. I cant think of many circumstances where
a ranger will be 100 yards away from a mage, in a dungeon.
> (burning hands(!))
There goes one, unless you think the critters are all lumping together
for you to shoot at.
> or charm monster works very well.
There goes 1 more. But I thought you were casting something to take
out the rangers arrows?
>Not even to talk about charming the ranger.
>Or even better, almost certain second round kill: phantasmal killer
Okay, as you cast that, the followers tear you up at a -4 penalty(you
cast improved invis first round, right?). Pretty soon you go down, and
the phantasmal killer does soon after.
>> This is, of course, assuming that the mage is quite a distance away
>> from the ranger. If its in close, his odds decrease.
>
>Well, let's assume he makes sure that he is quite a distance away.
Lets also assume the ranger makes sure this happens someplace where he
gets some advantages. Someplace where hiding in the shadows, and
sneaking around is simple to do(forest of darkness or someplace like
that), so that he can catch the mage by surprise. Maybe sneak up close
to him. Shoot at him from the shadows. That sort of thing.
Biomenace
>>
>> A 10th level mage averages 25hps without con bonuses.
>
>in comparison to their maximum. Why? I really shouldn't know.
Probably cause DM's realize that they are weak, and decide to let them
reroll 1's.
>> : a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
>> : mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
>>
>> Why wouldn't the Entangle work if the mage is standing in an entanglible
>> area? Given that taking damage while casting disrupts spells, why didn't
>> the ranger pull out a range weapon (surely with all the weapon proficiencies
>> the ranger has by 10th level he has learned to handle one range weapon)
>> and cover the mage as he approached?
>
>Because it won't be very useful to have a mage standing at a place where you
>can't reach him (inside the entangled area), still able to cast verbal
>component only spells.
Sure its useful. With entangle, there goes fireball, phantasmal
killer, protection from missiles, (improved) invis, charm monster,
charm person and burning hands. What other spells have you mentioned?
>> : Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
>>
>> How did you get this average correct and not the others above?
>
>Because I liked to actually calculate it when I typed it.
>
>> : Ranger saves and loses 18 HP's. Round 2: Ranger continues running and is
>>
>> Half the time the ranger saves, half the time he fails. You can compute
>> the average damage he takes, and it is 26hps.
>
>Actually it's not half the time, it's 9/20 of the time. The average damage
>would be 23,45 in that case.
>
>>
>> : about to reach Mage, but since he spends the entire round with running, Mage
>> : may cast spell before he arrives. Mage has many options. He can either
>>
>> So not only did the ranger spend one round running, but is starting another?
>> What an idiot. There is no good reason he shouldn't have the mage covered
>> or be under cover.
>>
>> : teleport away, he can Web the ranger, he can cast Hold Person, Dump Cone of
>> : Cold, Fake him with an Illusion, Distract him with some summoned monsters,
>>
>> Ever hear of casting times? These spells aren't going to go off automatically.
>
>Yep, I have. Ever heard of weapon speed? Sorry, but all combat spells have
>casting time equal to their level (some exceptions, like Teleport (time 1)).
>The spells will certainly go off, since bows and swords are slow in
>comparison to spells. Only if you're rolling base initiative (only the d10,
>no modifiers for anything), the the ranger would have 45% chance to win (10%
>chance they have equal results, before you're getting on maths again).
>Otherwise the chance would be (Poisson calculation) 0,3468 (and YES this
>answer is correct with anything you can average: casting time, weapon speed,
>DEX modifier, d10's etc). O, and the mage may roll a spell save to prevent
>his spell from being interrupted.
Is this what you were referring to?
During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to
dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by
spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is
struck by a weapon or *fails to make a saving throw before the spell
is cast*, the caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell is lost
in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of
the caster until it can be rememorized. Spellcasters are well advised
not to stand at the front of any battle, at least if they want to be
able to cast any spells!
Only problem is that that means that if the mage gets hit by a spell,
he loses his spell. Not that he gets a save to see if he can still
cast.
>> : you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away. Round 3: Ranger
>> : resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
>> : rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
>> : throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
>> :
>> : You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
>>
>> Indeed, the ranger must be really stupid to do the things your are suggesting.
>
>He certainly would, but he has no choice. Missile attacks bounce on minor
>globe of invulnarability or protection from normal missiles.
No they dont.
Minor Globe of Invulnerability
(Abjuration)
Range: 0 Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 rd./level Casting Time: 4
Area of Effect: 5-ft. radius Saving Throw: None
This spell creates an immobile, faintly shimmering magical
sphere around the caster that prevents any 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-level
spell effects from penetrating (i.e., the area of effect of any such
spells does not include the area of the minor globe of
invulnerability). This includes innate abilities and effects from
devices. However, any type of spell can be cast out of the magical
globe, and these pass from the caster of the globe to their subject
without affecting the globe. Fourth and higher level spells are not
affected by the globe. The globe can be brought down by a successful
dispel magic spell. The caster can leave and return to the globe
without penalty. Note that spell effects are not actually disrupted by
the globe unless cast directly through or into it: The caster would
still see a mirror image created by a wizard outside the globe. If
that wizard then entered the globe, the images would wink out, to
reappear when the wizard exited the globe. Likewise, a wizard standing
in the area of a light spell would still receive sufficient light for
vision, even though that part of the light spell volume in the globe
would not be luminous.
The material component of the spell is a glass or crystal bead that
shatters at the expiration of the spell.
>> : O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each
>day,
>> : while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
>> : Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic
>AS
>> : LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
>>
>> If you define "big combat" to mean using all your spells, then sure.
>> I don't think that is a good definition. Further, I suspect that a
>> mage will handily defeat non-magic using, non-magic resistant creatures
>> that stay at range AND DON'T HAVE A MEANS OF MAKING RANGE ATTACKS.
>
>No I'm not meaning that. A big combat is a combat where there is a great
>threat to the players (so random encounter orcs are not included)
>
>> : By the way, I had a party and I have a 7/7 Mage/Fighter seen beating the
>hell
>> : out of a Level 8 Priest and a 7/9 Fighter/Rogue. And that was WITHOUT
>> : teleport.
>
>> Well, if you play as described above, I'm not surprised. However, let me
>> suggest that most people don't play fighter types quite so weakly.
>
>No I'm NOT. My post was just a cynical reply to someone who can't think of
>mages beating rangers of the same level.
Who cant think of it? All I'm saying is that its not the absolute
certainty your portraying. Played right, the ranger has a good chance
of winning. Its not a sure win, but he's got a good shot at it.
> The fight between the Mage/Fighter
>and the other two ended very quickly. Round 1, Priest and Rogue/Fighter exit
>cave. Fighter/Mage casts web. (R/F has ring Of Free Action, not affected,
>Priest is stuck). R/F lites torch and burns web to rescue priest. F/M casts
>mirror image. R/F charges and destroys of 5 images. Priest puzzles which one
>is real,doesn't have dispel magic available, so casts aid. Some rounds
>follow, some images disappear, F/M is damaged, F/M damages R/F a great lot,
>priest casts bless, prayer, free action, protection from evil and charges.
>M/F kills rogue with burning hands and easily beats Priest in HtH, ending
>with one mirror image left and two players killed. About that (must admit,
>they rolled REALLY lousy).
>
>> Donald
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>The Jedi
>--
>Only real XT-users know that January 1st 1980 was a Tuesday
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Scott Brown
>Your French needs work. The wizard's allotment of spell slots has increased.
>But in order to have spells to fill them, the must find and learn them. This
>is equivalent to the ranger finding and becoming proficient, where necessary,
>with magic items.
Bah.
You have conveniently forgotten that the wizard can research and
even create his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*.
His full access to spells is *not* some kind of "extra perk" the
way that magic items are - it is _fundamental_ to the abilities of
a 10th level wizard. Your suggestion that a wizard's magic is
some kind of "bonus" ability which warrants distribution of
magical items to the opponent is just pure idiotic bunk.
I suggest that you are unwilling to admit that you bet on the
wrong horse and are desperately trying to find some means to
justify magically arming the ranger so that you can claim to have
been right after all.
The proper actors for comparison are: one ranger, using the standard
nonmagical tools of his trade, and one wizard, similarly equipped.
As a further point - note how nonsensical your position is when
you try to compare the ranger's power to the *Priest* who gains
his magic a bit more automatically than the wizard. Your "logic"
suggests that the ranger should get a heap of magic items to make
up for the wizard's having "found" his magic ... but not when
facing the priest. Does it not seem odd that your "default priest"
has all of his spells available but your "default wizard" does not?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>Admittedly I lack the imagination required to be able to ignore the fact that
>you haven't supported your arguments at all. Painfully obvious is that you
>are in danger of burning yourself on the crack pipe.
What a fascinating assertion. You must have a memory like a seive,
to have Completely Forgotten the entire paragraphs of my post where
I detailed the numerous spells and tactics that would reliably
prove the Ranger's undoing. Or perhaps this is just another symptom
of your idiocy? I hereby christen you cheese-head due to your
swiss-cheese like mental permeability.
:> chance of obliterating the ranger *outright* with that spell
>Pay attention to common sense. First is the matter of initiatives and
>speed factors. The casting time for Polymorph Other is (and I'm guessing
>again, but have played enough wizards to know the general progression)
>is 4. How sure are you that the wizard is going to get to go first?
At range? The spell is almost half the speed of the bow (SF 7 or 8),
and a lucky-early bowshot still has to hit, and if it does, the wizard
with no other defenses raised simply loses a few hit points and can
try again next round because at 10th level he can load up several
such spells. This is a *huge* offensive capability, swiss boy.
My point was that the danger presented by each of the wizard's attacks
is fully mortal to the ranger- and the 10th wizard has _lots_ of it,
whereas the ranger's offenses are not quite as deadly. He cannot
instantly kill the wizard.
Though the wizard is better off raising some defenses and killing
the ranger "lazily", he even has fair odds of victory just
"slugging it out" with Polymorphs - which is among the weakest
tactics he has available.
>Second is the matter of protections. Against any 10th level fighter
>without protections, the wizard has a 50% chance of success.
*PER ROUND*.
>I've played under DMs who worked hard to keep characters from acquiring
>magic items, by 10th level, every campaign I've been in has featured
>characters with magic items--some of which modified saving throws.
So? We're comparing the raw power of the two classes. If you open
the door to what is effectively changing the nature of
the engagement by giving the ranger extra protection, then you
are just creating a meaningless special case, which teaches
us nothing, save an illustration of the obvious fact that a
character with a magical item immunity to someone's attacks
will probably do better against him. Duh.
We are establishing that in the absense of magical enhancements,
the raw power of a wizard is enough to blast a ranger to bits.
Now get with the program.
:> and against which they have abysmal saving throws. Hold Person is
:> just 3rd level for a wizard (IIRC) and it's more effective than
:> Fireballing. Failed save (at -4, no less) and the Ranger is done.
>Barring a Ring of Free Action.
See above. Playing the "what if he has the counter to that spell"
game is pointless. So stop it, nimrod.
> I admit the possibilities are endless for
>how the various opponents are equipped, but that is no reason to assume
>a naked ranger because applying the standard the other way would result in
>a mage who has never gained a spell from 1st level onward.
This reasoning has already established as bunk.
[snip of wizard tactics - that part that cheesie forgot about]
>The wizard has to not only survive the 2 rounds, he has to be able to
>cast in those rounds, and I don't see any particular reason to assume
>automatically that he does.
I do, but that's because I'm obviously a better analyst than you.
The casting times for his low-level defenses are far faster than
missile fire. Under C&T initiative the wizard will always get them
up first, under 2ndED standard on *average* he will as well.
We are talking "in general", after all.
> It is not the cakewalk you present by any stretch of a reasonable
> imagination--short of ridiculously artificial situations.
Bah. It's a cakewalk. A few initiative hiccups may allow the ranger
to get a sting in, but the wizard's defenses are too powerful
for the lone, unmagicked ranger to overwhelm.
-Michael
Autolycus
Thanks, guys, for all the debate. But I still think that the game
balancing job is not that of the rulebook, but of the DM.
Think of these two cases:
1) PC Ranger vs NPC Mage
The ranger has discovered that the evils besetting his forest (or
whatever) originate from the Dark Sorcerer (cliche!) in the High Tower -
or a High Sorcerer in a Dark Tower. He knows that exposed during daytime
in the vast killing ground around the tower, he has no chance at all of
survival. However, he has learnt to sneak around undetectably at night.
And before the confrontation, he spends months searching for an arrow of
mage nullification (being LG, he won't kill the sorcerer outright unless
he has to)...
2) PC Mage vs NPC Ranger
The mage has discovered that the sudden encroachment of forest on city
originates from a ranger who has cut a deal with a druidic circle and some
elves and treefolk (Ents, treants, whatever). He has to deal with it
somehow, being the city's only sorcerous defender of any quality...
I'd say that the mage has the most options straight off, given the
ranger's environment and the mage's environment. However, successful
options are a different thing. You can probably count on your DM to let
your ranger accumulate so many bonuses to his archery skill that the Arrow
of Mage Nullification (since it's not Slaying, it might have a +5 TH adj
all on its own) would hit on anything except a 1. Then again, there are
many mage spells with no or might-as-well-be-no saving throw.
It all depends on style of play and good DMing. To set up artificial
arenas and run endless mage vs ranger contests is just plain silly and bad
role-playing ;-)
Regards
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * Knowledge is Power *
C "騖,::@::: * Power Corrupts *
C |:::::; * Therefore: Knowledge Corrupts *
`( \ _`::; * So: Censorship. *
~`\`\::; * Ignorance is Bliss. *
`~~' **********************************************************
Autolycus
(Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> The proper actors for comparison are: one ranger, using the standard
> nonmagical tools of his trade, and one wizard, similarly equipped.
Oh no! That won't do! The ranger will annihilate the mage if within
bowshot. I mean, one would expect the ranger to have all those juicy bow
proficiencies which make him a dead cert to get off at least one shot
successfully a round and have initiative on the mage too, right? Assuming
you mean that a bow and arrows are standard non-magical tools of the
trade...
*grin*
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "騖,::@::: * To be is to do. - Socrates *
C |:::::; * To do is to be. - Sartre *
`( \ _`::; * Do be do be do. - Sinatra *
~`\`\::; * *
`~~' **********************************************************
Donald Bachman
: >Your French needs work. The wizard's allotment of spell slots has increased.
: >But in order to have spells to fill them, the must find and learn them. This
: >is equivalent to the ranger finding and becoming proficient, where necessary,
: >with magic items.
:
: Bah.
:
: You have conveniently forgotten that the wizard can research and
: even create his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*.
: His full access to spells is *not* some kind of "extra perk" the
: way that magic items are - it is _fundamental_ to the abilities of
: a 10th level wizard. Your suggestion that a wizard's magic is
: some kind of "bonus" ability which warrants distribution of
: magical items to the opponent is just pure idiotic bunk.
And your analysis is sophmoric at best. Allow me to quote:
Research time requires the character to be in good health
and refrain from adventuring while undertaking the study.
During research, wizards pore over old manuscripts and
priests work at their devotions.
DMG, p44
Guess that puts an end to your notion that a wizard may, ". . .create
his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*." Looks as
if something else is required--something else that like new spells
is provided by the GM just like magical items.
:
: I suggest that you are unwilling to admit that you bet on the
: wrong horse and are desperately trying to find some means to
: justify magically arming the ranger so that you can claim to have
: been right after all.
I suggest your dodging toward spell research is far more indicative
of grasping at straws than anything I have attempted in this exchange.
Shall I mention the number of other people in this thread who have
also found the notion that the mage wins out of hand to be ridiculous?
:
: The proper actors for comparison are: one ranger, using the standard
: nonmagical tools of his trade, and one wizard, similarly equipped.
:
: As a further point - note how nonsensical your position is when
: you try to compare the ranger's power to the *Priest* who gains
: his magic a bit more automatically than the wizard. Your "logic"
: suggests that the ranger should get a heap of magic items to make
: up for the wizard's having "found" his magic ... but not when
: facing the priest. Does it not seem odd that your "default priest"
: has all of his spells available but your "default wizard" does not?
This merely shows you have missed the point completely. I would assume
the mage to have the tools of his trade, just as I would assume some
magical items in the possession of a 10th level Ranger. You were the
one who was stripping the ranger of anything remotely magical. I pointed
out that like consideration stripped the mage of his spells.
Donald
Donald Bachman
: >you haven't supported your arguments at all. Painfully obvious is that you
: >are in danger of burning yourself on the crack pipe.
:
: What a fascinating assertion. You must have a memory like a seive,
: to have Completely Forgotten the entire paragraphs of my post where
: I detailed the numerous spells and tactics that would reliably
: prove the Ranger's undoing. Or perhaps this is just another symptom
: of your idiocy? I hereby christen you cheese-head due to your
: swiss-cheese like mental permeability.
Hmmm. . .are you taking the title Dementia Man for being totally
disconnected from reality? Your paragraphs explain nothing. All they
do is claim that certain results are automatically achieved. You
do hope to graduate someday? I suggest you learn how to write an
explanation.
:
: :> chance of obliterating the ranger *outright* with that spell
:
: >Pay attention to common sense. First is the matter of initiatives and
: >speed factors. The casting time for Polymorph Other is (and I'm guessing
: >again, but have played enough wizards to know the general progression)
: >is 4. How sure are you that the wizard is going to get to go first?
:
: At range? The spell is almost half the speed of the bow (SF 7 or 8),
: and a lucky-early bowshot still has to hit, and if it does, the wizard
: with no other defenses raised simply loses a few hit points and can
: try again next round because at 10th level he can load up several
: such spells. This is a *huge* offensive capability, swiss boy.
: My point was that the danger presented by each of the wizard's attacks
: is fully mortal to the ranger- and the 10th wizard has _lots_ of it,
: whereas the ranger's offenses are not quite as deadly. He cannot
: instantly kill the wizard.
And again, what weapon the Ranger uses and how likely he is to win or lose
depends on range. At the shortest of missle ranges, speeds for missles
can be as low as 2, and can be tried more than once per round. With the
ranger's THAC0 at level 10, he'd have to be awfully unlucky to miss
twice against a stationary target who can't wear armor (AC 10) and
doesn't gain the benefit of Dex bonuses while casting. He'd have to be
awfully unlucky to miss once.
The wizard's 'capability' to deliver offense is not all that huge if
he never gets to cast. No, no specific attack by the ranger is likely
to be fatal, until the last. . .their effects are cummulative and
disrupt the ability of the mage to deliver his offense.
I do hope that dose of reality was tasty, Dementia Man.
:
: Though the wizard is better off raising some defenses and killing
: the ranger "lazily", he even has fair odds of victory just
: "slugging it out" with Polymorphs - which is among the weakest
: tactics he has available.
So weak, it shouldn't be attempted. Care to advance a better tactic?
:
: >Second is the matter of protections. Against any 10th level fighter
: >without protections, the wizard has a 50% chance of success.
:
: *PER ROUND*.
Allow me to correct your dementia impaired construct:
*PER ROUND HIS SPELLCASTING ISN'T DISRUPTED*
:
: >I've played under DMs who worked hard to keep characters from acquiring
: >magic items, by 10th level, every campaign I've been in has featured
: >characters with magic items--some of which modified saving throws.
:
: So? We're comparing the raw power of the two classes. If you open
: the door to what is effectively changing the nature of
: the engagement by giving the ranger extra protection, then you
: are just creating a meaningless special case, which teaches
: us nothing, save an illustration of the obvious fact that a
: character with a magical item immunity to someone's attacks
: will probably do better against him. Duh.
Going to absurd ends are we? The point was that the mage's choice of
tactics isn't as immeadiately obvious as you seem to feel. Further,
the ranger's saves may actually be better than rock standard, so that
any result is truly a best case scenario for the mage.
:
: We are establishing that in the absense of magical enhancements,
: the raw power of a wizard is enough to blast a ranger to bits.
: Now get with the program.
:
: :> and against which they have abysmal saving throws. Hold Person is
: :> just 3rd level for a wizard (IIRC) and it's more effective than
: :> Fireballing. Failed save (at -4, no less) and the Ranger is done.
:
: >Barring a Ring of Free Action.
:
: See above. Playing the "what if he has the counter to that spell"
: game is pointless. So stop it, nimrod.
As soon as you stop assuming the mage wins initiative and the ranger
automatically loses saving throws, gimpoid. Btw, why do you get to
assume the wizard has any given named spell? Well, I'm generous. I'll
grant that one. I don't want to here what whining might result otherwise.
:
: > I admit the possibilities are endless for
: >how the various opponents are equipped, but that is no reason to assume
: >a naked ranger because applying the standard the other way would result in
: >a mage who has never gained a spell from 1st level onward.
:
: This reasoning has already established as bunk.
Or at least, not to penetrate the crack induced delusion you are living in.
:
: [snip of wizard tactics - that part that cheesie forgot about]
: >The wizard has to not only survive the 2 rounds, he has to be able to
: >cast in those rounds, and I don't see any particular reason to assume
: >automatically that he does.
:
: I do, but that's because I'm obviously a better analyst than you.
: The casting times for his low-level defenses are far faster than
: missile fire. Under C&T initiative the wizard will always get them
: up first, under 2ndED standard on *average* he will as well.
: We are talking "in general", after all.
You're a better crackhead, I grant. Does the mage cast a defensive spell
versus missles? Suppose the ranger advances on him instead. . .wasted
spell and round (and then he has a sword swinging machine in his face).
Does he cast a spell to lower his armor class? Well, Armor (1st level)
does take a round to cast. . .not a good choice of defensive spells
to attempt. Shield? Well at least this has a casting time of 1, so
he is at his best odds to get it off. As said above, if he chose
wrongly, he is in a shitty position. If he picked correctly, then his
AC is 2, and in future rounds the ranger is attacking with a 55% chance
to hit per shot. Invisibility is a far better choice. . .it is hard to
attack what you can't see (see, I'm going all out for you side of
things). With a casting time of 2, it has nearly the best of chances
of being cast successfully (against the best missle initiative--which
assumes mightily short range--it ties, so the wizard is only looking
at a 50-50 chance of being punked). Of course, the ranger, knowing
the general location of the wizard until his moves now attacks
with a -4 penalty--which against AC10 means he only hits 75% of the time.
One supposes that as the wizard is likely to cry out and bleed, his
general location will remain known to the ranger. Hmmm. . .perhaps
Invisibility wasn't so good an idea after all. Protection from
Normal Missles? As vulnerable as Shield to guessing wrong, but far
more effective in its final effect if he guess right.
Oh, the above is what is called 'analysis' and while incomplete, is
far more substantial than anything you've offered. You, a better
analyst than me? Hardly.
:
: > It is not the cakewalk you present by any stretch of a reasonable
: > imagination--short of ridiculously artificial situations.
:
: Bah. It's a cakewalk. A few initiative hiccups may allow the ranger
: to get a sting in, but the wizard's defenses are too powerful
: for the lone, unmagicked ranger to overwhelm.
Don't confuse the power of the wizard's defenses with the power of you
dementia.
Donald
Timothy W. Johnson
Gebhard Blucher wrote in message <35F6A811...@usa.net>...
Most of the posts in this thread, like the one above, seem to completely
miss the point.
It's not a matter of whether a wizard can defeat another character of the
same level. It's a lame and tangential point at best.
The point is how a wizard fares in the real world AS COMPARED to other
character classes at the same level.
The xD&D games were designed with a "party" mentality; i.e. a group of
people with different abilities all working together for a common goal. The
fact is, with all things considered, the wizard class cannot pull his own
weight at low levels. That would be enough of a reason for some kind of
adjustment, but there's more.
Until a wizard is capable of creating magic items, potions, and scrolls of
wizard spells, there is NO ability that is exclusive to him. Just compare
the abilities of a mage with 2500 XP and a bard with the same number. Then
explain to me why "dabblers rather than full-time wizards" (referring to
bards, PHB2r, p. 58) have the same number of spells and a higher caster
level when compared to wizards at the same XP total.
Even when he is capable of creating the aforementioned items, he pales by
comparison to a priest, who can create items more greatly sought (potion of
healing, for example), and all items with less time, energy, and expense.
Let's not lose perspective with these ridiculous character vs. character
trivialities.
Tim J.
Timothy W. Johnson
Thomas K. Javoroski wrote in message ...
<snip of tirade on wizards being fine the way they are>
>Once more for the cheap seats: I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH
>WIZARDS IN AD&D.
>
>Tom J
That's great, Tom. More power to you. If you're happy, and the others in
your gaming group are happy, then leave it be. You're certainly entitled to
your opinion, and have made your point.
Now, if you don't mind, you might want to run along and find something else
to do while the rest of us continue this discussion.
Tim J.
Michael Scott Brown
>Ranger draws back bow, waits until mage has *begun* casting, fires off two
>arrows, hitting (most likely) the mage, disrupting his spell, and, even
>only using flight arrows, does 7 points of damage.
No. This is not how AD&D initiative works (or even C&T).
All actions begin at the start of the round. Thus:
Ranger draws back bow while wizard starts intoning spell ....
and the initiative roll will determine whether the ranger finds
his aimpoint and releases before the spell is completed.
-MIchael
Michael Scott Brown
>Oh no! That won't do! The ranger will annihilate the mage if within
>bowshot. I mean, one would expect the ranger to have all those juicy bow
>proficiencies which make him a dead cert to get off at least one shot
>successfully a round and have initiative on the mage too, right?
Just how do you propose the ranger is to gain an inherent
initiative advantage?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
: You have conveniently forgotten that the wizard can research and
: even create his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*.
>And your analysis is sophmoric at best. Allow me to quote:
">Research time requires the character to be in good health
">and refrain from adventuring while undertaking the study.
">During research, wizards pore over old manuscripts and
">priests work at their devotions.
>Guess that puts an end to your notion that a wizard may, ". . .create
>his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*." Looks as
>if something else is required--something else that like new spells
>is provided by the GM just like magical items.
<goggle> That is not what this passage implies, and your
interpretation as such lends much credence to my new theory
that you cannot reliably comprehend the written word, which
is a more sophisticated replacement for my swiss-cheese memory
assumption.
"Poring over old manuscripts" does not in any way imply that the
wizard has to have sample *spells* explicitly provided by the GM.
Spell research does not require the GM to make any specific material
available to the wizard; the appropriate research materials are
simply purchased by the wizard as part of the research expense and
the whole affair is quietly backgrounded. The process of spell
research is functionally equivalent to a warrior who buys the
raw materials and then creates his own weapons and armor.
Further, note that when the wizard creates a *new* spell he
_CANNOT_ have a pre-existing sample fromt he GM, now can he?
>I suggest your dodging toward spell research is far more indicative
>of grasping at straws than anything I have attempted in this exchange.
>Shall I mention the number of other people in this thread who have
>also found the notion that the mage wins out of hand to be ridiculous?
Please do.
: As a further point - note how nonsensical your position is when
: you try to compare the ranger's power to the *Priest* who gains
: his magic a bit more automatically than the wizard. Your "logic"
: suggests that the ranger should get a heap of magic items to make
: up for the wizard's having "found" his magic ... but not when
: facing the priest. Does it not seem odd that your "default priest"
: has all of his spells available but your "default wizard" does not?
>This merely shows you have missed the point completely. I would assume
>the mage to have the tools of his trade, just as I would assume some
>magical items in the possession of a 10th level Ranger.
These are *not* the tools of the ranger's trade.
Where in the ranger's class description does it say
"it is the role of the ranger to use enchanted weapons"?
Further, do notice that you have not addressed the idiocy of
your own logic.
>You were the
>one who was stripping the ranger of anything remotely magical. I pointed
>out that like consideration stripped the mage of his spells.
And your "point" is *wrong*.
-Michael
iz...@my-dejanews.com
ab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
> >> Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
> >> sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
> >> 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
> >>
> >> As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
> >> that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
> >> has switched from one class to another.
> >>
> >
> >How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
> >
> >The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
> >mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
>
> assuming no +'s. An average of 8 damage to the mage.
> 2d6 bears, druids, lower level rangers, wolves, etc start moving
> toward the mage.
>
>
>
> Lets assume the ranger keeps shooting. Another 8(average) damage. 14hp
> for the mage.
> 2d6 brownies, falcons, wolves, thieves, etc tear 1d6 summoned
> creatures to shreds, and continue moving towards the mage.
Allright, Mage is getting tired of arrows flying at him, so he casts Minor
Globe of Invulnarability (so far for the summoned creatures).
> Or how about rangers buddies rip up the summoned creatures, and he
> shoots a couple more times at the mage. 8 damage the third time(6hp
> left), and 8 more the fourht time(-2hp). Also, 2d6 bears, rangers,
> wolves, etc finally get close enough to the mage to start hurting
> him(bear vs mage in melee, hmm, who wins?).
If the bears really get annoying (despite the Minor Globe, fly, improved
invisibility, web, (burning hands(!)) or charm monster works very well.
Not even to talk about charming the ranger.
Or even better, almost certain second round kill: phantasmal killer
>
> This is, of course, assuming that the mage is quite a distance away
> from the ranger. If its in close, his odds decrease.
Well, let's assume he makes sure that he is quite a distance away.
> >You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
> >
> >O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each
day,
> >while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
> >Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic AS
> >LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
iz...@my-dejanews.com
"Thomas K. Javoroski" <tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 iz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > How do you figure that a 10th level mage can fry a 10th level ranger?
> > > Oh, you give the mage several rounds in which to cast preparatory
> > > sppells? What about straight up with nothing prepared at a range of
> > > 10 yards? Or 100 yards?
> > >
> > > As to mages theoretically becoming more powerful at higher levels, all
> > > that has done, if you suscribe to such thesis, is that the imbalance
> > > has switched from one class to another.
> > >
> >
> > How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
> >
> > The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
> > Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
> > a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
> > mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
>
> arrows, hitting (most likely) the mage, disrupting his spell, and, even
> only using flight arrows, does 7 points of damage.
Why most likely hitting. He'll have a reasonable chance, but I assume a 10th
level mage has made himself some items, don't you?
> This continues until Mage is dead, Ranger runs out of arrows (but, if the
> mage has a full compliment of spells, the LEAST we can do is give the
> Ranger 30 arrows), or Mage wins enough initiatives to plink away at the
> Ranger's HPs. If the mage does not win initiative (and it is more likely
> that he *won't* win initiative, as the Ranger does not have casting times,
> and has to have a Dex from 13 to 18, which means he is more likely to have
> init bonuses than the mage), the ranger will continue to fill him full of
> holes, AND disrupt his spells, until the mage is not a problem anymore.
Sorry, but if you're gonna calculate casting time, you'll have to calculate
the speed of your SLOW longbow as well or his a little less slow short bow.
O, and you can save vs spell to prevent your spell from being disrupted. Just
in case you failed to notice. (10th level mage BASE spell save is 11,
modifiers from items not calculated)
--
Michael Scott Brown
>And again, what weapon the Ranger uses and how likely he is to win or lose
>depends on range.
What weapon the Ranger uses, yes - his future success? No.
At every range, the wizard has stronger counters available.
> At the shortest of missle ranges, speeds for missles
>can be as low as 2, and can be tried more than once per round. With the
>ranger's THAC0 at level 10, he'd have to be awfully unlucky to miss
>twice against a stationary target who can't wear armor (AC 10) and
>doesn't gain the benefit of Dex bonuses while casting. He'd have to be
>awfully unlucky to miss once.
The damage is minimal to irrelevant. The wizard has defense spells
of similar speed which he can invoke to neutralize such attacks
(for instance: Levitate, Mirror, or just plain *moving*) and
fast 'attack' spells which will critically hamper such efforts
(such as web, or low-level fog cloud spells).
If he loses init one round - or even two in a row - while being
peppered with silly daggers/darts, he'll still be very much alive
and as soon as he gets the spell off that attack mode is *over*
and the Ranger is reduced to slower attack modes ... allowing the
Wizard to raise a more puissant defense with ease.
>The wizard's 'capability' to deliver offense is not all that huge if
>he never gets to cast.
But he *does* get to cast - because his spells are as fast or
faster than all of the ranger's attacks.
>As soon as you stop assuming the mage wins initiative and the ranger
>automatically loses saving throws, gimpoid.
(1) I have never assumed that the ranger automatically fails his
saves.
(2) On the average, the wizard *does* win initiative.
He has the faster weapons.
>Btw, why do you get to
>assume the wizard has any given named spell? Well, I'm generous. I'll
>grant that one. I don't want to here what whining might result otherwise.
Pay attention. Every tactical expounding I have made involved
*lists* of spells which were only a small sampling of the
options available. It _is_ safe to assume that the wizard will
have certain _kinds_ of magic (missile defense, melee defense,
offense) - of which there are many variations - just as it is
safe to assume that the ranger will probably have missile and
melee weapons at his disposal.
>You're a better crackhead, I grant. Does the mage cast a defensive spell
>versus missles? Suppose the ranger advances on him instead. . .wasted
>spell and round (and then he has a sword swinging machine in his face).
Then the wizard is an idiot.
If the ranger is close enough to engage in melee via closing
then the wizard should use a multipurpose defense - a barrier or
a movement enhancer - to eliminate the issue of closeness.
The barrier is actually pretty foolproof in general, but it
can be inefficient at long range when it is feasible to raise
missile and then melee defenses in sequence.
>Does he cast a spell to lower his armor class?
No. No way. The ranger makes too many attacks per round with
too much accuracy for that to do much good (though it will
lower the chances of spell disruption).
[invisibility]
>knowing the general location of the wizard until his moves now attacks
>with a -4 penalty
The wizard need only take a step (and can) to foil his enemy's
former aim. You won't hit an invisible wizard with point missiles
from any distance over a few yards save by sheerest luck.
The potential to attack at -4 penalty is only reasonable for melee
attacks. But that's how I run it; if this logic is too much for
you then we can retract invisibility from the list of first-defenses
and relegate its use to situations where the wizard is already
hidden, say with Mirror or behind a barrier or concealment.
-Michael
Pinochet
Staffan Johansson wrote in message <35F6CB24...@efd.lth.se>...
>1. Drizzt has the Two-weapon style from the Complete Fighter's Handbook,
>which allows using equally sized weapons in both hands. There is a
>slightly weaker version in Combat & Tactics, that requires you to spend
>two slots to get that benefit.
Fails on the fact that the books *predate* 2nd edition, so the above, is
as a matter of course, impossible.
>2. R. A. Salvatore didn't care one whit about the rules of the game when
>he wrote the books.
>
>Seeing as the first Drizzt book predates the Complete Fighter's Handbook
>(I think it does, at least - now that the complete product list is gone
>from the TSR website, I can't tell), my guess is on option 2.
While I agree, option 2 is the most likely explanation, in spirit, at least,
I think it's a bit of an exaggeration in the form presented. He cared
enough
to give Wulfgar a barbarian horde afterall.....but he was also willing to
bend the
rules in at least a few areas....and of course, the Lloth and Tempos's typos
which haunt us all to this day deserve note. }:+)
Gebhard Blucher
> Most of the posts in this thread, like the one above, seem to completely
> miss the point.
Mmm? I was responding to what I felt was an incorrect statement. I
wasn't trying to make a "point."
> It's not a matter of whether a wizard can defeat another character of the
> same level. It's a lame and tangential point at best.
Agreed.
> The point is how a wizard fares in the real world AS COMPARED to other
> character classes at the same level.
That sounds suspiciously similar to what you just described as "lame and
tangential."
> The xD&D games were designed with a "party" mentality; i.e. a group of
> people with different abilities all working together for a common goal. The
> fact is, with all things considered, the wizard class cannot pull his own
> weight at low levels. That would be enough of a reason for some kind of
> adjustment, but there's more.
Just what does "pull is own weight" mean here? I can't possibly see
what you mean by that.
Combat: A 1st level M-User can cast the Sleep spell and take out 2d4 HD
of creatures. Let's say they are orcs. How many Orcs do you think a
Fighter will be able to take out? The M-User seems to stack up pretty
well here. Remember that a Fighter will have to rest 5 days or so just
to heal any damage taken during the fight.
Role-Playing: A player with a M-User can role-play his character in
just the same manner as any other player can with his character. No
difference here. 1st edition Cantrip rules (or something similar) give
even a 1st level M-User lots of "cool" stuff to do in character.
Problem Solving: A Player with an M-User character can contribute here
just as well as any other player. No problem. In fact, more avenues of
information are open to an M-User character via NWPS and spells such as
Charm, than there would be to most of the other classes.
Am I missing any other vital aspects of a role-playing game?
> Until a wizard is capable of creating magic items, potions, and scrolls of
> wizard spells, there is NO ability that is exclusive to him. Just compare
> the abilities of a mage with 2500 XP and a bard with the same number. Then
> explain to me why "dabblers rather than full-time wizards" (referring to
> bards, PHB2r, p. 58) have the same number of spells and a higher caster
> level when compared to wizards at the same XP total.
That's why I got rid of the 2nd edition Bard class all together.
> Even when he is capable of creating the aforementioned items, he pales by
> comparison to a priest, who can create items more greatly sought (potion of
> healing, for example), and all items with less time, energy, and expense.
Says you. That not some sort of Fact, just opinion. Just how is a
Potion of Healing more desirable than say a Potion of Strength, Growth,
Polymorph, etc? Also, how do you figure that a Cleric can make magic
items with less time, energy, and expense? Seems to be the same to me.
> Let's not lose perspective with these ridiculous character vs. character
> trivialities.
Heh. I didn't bring it up. What's funny is that you say the above in
the same breath as you go on a tirade about how, "The point is how a
wizard fares in the real world AS COMPARED to other character classes at
the same level."
How does "Character vs. Character" differ from "Character COMPARED TO
Character?" Either way, you're trying to list the abilities of one
class to see how the stack up to another.
GB
iz...@my-dejanews.com
dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman) wrote:
> iz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
> :
> : The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
> A 10th level Ranger has an average of 55 hps before constitution bonuses
> are factored in. With a 15 Con, he'll average 65 hps.
VERY WRONG. Rangers get only 9 levels of hit dice and 9 levels of Con bonus,
so that would be 9 * 5,5 = 49,5, 9 for CON makes 58,5 and then another 2 for
the 10th level makes 60,5 (sorry, I should have written 61)
>
> : Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
>
> A 10th level mage averages 25hps without con bonuses.
No he would average 23,5 (see above), but mages tend to have high hit points
in comparison to their maximum. Why? I really shouldn't know.
>
> : a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
> : mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
>
> Why wouldn't the Entangle work if the mage is standing in an entanglible
> area? Given that taking damage while casting disrupts spells, why didn't
> the ranger pull out a range weapon (surely with all the weapon proficiencies
> the ranger has by 10th level he has learned to handle one range weapon)
> and cover the mage as he approached?
Because it won't be very useful to have a mage standing at a place where you
can't reach him (inside the entangled area), still able to cast verbal
component only spells.
>
> : you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away. Round 3: Ranger
> : resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
> : rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
> : throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
> :
> : You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
>
> Indeed, the ranger must be really stupid to do the things your are suggesting.
He certainly would, but he has no choice. Missile attacks bounce on minor
globe of invulnarability or protection from normal missiles.
> :
> : O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each
day,
> : while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
> : Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic
AS
> : LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
>
> If you define "big combat" to mean using all your spells, then sure.
> I don't think that is a good definition. Further, I suspect that a
> mage will handily defeat non-magic using, non-magic resistant creatures
> that stay at range AND DON'T HAVE A MEANS OF MAKING RANGE ATTACKS.
No I'm not meaning that. A big combat is a combat where there is a great
threat to the players (so random encounter orcs are not included)
> : By the way, I had a party and I have a 7/7 Mage/Fighter seen beating the
hell
> : out of a Level 8 Priest and a 7/9 Fighter/Rogue. And that was WITHOUT
> : teleport.
> Well, if you play as described above, I'm not surprised. However, let me
> suggest that most people don't play fighter types quite so weakly.
No I'm NOT. My post was just a cynical reply to someone who can't think of
mages beating rangers of the same level. The fight between the Mage/Fighter
and the other two ended very quickly. Round 1, Priest and Rogue/Fighter exit
cave. Fighter/Mage casts web. (R/F has ring Of Free Action, not affected,
Priest is stuck). R/F lites torch and burns web to rescue priest. F/M casts
mirror image. R/F charges and destroys of 5 images. Priest puzzles which one
is real,doesn't have dispel magic available, so casts aid. Some rounds
follow, some images disappear, F/M is damaged, F/M damages R/F a great lot,
priest casts bless, prayer, free action, protection from evil and charges.
M/F kills rogue with burning hands and easily beats Priest in HtH, ending
with one mirror image left and two players killed. About that (must admit,
they rolled REALLY lousy).
> Donald
>
>
Michael Scott Brown
>O, and you can save vs spell to prevent your spell from being disrupted. Just
>in case you failed to notice.
<scratches head> Um ... an *awful* lot of us seem to have failed
to notice, Perhaps you could provide a reference?
-Michael
Staffan Johansson
> dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman) wrote:
> > A 10th level mage averages 25hps without con bonuses.
>
> No he would average 23,5 (see above), but mages tend to have high hit points
> in comparison to their maximum. Why? I really shouldn't know.
Wizards get 10 HD, not 9. Thus, average 10th level wizard has
(10*2.5=)25 hp, plus 10*Conbonus.
> > Half the time the ranger saves, half the time he fails. You can compute
> > the average damage he takes, and it is 26hps.
>
> Actually it's not half the time, it's 9/20 of the time. The average damage
> would be 23,45 in that case.
10th level ranger has a save vs. spells of 11, meaning that he saves on
11-20 on 1d20. That's a 50% chance.
> DEX modifier, d10's etc). O, and the mage may roll a spell save to prevent
> his spell from being interrupted.
Where did this come from? According to my DMG: "If the spellcasting is
disturbed during this [casting] time, the spell is lost." Nothing about
being given a save to still get the spell off... that must be a house
rule, and one that gives wizards a HUGE bonus, given their insanely good
save against spells.
> He certainly would, but he has no choice. Missile attacks bounce on minor
> globe of invulnarability or protection from normal missiles.
PFNM, yes. Globe of Invulnerability, no. The Globe only protects from
spells. Any mage who finds himself in battle with a warrior and wastes
time casting one of these deserves what he's getting.
Not taking any sides here, just pointing out the facts.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
(Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms)
Staffan Johansson
> "Thomas K. Javoroski" <tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > Ranger draws back bow, waits until mage has *begun* casting, fires off two
> > arrows, hitting (most likely) the mage, disrupting his spell, and, even
> > only using flight arrows, does 7 points of damage.
No. Round starts. mage starts casting, ranger starts aiming his bow.
Both roll d10, and add their respective modifiers (7 or 8 for the bow,
usually spell level for the spell). If the mage casts Protection from
Normal Missiles (CT 3), which is reasonable given the situation, he has
an 79 % chance of getting the spell of versus a composite short bow, 85%
versus a composite long bow or a short bow, and 90% versus a long bow.
There is a 6%, 5% and a 4% chance, repsectively, that the ranger and
mage will have simultaneous initiative, which I have included in the
mage's favor since that means that he'll get his spell off, but will be
damaged by the arrow (but not by the second arrow the ranger fires,
since that comes at the end of the round).
> Why most likely hitting. He'll have a reasonable chance, but I assume a 10th
> level mage has made himself some items, don't you?
In all fairness, the discussion so far has assumed that neither party
was equipped with magical items. Also, at 9th level the mage is only
able to create potions and scrolls. Charged items become possible at
11th level, and permanents not until 16th level (Permanency).
> > Ranger's HPs. If the mage does not win initiative (and it is more likely
> > that he *won't* win initiative, as the Ranger does not have casting times,
> > and has to have a Dex from 13 to 18, which means he is more likely to have
> > init bonuses than the mage), the ranger will continue to fill him full of
> > holes, AND disrupt his spells, until the mage is not a problem anymore.
While the ranger may not have casting times, he has weapon speeds that
has the same effect, and are usually higher (7 or 8 for a short or long
bow, 6 or 7 for a composite, versus casting times of 1-5 for the mage).
Also, Dex does not affect initiative in AD&D as written.
> O, and you can save vs spell to prevent your spell from being disrupted. Just
> in case you failed to notice. (10th level mage BASE spell save is 11,
> modifiers from items not calculated)
No, you can't. See my other post to your message.
Staffan Johansson
> I suggest your dodging toward spell research is far more indicative
> of grasping at straws than anything I have attempted in this exchange.
> Shall I mention the number of other people in this thread who have
> also found the notion that the mage wins out of hand to be ridiculous?
For the record, my "educated guess" is that the mage will win, although
the ranger does have a small chance. Oh, and a small note: We've been
comparing 10th level vs. 10th level so far. As it happens, a 10th level
ranger has 300,000-599,999 XP, which would place a wizard at 11th or
even 12th level. Not that it matters all that much (since 11th level,
which I'd use in this comparison doesn't get any new spell levels).
Donald Bachman
: Donald Bachman <dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net> might have said:
: >And again, what weapon the Ranger uses and how likely he is to win or lose
: >depends on range. At the shortest of missle ranges, speeds for missles
: >can be as low as 2, and can be tried more than once per round. With the
: Sounds like a house-rule to me. Weapon speeds are NOT modified by
: distance, according to the "official" rules.
No, but short range weapons tend to have lowers speed factors.
Look it up.
:
:
: >So weak, it shouldn't be attempted. Care to advance a better tactic?
:
: Five magic missile spells, all directed at the ranger. At 10th level,
: that's an average of 25 points of damage per round, at up to 160 yards,
: with *no chance of missing*. Also, if using weapon speeds, it's almost
: garunteed to go faster than a long bow (init range of 2-11, vs long bows
: 9-18), and almost as well against a shortbow (init range of 8-17).
A 10th level mage gets 5 missles per casting, each of which deals 1d4+1.
That averages 13.5 points of damage per round. While painful for a round
or two, if he resorts to this and nothing else, the wizard is dead meat.
Yes, you've found the greatest speed factors. Now look up all missle
speeds and you'll see that my above statement stands.
Donald
Donald Bachman
: In article <6t5q3b$btp$3...@ionews.ionet.net>,
: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman) wrote:
: > iz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
:
: > : How to fry a ranger first (and last) lesson:
: > :
: > : The Data: Ranger is level 10 and has Con 15, so he'll avarage 60 HP's.
: > A 10th level Ranger has an average of 55 hps before constitution bonuses
: > are factored in. With a 15 Con, he'll average 65 hps.
:
: VERY WRONG. Rangers get only 9 levels of hit dice and 9 levels of Con bonus,
: so that would be 9 * 5,5 = 49,5, 9 for CON makes 58,5 and then another 2 for
: the 10th level makes 60,5 (sorry, I should have written 61)
The difference between 60.5 and 65 is hardly worthy of the phrase 'VERY
WRONG'. I note, you made a mistake as well--they get 3hps at 10th level.
Should I say you are "LARGELY WRONG"? :P
:
: >
: > : Mage is level 10 and has Con 10, so he'll have 30 HP's. Let's say we start a
: >
: > A 10th level mage averages 25hps without con bonuses.
:
: No he would average 23,5 (see above), but mages tend to have high hit points
: in comparison to their maximum. Why? I really shouldn't know.
So you are saying on average they tend to have more than average?
Perhaps special house rules are in force?
:
: >
: > : a range of 50 yards. Round 1: Whoever wins Initiative, ranger rushes towards
: > : mage (or he can cast entangle, but that surely wouldn't work, so he runs).
: >
: > Why wouldn't the Entangle work if the mage is standing in an entanglible
: > area? Given that taking damage while casting disrupts spells, why didn't
: > the ranger pull out a range weapon (surely with all the weapon proficiencies
: > the ranger has by 10th level he has learned to handle one range weapon)
: > and cover the mage as he approached?
:
: Because it won't be very useful to have a mage standing at a place where you
: can't reach him (inside the entangled area), still able to cast verbal
: component only spells.
Please feel free to list verbal only spells that a 10th level mage
might cast.
:
: >
: > : Mage dumps fireball on ranger (averaging 10 * 3,5 = 35 points of damage).
: >
: > How did you get this average correct and not the others above?
:
: Because I liked to actually calculate it when I typed it.
:
: > : Ranger saves and loses 18 HP's. Round 2: Ranger continues running and is
: >
: > Half the time the ranger saves, half the time he fails. You can compute
: > the average damage he takes, and it is 26hps.
:
: Actually it's not half the time, it's 9/20 of the time. The average damage
: would be 23,45 in that case.
The ranger saves versus spell with an 11. That means an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 save. That is 10 results out of 20--half.
:
: >
: > : about to reach Mage, but since he spends the entire round with running, Mage
: > : may cast spell before he arrives. Mage has many options. He can either
: >
: > So not only did the ranger spend one round running, but is starting another?
: > What an idiot. There is no good reason he shouldn't have the mage covered
: > or be under cover.
: >
: > : teleport away, he can Web the ranger, he can cast Hold Person, Dump Cone of
: > : Cold, Fake him with an Illusion, Distract him with some summoned monsters,
: >
: > Ever hear of casting times? These spells aren't going to go off automatically.
:
: Yep, I have. Ever heard of weapon speed? Sorry, but all combat spells have
: casting time equal to their level (some exceptions, like Teleport (time 1)).
: The spells will certainly go off, since bows and swords are slow in
: comparison to spells. Only if you're rolling base initiative (only the d10,
: no modifiers for anything), the the ranger would have 45% chance to win (10%
: chance they have equal results, before you're getting on maths again).
: Otherwise the chance would be (Poisson calculation) 0,3468 (and YES this
: answer is correct with anything you can average: casting time, weapon speed,
: DEX modifier, d10's etc). O, and the mage may roll a spell save to prevent
: his spell from being interrupted.
The mage enjoys several options at low speeds. . .many of which aren't
going to incapacitate the ranger. (Hmmm, need to consider Web.) As
detailed elsewhere in this thread, sitting back and tossing magic missle
with a speed of 1 is going to result in a dead wizard. And even though
the wizard does cast at a speed of 1 in this case, he can still lose
initiative by rolling a high base--bringing us back around to what I said,
which was that the matter wasn't an obvious kill for the mage.
:
:
: > : you name it. Let's assume he teleports a 100 yards away. Round 3: Ranger
: > : resumes interception and runs. Mage casts Monster Summoning II. following 5
: > : rounds, ranger runs and fights off summoned monsters, while mage keeps
: > : throwing Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Flame Arrows, Magic Missiles etc.
: > :
: > : You must be REALLY stupid if you lose such combat.
: >
: > Indeed, the ranger must be really stupid to do the things your are suggesting.
:
: He certainly would, but he has no choice. Missile attacks bounce on minor
: globe of invulnarability or protection from normal missiles.
Minor Globe has an effect on physical missles?
:
: > :
: > : O, and YES, the high level mage is powerful, but only one big combat each
: day,
: > : while fighters and rangers can chop beasties all day and night.
: > : Any fully-charged magician can defeat almost anything that can't use magic
: AS
: > : LONG AS IT STAYS OUT OF RANGE.
: >
: > If you define "big combat" to mean using all your spells, then sure.
: > I don't think that is a good definition. Further, I suspect that a
: > mage will handily defeat non-magic using, non-magic resistant creatures
: > that stay at range AND DON'T HAVE A MEANS OF MAKING RANGE ATTACKS.
:
: No I'm not meaning that. A big combat is a combat where there is a great
: threat to the players (so random encounter orcs are not included)
How this translates to using all of his spells is beyond me. Fighting
in an anti-magic zone is a great threat, and the mage won't use a
single spell.
:
: > : By the way, I had a party and I have a 7/7 Mage/Fighter seen beating the
: hell
: > : out of a Level 8 Priest and a 7/9 Fighter/Rogue. And that was WITHOUT
: > : teleport.
:
: > Well, if you play as described above, I'm not surprised. However, let me
: > suggest that most people don't play fighter types quite so weakly.
:
: No I'm NOT. My post was just a cynical reply to someone who can't think of
: mages beating rangers of the same level. The fight between the Mage/Fighter
: and the other two ended very quickly. Round 1, Priest and Rogue/Fighter exit
: cave. Fighter/Mage casts web. (R/F has ring Of Free Action, not affected,
: Priest is stuck). R/F lites torch and burns web to rescue priest. F/M casts
: mirror image. R/F charges and destroys of 5 images. Priest puzzles which one
: is real,doesn't have dispel magic available, so casts aid. Some rounds
: follow, some images disappear, F/M is damaged, F/M damages R/F a great lot,
: priest casts bless, prayer, free action, protection from evil and charges.
: M/F kills rogue with burning hands and easily beats Priest in HtH, ending
: with one mirror image left and two players killed. About that (must admit,
: they rolled REALLY lousy).
Allow me to suggest that you not try to display your cynicism so readily.
Nowhere have I said that mages can't beat rangers of the same level,
and that you have read what I said this way means you are simply looking
for a flamefest. I said, in response to someone else saying that a mage
simply cleans up on a ranger, that the matter wasn't a clearly lopsided
as presented. Shall I start my own cynical reply to someone who can't
think of rangers beating mages of the same level?
Donald
Donald Bachman
:
: :
: : that's an average of 25 points of damage per round, at up to 160 yards,
: : with *no chance of missing*. Also, if using weapon speeds, it's almost
: : garunteed to go faster than a long bow (init range of 2-11, vs long bows
: : 9-18), and almost as well against a shortbow (init range of 8-17).
:
: A 10th level mage gets 5 missles per casting, each of which deals 1d4+1.
: That averages 13.5 points of damage per round. While painful for a round
Sometimes I have to wonder if it is just a crack dream that I was once
a math major. Geesh. . .glad something nagged me in the shower this
morning about this post. Lets put that at 17.5 points of damage per round.
Still, leaves the ranger standing on average until the 3rd round.
Donald
Staffan Johansson
> Please feel free to list verbal only spells that a 10th level mage
> might cast.
Blindness, Dimension Door, Polymorph Self, Leomund's Lamentable
Belaborment, Teleport. There are some others, but they are generally
useless (like Extension). Both DD and Teleport would get him out of the
entanglement, and possibly out of the fight altogether, with casting
times of 1 and 2, respectively.
dbac...@ionet.net
> >And again, what weapon the Ranger uses and how likely he is to win or lose
> >depends on range.
>
> At every range, the wizard has stronger counters available.
At a range of 60' or less the ranger can simply half move and
grapple the wizard. Being grappled is a real damper on spellcasting.
What is the speed factor of a punch, or grabbing someone?
>
> > At the shortest of missle ranges, speeds for missles
> >can be as low as 2, and can be tried more than once per round. With the
> >ranger's THAC0 at level 10, he'd have to be awfully unlucky to miss
> >twice against a stationary target who can't wear armor (AC 10) and
> >doesn't gain the benefit of Dex bonuses while casting. He'd have to be
> >awfully unlucky to miss once.
>
> The damage is minimal to irrelevant. The wizard has defense spells
> of similar speed which he can invoke to neutralize such attacks
> (for instance: Levitate, Mirror, or just plain *moving*) and
> fast 'attack' spells which will critically hamper such efforts
> (such as web, or low-level fog cloud spells).
I should think that Fly is a better choice than Levitate--which merely
makes the wizard a bobbing target. Web, which we both seem to have hit
upon (I posted it as a good choice by the wizard in a response to another
person) really does strike me as being one of the best choices the
wizard can make for first spells, followed by Mirror Images because
that still allows for the ranger to get lucky on his choice of targets
to attack.
> If he loses init one round - or even two in a row - while being
> peppered with silly daggers/darts, he'll still be very much alive
> and as soon as he gets the spell off that attack mode is *over*
> and the Ranger is reduced to slower attack modes ... allowing the
> Wizard to raise a more puissant defense with ease.
If he loses init for too many rounds, the ranger will have advanced on
him and offer more damaging, less easily evaded, and more solidly
crippling attacks that don't allow for spellcasting. While I will
not count the wizard out, it seems likely that the more rounds he
loses initiative the worse his position becomes until it it completely
untenable.
>
> >The wizard's 'capability' to deliver offense is not all that huge if
> >he never gets to cast.
>
> But he *does* get to cast - because his spells are as fast or
> faster than all of the ranger's attacks.
Yes, his attacks are as fast or faster than all weapon attacks the ranger
can launch, and possibly hand attacks. This does not mean he gets to attack,
though it strengthens the liklihood of his being able to do so. The thing
needs doing is calculating the odds--which is what I requested some number
of replies back in this exchange.
>
> >As soon as you stop assuming the mage wins initiative and the ranger
> >automatically loses saving throws, gimpoid.
>
> (1) I have never assumed that the ranger automatically fails his
> saves.
Forgive me, I apparently misread your statement on the effects of the
wizard's casting. Could you please restate?
>
> (2) On the average, the wizard *does* win initiative.
> He has the faster weapons.
Granted. However that does not support the contention that the wizard handily
wins every confrontation. If we work out that the wizard wins such combats
2 times in 3, he wins on average. . .but that is a far cry from the
wizard automatically wins such things.
>
> >Btw, why do you get to
> >assume the wizard has any given named spell? Well, I'm generous. I'll
> >grant that one. I don't want to here what whining might result otherwise.
>
> Pay attention. Every tactical expounding I have made involved
> *lists* of spells which were only a small sampling of the
> options available. It _is_ safe to assume that the wizard will
> have certain _kinds_ of magic (missile defense, melee defense,
> offense) - of which there are many variations - just as it is
> safe to assume that the ranger will probably have missile and
> melee weapons at his disposal.
True, it is fair to assume that the wizard will have certain types of
spells. My only objection is to when that choice is being crafted along
the way of the argument to specifically counter the ranger's sequence of
actions (though that may be fair if they are meeting in some sort of
arranged competition) as it strikes me as becoming excessively
artificial--though I am not accusing you of that. To illustrate, if
I deal a person a hand of 5 cards from a standard playing deck, there
is good chance that I will have dealt him a Heart. As there are only
4 suits, there is even a fairly reasonable chance that I dealt him
2 hearts. But the odds that I've dealt him a Flush aren't all that
great. This is why I asked for more analysis than, 'The mage fries
the ranger'.
>
> >You're a better crackhead, I grant. Does the mage cast a defensive spell
> >versus missles? Suppose the ranger advances on him instead. . .wasted
> >spell and round (and then he has a sword swinging machine in his face).
>
> Then the wizard is an idiot.
> If the ranger is close enough to engage in melee via closing
> then the wizard should use a multipurpose defense - a barrier or
> a movement enhancer - to eliminate the issue of closeness.
> The barrier is actually pretty foolproof in general, but it
> can be inefficient at long range when it is feasible to raise
> missile and then melee defenses in sequence.
So what you are saying is that at ranges of 120' or less, the wizard should
cast something along the lines of Fly or Wall of <fill in the blank>?
Seems sound enough to me. However, in talking about 'winning' in the
exchange, both sides have to kill/capture the other, and if the mage is
successful in putting up certain obvious defenses, the ranger should
retreat. At 120', assuming the mage gets initiative and casts a Wall of
Ice his initial spell--which he might cast in a dome so as to afford him
protection from missle and delay any type of hand weapon assault until
he has tossed several other spells up--fly, stoneskin, etc.--a sensible
ranger should retreat. True, he doesn't win by doing so, but he also
doesn't allow the mage to 'easily fry' him.
>
> >Does he cast a spell to lower his armor class?
>
> No. No way. The ranger makes too many attacks per round with
> too much accuracy for that to do much good (though it will
> lower the chances of spell disruption).
Agreed.
>
> [invisibility]
> >knowing the general location of the wizard until his moves now attacks
> >with a -4 penalty
>
> The wizard need only take a step (and can) to foil his enemy's
> former aim. You won't hit an invisible wizard with point missiles
> from any distance over a few yards save by sheerest luck.
> The potential to attack at -4 penalty is only reasonable for melee
> attacks. But that's how I run it; if this logic is too much for
> you then we can retract invisibility from the list of first-defenses
> and relegate its use to situations where the wizard is already
> hidden, say with Mirror or behind a barrier or concealment.
Spellcasting means you are stationary until the end of the round. Moreover,
while I hate it, the DMG does state that attacks may be made against an
invisible target if you know generally where they are. Now, give me a stone,
show me a target, then blindfold me. Yes, I am (likely) going to miss the
target more often than if I hadn't been blindfolded, but that is why a
-4 is levied against such attacks. The ranger can see the wizard at the
point he disappears, and knows the wizard isn't going to be moving
until next round. By rule and common sense from what the rules have to
say about casting and movement, we end up with the ranger being able
to make such an attack--at least that first round.
Btw, I did notice your general avoidance of insults.
Donald
dbac...@ionet.net
mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> From: dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net (Donald Bachman)
> : even create his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*.
>
> >And your analysis is sophmoric at best. Allow me to quote:
>
> ">Research time requires the character to be in good health
> ">and refrain from adventuring while undertaking the study.
> ">During research, wizards pore over old manuscripts and
> ">priests work at their devotions.
>
> >Guess that puts an end to your notion that a wizard may, ". . .create
> >his own new spells using *nothing but his own skills*." Looks as
> >if something else is required--something else that like new spells
> >is provided by the GM just like magical items.
>
> <goggle> That is not what this passage implies, and your
> interpretation as such lends much credence to my new theory
> that you cannot reliably comprehend the written word, which
> is a more sophisticated replacement for my swiss-cheese memory
> assumption.
And you had done so well in your other post. Prozac? Well, you turned
the other cheek first, so I'll continue this without responding in kind
to insults (forgiving the rather obvious one that starts this off).
>
> "Poring over old manuscripts" does not in any way imply that the
> wizard has to have sample *spells* explicitly provided by the GM.
> Spell research does not require the GM to make any specific material
> available to the wizard; the appropriate research materials are
> simply purchased by the wizard as part of the research expense and
> the whole affair is quietly backgrounded. The process of spell
> research is functionally equivalent to a warrior who buys the
> raw materials and then creates his own weapons and armor.
Appropriate materials have to be purchasable--which makes them again,
something provided by the GM.
>
> Further, note that when the wizard creates a *new* spell he
> _CANNOT_ have a pre-existing sample fromt he GM, now can he?
I never said he did. Nowhere did I say he had to have a pre-existing
formula--that was something you assumed, I assume. What I did was
provide a direct quote from the DMG.
>
> >I suggest your dodging toward spell research is far more indicative
> >of grasping at straws than anything I have attempted in this exchange.
> >Shall I mention the number of other people in this thread who have
> >also found the notion that the mage wins out of hand to be ridiculous?
>
> Please do.
Thomas K. Javoroski has written posts questioning this, as have others.
Of course, that others see things as you do does not mean your view is
correct. But what it does support my initial statement, that things working
out as you say isn't obvious.
>
> : As a further point - note how nonsensical your position is when
> : you try to compare the ranger's power to the *Priest* who gains
> : his magic a bit more automatically than the wizard. Your "logic"
> : suggests that the ranger should get a heap of magic items to make
> : up for the wizard's having "found" his magic ... but not when
> : facing the priest. Does it not seem odd that your "default priest"
> : has all of his spells available but your "default wizard" does not?
>
> >This merely shows you have missed the point completely. I would assume
> >the mage to have the tools of his trade, just as I would assume some
> >magical items in the possession of a 10th level Ranger.
>
> These are *not* the tools of the ranger's trade.
> Where in the ranger's class description does it say
> "it is the role of the ranger to use enchanted weapons"?
Fair enough. Now, are you saying that you don't consider it likely that
the 10th level Ranger will have some magical items? Yes, as there are
a staggering number of items he could have acquired which may or may not
have impact on combat, it is probably best to not consider them--except
in stating that whatever results we gain in the wizard's favor are
better (slightly) than they might otherwise be. Yes, the wizard can
have items too. . .but the vast majority of them don't seem to add to
his ability to fry the ranger beyond the base ability he possesses for
what spells he can cast already.
Larry Mead
: Tony R Leon wrote:
: > I agree with this statement completely. A first level mage cannot
: > stand against a first lever fighter, but an eighteenth lever fighter
: > cannot match an eighteenth lever mage in sheer raw power, IMHO.
: [snip]
: A sleep spell can ruin a 1st level Fighter's day. Seems like I remember
: someone wrote a program that worked out this very problem. IIRC, the
: 1st level M-User with a sleep spell stacks up pretty darn well against a
: first level fighter...
: GB
Yes indeedy they do. Observe:
The following are the results of a computer battle between an
average first level fighter and average first level mage. The characters
are:
Fighter L=1, STR 17 (+1/+1), HP=6, AC=3, Thaco=20 (unadjusted),
Needed to hit mage: 9 ,Damage per attack (longsword) d8 +1 (strength).
Saving throw vs. spell = 17.
Mage L=1, HP=3, AC=10, Thaco=20, Damage per attack (weapon, staff) d6
Needed to hit fighter: 17.
Scenario A) Mage has magic missile memorized
B) Mage has charm person memorized
C) Mage has sleep memorized
10,000 combats were run using *standard* Adnd1
and then Adnd2 initiative and combat rules with *no* optional rules in
either version. The results for the various scenarios listed above follow,
as well as cumulative results for each Adnd version. Note that in some
cases there was a "tie"; simultaneous initiative and both hit and both
killed the other. We score this as a loss for both sides. Also note that
the fighter was assumed to be within melee range to start so did not have
to close.
I. ADND1 Results
Scenario A (magic missle):
F wins 8336 combats, M wins 1310 combats, No winner 354 combats
Scenario B (charm person):
F wins 4194 combats, M wins 5746 combats, no winner 60 combats
Scenario C (sleep):
F wins 217 combats, M wins 9779 combats, no winner 4 combat
OVERALL RESULT: Fighter wins 12,747 combats (43 %)
Mage wins 16,835 combats (57 %)
II. ADND2 Results
Scenario A (magic missle):
F wins 8430 combats, M wins 1345 combats, no winner 225 combats
Scenario B (charm person):
F wins 4276 combats, M wins 5276 combats, no winner 448 combats
Scenario C (sleep):
F wins 68 combats, M wins 9682 combats, no winner 250 combats
OVERALL RESULT: Fighter wins 12,774 combats (44 %)
Mage wins 16,303 combats (56 %)
If one assumes that the mage will have at least one of the three spells
considered here, it seems that a one-on-one combat - at least with a
random spell memorized - favors the 1st level mage over the 1st level
fighter in either version by a few percent. Thus, barring other
circumstances such as surprise ( the possibilities are legion here ),
the mage holds a slight statistical edge in just game mechanics of the
battle. Make of this what you will.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Larry Mead
: >I agree with this statement completely. A first level mage cannot
: >stand against a first lever fighter,
: Bah.
: -Michael
Bah indeed! See my post in this thread where Michaels intuition is
verified by direct calculation.
Larry Mead
: No, I actually agree with Tony. If you're playing a mage character,
: you're basically gambling that you can reach 4th-5th level (when things
: really start to get interesting for mages) before you die. 'Til then,
: you're an interesting tagalong with a few helpful spells, a staff, and a
: dagger. Most low-level wizards I've seen spend more time swinging a
: staff than spellcasting.
: Just my $.02 -
Then most of the mages you see don't use their heads.
Mine always have one or more of the following: a)flower/dust to blow/throw
in enemies face, b)sling and bullets, c) guard dog (2 dice) to attack
charging enemy, d) hawk to attack meleeing enemy, e)flasks of oil to
spread in front to trip enemy, ... .
DMgorgon
Larry Mead
: In article <6t75p7$j64$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU
: (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
: > The proper actors for comparison are: one ranger, using the standard
: > nonmagical tools of his trade, and one wizard, similarly equipped.
: Oh no! That won't do! The ranger will annihilate the mage if within
: bowshot. I mean, one would expect the ranger to have all those juicy bow
: proficiencies which make him a dead cert to get off at least one shot
: successfully a round and have initiative on the mage too, right? Assuming
: you mean that a bow and arrows are standard non-magical tools of the
: trade...
: *grin*
: Autolycus
If you give the ranger added abilities you must give them to the mage
as well. Let my ply my trade too and have cast prot normal missles.
Now what does your ranger do? Too much depends on character knowledge
and preparation in this scenario to make any definite choice of who would
win. Having run a mage for years and years, I would bet, in any reasonable
campaign setting, on the mage heavily though.
DMGorgon
Larry Mead
: >O, and you can save vs spell to prevent your spell from being disrupted. Just
: >in case you failed to notice.
: <scratches head> Um ... an *awful* lot of us seem to have failed
: to notice, Perhaps you could provide a reference?
: -Michael
I have to second that request; wherever did you get the idea you could
save vs having a spell spoiled??
DMgorgon
Larry Mead
: Donald Bachman wrote:
: > I suggest your dodging toward spell research is far more indicative
: > of grasping at straws than anything I have attempted in this exchange.
: > Shall I mention the number of other people in this thread who have
: > also found the notion that the mage wins out of hand to be ridiculous?
: For the record, my "educated guess" is that the mage will win, although
: the ranger does have a small chance. Oh, and a small note: We've been
: comparing 10th level vs. 10th level so far. As it happens, a 10th level
: ranger has 300,000-599,999 XP, which would place a wizard at 11th or
: even 12th level. Not that it matters all that much (since 11th level,
: which I'd use in this comparison doesn't get any new spell levels).
Indeed I too must side with Stehpan here; my mage will cast a teleport or
dim door and get some time away from the ranger to make preparations.
The ranger is meat at an initial ranger of 150 yards away.
dbac...@ionet.net
Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote:
> Donald Bachman wrote:
> > Please feel free to list verbal only spells that a 10th level mage
> > might cast.
>
> Belaborment, Teleport. There are some others, but they are generally
> useless (like Extension). Both DD and Teleport would get him out of the
> entanglement, and possibly out of the fight altogether, with casting
> times of 1 and 2, respectively.
Hmmm, hadn't considered Polymorph Self. . .another very good choice of
spells to cast.
As to the wizard's fleeing (DD and Teleport), the point wasn't that the
wizard couldn't escape, but that it wasn't obvious that he'd fry the
ranger.
Donald
Thomas K. Javoroski
>
> Thomas K. Javoroski wrote in message ...
>
> <snip of tirade on wizards being fine the way they are>
>
> >Once more for the cheap seats: I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH
> >WIZARDS IN AD&D.
> >
> >Tom J
>
>
> That's great, Tom. More power to you. If you're happy, and the others in
> your gaming group are happy, then leave it be. You're certainly entitled to
> your opinion, and have made your point.
>
> Now, if you don't mind, you might want to run along and find something else
> to do while the rest of us continue this discussion.
>
> Tim J.
Listen, Bozo, I KNOW I'm entitled to my opinion. Apparently the last
poster did not. Continue the discussion at your leisure. And I will
continue to follow it, as some good ideas are coming out of it (as I siad
in my post, part of the "tirade" you snipped).
What I will continue to object to is people telling me what I think.
The idea that people are saying that there is no problem becuase they're
in denial is idiotic, and one hell of a lame way to argue your point.
I'm not objecting to the discussion, Captain Observant, I'm objecting to
the poster's immature handling of the other side of the issue.
Tom J
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress is made by the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw
Thomas K. Javoroski
> From: "Thomas K. Javoroski" <tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
> >Ranger draws back bow, waits until mage has *begun* casting, fires off two
> >arrows, hitting (most likely) the mage, disrupting his spell, and, even
> >only using flight arrows, does 7 points of damage.
>
> No. This is not how AD&D initiative works (or even C&T).
> All actions begin at the start of the round. Thus:
>
> Ranger draws back bow while wizard starts intoning spell ....
> and the initiative roll will determine whether the ranger finds
> his aimpoint and releases before the spell is completed.
You're right, of course. I forgot to include weapon speed. I never use
the stuff, although I do know people who do. Weapon speed included,
things become more of a race, with perhaps the mage having the edge.
Without weapon speed, however, the ranger is likely to win initiative.
towo...@concentric.net
>No, but short range weapons tend to have lowers speed factors.
>Look it up.
Since we were discussing bows, that's what I was using. Other weapons do
have shorter ranges, and shorter WS times, but they weren't specified.
>A 10th level mage gets 5 missles per casting, each of which deals 1d4+1.
>That averages 13.5 points of damage per round. While painful for a round
You're right. SOmehow, I goofed on that one. 8P
Point still stands, tho. Drop a Fireball, Magic missile, etc. Stick with
Bows, and you're gonna get fried. A warrior's best bet is to get into
melee with a mage.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Kusanagi
given situation, given a few implicit assumptions you're working from here -
namely, that everything has eyes to blind, or feet to trip. (This *is* a
fantasy game, y'know.) My point is not that mages cannot survive, it's that
they are comparatively disadvantaged at lower levels and must play a game of
survival to a greater extent than other characters in order to reach the
stratum of experience where their characters make a substantive contribution
to combat in each and every round.
BTW, any or all of the suggestions below can be used by any other character
class as well - which serves only to illustrate my point. Add this Batmanesque
utility belt of miscellaneous animals and dime-store tricks to any character
and you increase their survivability rate, but they're not unique to mages,
and as such, the absolute difference in survival remains the same.
My objective is not to start a flame war here, but to rationally discuss ways
to level the curve for mages, whom I believe are a difficult class to play at
lower levels and an overpowered class beyond L8-10.
-k
Jeff Stehman
> You're right, of course. I forgot to include weapon speed. I never use
> the stuff, although I do know people who do. Weapon speed included,
> things become more of a race, with perhaps the mage having the edge.
> Without weapon speed, however, the ranger is likely to win initiative.
Standard initiative give a 50/50 chance either way, as neither weapon
speed nor spell casting speed is involved. Get selective over optional
rules and you could easily bend it one way or another.
Note, however, that if she has bow specialization, it is possible for
the ranger to be guaranteed the first shot every round except the
first. She need only hold her last shot every round.
And add my name to list of people who has a problem with, "The mage can
cast <foobie blech>." Your campaign is vastly different from any I've
played in if your mage can pick and choose the spells he learns from any
spells in the book. Change it to, "If the mage has <foobie blech>..."
and that complaint goes away, but then you're down to talking about
individual characters, and not classes (which is as it should be).
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
Larry Mead
: All basically good & fine ways to stay alive for another round or two in a
: given situation, given a few implicit assumptions you're working from here -
: namely, that everything has eyes to blind, or feet to trip. (This *is* a
: fantasy game, y'know.) My point is not that mages cannot survive, it's that
: they are comparatively disadvantaged at lower levels and must play a game of
: survival to a greater extent than other characters in order to reach the
: stratum of experience where their characters make a substantive contribution
: to combat in each and every round.
IMO it is a good thing that low-level mages cannot easily survive - if
they were *easy* then the Dnd worlds would be populated by nothing but
mages (even weak ones) whether NPC or PC. IMC mages are very rare and
few, save those clever PCs that make it, exist.
: BTW, any or all of the suggestions below can be used by any other character
: class as well - which serves only to illustrate my point. Add this Batmanesque
: utility belt of miscellaneous animals and dime-store tricks to any character
: and you increase their survivability rate, but they're not unique to mages,
: and as such, the absolute difference in survival remains the same.
You missed the point. Each class uses his given skills and hit *wits* to
survive at low levels. Fighters have high hit points and the ability to
use armor. Mages have only their spells; when gone, they must use their
*other* ability scores: their innate high intelligence. The IQ 7 fighter
gorilla - played in character - will not think of anything save swinging
that big weapon and grunting. The mage, before he gains the ability to
use more spells, must use his noggin for something besides a hat rack!
: My objective is not to start a flame war here, but to rationally discuss ways
: to level the curve for mages, whom I believe are a difficult class to play at
: lower levels and an overpowered class beyond L8-10.
Since these are rules (level progression etc) for a fantasy game, then
why again must there be an even progression for mages??? I have played and
DMed mages for more than two decades now, and they have worked well the
way they are.
Thomas K. Javoroski
> All basically good & fine ways to stay alive for another round or two in a
> given situation, given a few implicit assumptions you're working from here -
> namely, that everything has eyes to blind, or feet to trip. (This *is* a
> fantasy game, y'know.) My point is not that mages cannot survive, it's that
> they are comparatively disadvantaged at lower levels and must play a game of
> survival to a greater extent than other characters in order to reach the
> stratum of experience where their characters make a substantive contribution
> to combat in each and every round.
>
> BTW, any or all of the suggestions below can be used by any other character
> class as well - which serves only to illustrate my point. Add this Batmanesque
> utility belt of miscellaneous animals and dime-store tricks to any character
> and you increase their survivability rate, but they're not unique to mages,
> and as such, the absolute difference in survival remains the same.
>
> My objective is not to start a flame war here, but to rationally discuss ways
> to level the curve for mages, whom I believe are a difficult class to play at
> lower levels and an overpowered class beyond L8-10.
>
> -k
>
Well, it will probably be hard for me to help, as my heart isn't in it
(as I disagree with you about the balance issue), but I'll try to look at
it as "how to overpower mages at lower levels" and "how to underpower
mages at higher levels" from my point of view ;)
Lesse...perhaps the ideas of more *free* powers at lower levels.
Automatic read magic, automatic (limited) detect magic, i.e. they can
detect something IS magic, but not WHAT it is...maybe unlimited cantrip
ability? Don't make cantrip a first level spell, make it somehting every
mage can do, and use a list like in Unearthed Arcana. That's really all I
can think of besides ridiculous things that you aren't looking for, like
increased fighting ability, or using abilities of other classes, or
something.
As for how to make them less powerful at higher levels, the obvious is to
restructure the spells allowed, giving them maybe less of the higher
levels, more of the low to mid range levels? Make higher level spells
harder and longer to cast? Enforce the material component rules, only for
higher level spells? Simply remove some spells from your campaign...I
know people who have removed stoneskin, wish, timestop, etc, from their
campaign world, because they don't want to deal with them. You could do
the same. Or, finally, maybe increase the EXPs needed for mages at higher
levels.
I hope those help. TO me, they all seems (with the exception of the read
magic/detect magic ability) to be going too far either way, so they may
work for you :)
Thomas K. Javoroski
> Thomas K. Javoroski (tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
>
> > You're right, of course. I forgot to include weapon speed. I never use
> > the stuff, although I do know people who do. Weapon speed included,
> > things become more of a race, with perhaps the mage having the edge.
> > Without weapon speed, however, the ranger is likely to win initiative.
>
> Standard initiative give a 50/50 chance either way, as neither weapon
> speed nor spell casting speed is involved. Get selective over optional
> rules and you could easily bend it one way or another.
>
> Note, however, that if she has bow specialization, it is possible for
> the ranger to be guaranteed the first shot every round except the
> first. She need only hold her last shot every round.
>
> And add my name to list of people who has a problem with, "The mage can
> cast <foobie blech>." Your campaign is vastly different from any I've
> played in if your mage can pick and choose the spells he learns from any
> spells in the book. Change it to, "If the mage has <foobie blech>..."
> and that complaint goes away, but then you're down to talking about
> individual characters, and not classes (which is as it should be).
Wasn't Foobie Blech from Dragon #43? Fifth level, right? I think the
somatic component was wiggling your four fingers, while touching your
thumb to your nose ;)
Tom J
PS: As your first comment was in agreement with mine, needless to say I am
in agreement with it, as I am with your other points.
Unknown
>
>
>We opted for a simple way of dealing with this problem: spell slots.
>Works the same way as the standard system, except you don't have to
>memorize your spells for the day, just study/meditate/whatever to
>regain spent slots. Thus a 4th level mage can cast 3 1sts and 2 2nds.
>Which spells of those levels she actually casts is up to her at the
>time of each casting. Simple, tidy, and significantly increases the
>flexibility of mages. (As a side effect, we've found that utility
>spells get cast *much* more often than under the standard system,
>which is the opposite of what Gygax thought would happen under this
>system.)
>
>
I think your right, any spell point system I work out leds to some weird
effects, generallyworking very well at low level and going haywire as it goes
up. One problem is stopping M-Us from casting a zillion low level spells(and
therefore cheap spell point wise). This can turn a M-U into a Magic Missile
machinegun. For a spell point system to work it really helps if it has been
designed that way from the start. (Runequest springs to mind here).
Do you allow M-U to use a higher 'spell-slot' to cast a lower level spell?
Chris Lloyd
Michael Scott Brown
>the stuff, although I do know people who do. Weapon speed included,
>things become more of a race, with perhaps the mage having the edge.
>Without weapon speed, however, the ranger is likely to win initiative.
No - without weapon speeds/casting times, the odds are even.
Or are you suggesting you use CTs to modify initiative but
not speedfactors? That would be bizarre and unfair.
-Michael
Jeff Stehman
> Do you allow M-U to use a higher 'spell-slot' to cast a lower level spell?
Nope. I used to have a problem rationalizing the slot system, but last
year Doug Shea posted an mathematics analogy that kind'a worked for me.
At the least, it got me thinking about it. Then I remembered a rework
of psionics in White Dwarf eons ago. Best psionic combat system I've
seen, but the relevant part is this: they gave each psionicist 7 types
of attacks and 7 types of defence, each with a different level of power.
If you burned out one defence or one attack, regardless of its power,
you still had the other six to fall back on. Given the system details,
it made perfect sense.
After that, rationalizing the slot system was easy. The different spell
levels represent different types of magical ability. A mage can burn
all his ability for beta magic without touching his alpha or gamma magic,
if you will. A little R&R and a little mediation, and his ability for
beta magic will be fully recharged. (Having a rationalizatiom for the
system was important, as I needed a way for my character to wrap his
brain around how the basic mechanics worked.)
Michael Scott Brown
:> "Poring over old manuscripts" does not in any way imply that the
:> wizard has to have sample *spells* explicitly provided by the GM.
:> Spell research does not require the GM to make any specific material
:> available to the wizard; the appropriate research materials are
:> simply purchased by the wizard as part of the research expense and
:> the whole affair is quietly backgrounded. The process of spell
:> research is functionally equivalent to a warrior who buys the
:> raw materials and then creates his own weapons and armor.
>Appropriate materials have to be purchasable--which makes them again,
>something provided by the GM.
But if that's the viewpoint you want to take, then so is the Ranger's
sword and armor - thus, your own reasoning demands that the
Ranger in our example be unarmed and unarmored, because those
are things provided by the GM. Are you seeing the flaws in
your reasoning at *all*, yet?
:> Further, note that when the wizard creates a *new* spell he
:> _CANNOT_ have a pre-existing sample fromt he GM, now can he?
>I never said he did. Nowhere did I say he had to have a pre-existing
>formula--that was something you assumed, I assume. What I did was
>provide a direct quote from the DMG.
And then you misinterpreted it's implications.
:> Where in the ranger's class description does it say
:> "it is the role of the ranger to use enchanted weapons"?
>Fair enough. Now, are you saying that you don't consider it likely that
>the 10th level Ranger will have some magical items?
That depends completely on the campaign. Though I *do* think
it is likely, it is just as (if not more) likely that the
Wizard will have them as well. The potential combinations
don't tell us anything about the natural power of the *class itself*.
>have impact on combat, it is probably best to not consider them--except
>in stating that whatever results we gain in the wizard's favor are
>better (slightly) than they might otherwise be. Yes, the wizard can
>have items too. . .but the vast majority of them don't seem to add to
>his ability to fry the ranger beyond the base ability he possesses for
>what spells he can cast already.
Any wand, staff or rod with offensive potential eliminates
the wizard's one vulnerability- which is spell disruption.
Wizards will also commonly have defensive magic items which
will reduce the ranger's missile offense. Magic is just as
good for the wizard as the ranger, if not *better*. After all,
the warrior may have enchanted arms and armor, but that doesn't
change the fundamental nature of his offenses or defenses
(the wizard isn't shooting at him and a few more points of
damage per hit isn't going to revolutionize the battle).
The warrior might have a miscellaneous magical defense or two
but few items are so puissant as to allow the warrior to
bypass the wizard's defenses or offenses.
-Michael