In what difficulty 'mode' do you play Death Test?

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by tomc

I never had a party with a wizard survive.

DT does point out the weaknesses in starting wizards, which is a good thing for new players to learn. I'm sure it was one of the reasons my group started coming up with house rules to help wizards survive all the way back in 1978. With 35 point wizards and higher it's not so noticeable, or when it's wizards fighting wizards, but when it's 32-34 point wizards in melee with even starting fighters, there's a notable imbalance to the rules.

[Shostak]

A while back there was a short thread devoted to wizards in Death Test and Deat Test 2.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Skarg

2. I don't think Master talents are supposed to STACK their abilities, so -2 to be hit, not -3, from Master Fencer.

Sorry Skarg, but Master Fencer is much better than generic Weapon Mastery. Go and read ITL 42 and compare that to ITL 43.

That's really my number one reason to outlaw the main-gauche staff. Dagger Mastery is insane enough on its own.

[larsdangly]

I agree that DT1 really should always be played straight-up gangster style: Melee rules and gear, four 24 point characters (ST+DX) and no talents or wizards. If you succeed, you will feel like you did something.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

DT does point out the weaknesses in starting wizards, which is a good thing for new players to learn. I'm sure it was one of the reasons my group started coming up with house rules to help wizards survive all the way back in 1978. With 35 point wizards and higher it's not so noticeable, or when it's wizards fighting wizards, but when it's 32-34 point wizards in melee with even starting fighters, there's a notable imbalance to the rules.

When it's wizards in melee with fighters, I'd rather hope the fighters would have advantages over wizards. Where else are fighters going to have an advantage?

Wizards' and fighters' capabilities are very different in nature, and that has natural effects. Wizards are much more powerful than fighters in many ways. Their difficulties are what make that an interesting situation instead of a "wizards are just better" situation.

And, quite a few experienced players are of the opinion that wizards are mostly just better than fighters, anyway.

Unless, of course, you use them in ways that don't work. Modifying the ways they don't work, to make those also work, seems like an odd way to go.

That is, unless people want wizards to just be all-around better than fighters, and/or more powerful, etc, just because they want that, which is fine.

[larsdangly]

Wizards can do well against fighters in a simple duel, with a high chance of victory if you know exactly what the fighter's approach will be (archer, tank, etc.) and a puncher's chance otherwise.

The problem you encounter in DT is that a fighter has the chance of winning a fight without ST losses whereas a wizard almost always has to expend ST to win but have no chance to really rest up. So, their role in a test like this is to assure victory in one or two specific situations but otherwise to contribute little. This might help the group overall or might hurt.

[Shostak]

The wizard fatigue problem begs for Death Test 3: Wizards' Woe.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Skarg

When it's wizards in melee with fighters, I'd rather hope the fighters would have advantages over wizards. Where else are fighters going to have an advantage?

That is something of a generalization, and reminds me why I never really liked calling non-wizards "fighters" (but still do so to facilitate discussion). Not to offend with a digression into semantics, but I really think wizards (in the context of melee turns) are fighters using a different menu of "weapons" than non-wizards use, and while that happens to be ideal for them under some circumstances, it can be a disaster under different circumstances. And that's just how it should be. I prefer to think circumstances (and Attribute Point totals) dictate advantages, and not the character class itself. To me, that's a really well balanced system.

So while I would expect two "fighters" to regularly defeat one wizard, I'd like to expect two wizards to defeat one fighter just as often under otherwise identical circumstances. Not more often, not less often.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Wizards are much more powerful than fighters in many ways.

And fighters are much more powerful than wizards in many ways as well. Examples being the fighters lose no ST for picking Charge Attack no matter how often they use the option, but a wizard loses at least 1 ST for Cast Spell, hit or miss. At the same time as choosing those respective options, the fighter gets to move up to 1/2 MA while the wizard can only move 1 hex.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Unless, of course, you use [wizards] in ways that don't work. Modifying the ways [wizards] don't work, to make those also work, seems like an odd way to go.

That is, unless people want wizards to just be all-around better than fighters, and/or more powerful, etc, just because they want that, which is fine.

Moderation is critical here, at least for those who value the mechanics and overall balance of the game as is, which I indeed do.

To avoid the chance of making wizards all-around more powerful than non-wizards, any tweaks need to be very, very small. And that of course is a choice. Small, and I believe targeted to starting wizards, which is where I think there's imbalance evident.

I suspect a party of all 40 point wizards would march through DT as readily as a party of all 40 point fighters. 40 point wizards don't need more advantages than they already have. But I can't imagine a party of all 32 point wizards could ever make it out alive. I'm not saying that's wrong, DT is a particular set of circumstances that calls for that outcome.

But starting, 32 point wizards also have a higher mortality rate than 32 point fighters outside of DT and under a pretty wide range of (combat) circumstances. Modifying that, but only that, wouldn't seem too odd I hope.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

That is something of a generalization, and reminds me why I never really liked calling non-wizards "fighters" (but still do so to facilitate discussion). Not to offend with a digression into semantics, but I really think wizards (in the context of melee turns) are fighters using a different menu of "weapons" than non-wizards use, and while that happens to be ideal for them under some circumstances, it can be a disaster under different circumstances. And that's just how it should be. I prefer to think circumstances (and Attribute Point totals) dictate advantages, and not the character class itself. To me, that's a really well balanced system.

So while I would expect two "fighters" to regularly defeat one wizard, I'd like to expect two wizards to defeat one fighter just as often under otherwise identical circumstances. Not more often, not less often.

Yes. I wrote "fighter" because I meant a non-wizard specializing in melee weapons at close range with a wizard who doesn't specialize in melee weapons, though even then, if the wizard has higher adjDX and an applicable spell or two, they may beat the fighter at one-hex range.

That is, I was just trying to say that if even in a one-on-one fight at one-hex range, a melee fighter tends to lose to a wizard of equal experience, then perhaps the balance goal of having beginning fighters versus beginning wizards in an arena fight, has not been met. So therefore maybe people might want to think twice before house-ruling to get that effect, unless they're sure that's what they want.

I think mostly TFT succeeds at being a game where most beginner characters stand a chance against others in the arena, and where if one has an advantage over some others, it's not against all others, and the reasons why are interesting and make sense.

Again, that's why reacting to one logical reason something struggles to work, and changing it to make it work well, can tend to upset the balance.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

...
But I can't imagine a party of all 32 point wizards could ever make it out alive. I'm not saying that's wrong, DT is a particular set of circumstances that calls for that outcome.

I agree that I don't think it'd necessarily be wrong if four wizards would have a harder time doing a test whose nature would make it harder for wizards. I think that's a natural good type of feature of an interesting game system where circumstances matter.

Interestingness and logic and tradeoffs are all more important to me than notions of balance.

At the risk of being irrelevant, I'd add though that in the case of DT 1, if the wizards know what to expect and use smart rationing of their ST, and are allowed to rest 1/room, I think four 32 point wizards could beat Death Test 1. They'd need a bit of luck and careful choice of spells and when to use them, though.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

But starting, 32 point wizards also have a higher mortality rate than 32 point fighters outside of DT and under a pretty wide range of (combat) circumstances. Modifying that, but only that, wouldn't seem too odd I hope.

I agree, depending on how you do it. I'd start with the common "you won't die of fatigue" house rule, or at least the "you'll recover 4 fatigue during the hour before you really die" interpretation of Legacy. I'd also assume it's intentional that wizards are supposed to try to avoid getting attacked as a priority, not balance to try to keep melee wizards alive.

[hcobb]

I see a path to clear out Death Test with four starting ITL wizards, but it's cheesy, even for me.