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

[larsdangly]

I'm going to tuck into a Death Test solo game tonight and was contemplating the various ways you can go about this that result in quite different levels of difficulty. I would rank them:

Fighters only; no talents; no ITL equipment
Wizards allowed, still no talents or ITL equipment
Add talents and ITL gear; no wizards
Full access to all talents, wizards and gear

In all cases, I assume we can agree that it simply isn't cricket unless you play with 32 point characters and strive to make sound tactical choices for the foes.

[Jeff Lord]

I do prefer the 32 point characters. My favorite 'mode" would be to allow wizards, but no talents from ITL.

Also, I only play with a maximum of four characters. I remember someone posting about surviving with five beginning characters and, after doing a double take, I had to go back to DT to see if the test stipulates no more than four characters. It does; "One to four figures may enter" DT pg.4.

[tomc]

I used 32 point fighters only. I never had a party with a wizard survive.

And back in the day I got DT before I knew about ITL, so it wasn't an option.

[Senturian]

[QUOTE=tomc;2314236]I used 32 point fighters only. I never had a party with a wizard survive.

A wizard is nothing more than a fighter with some additional abilities.
Keep him in the back with a bow (made of wood, could be his staff).
And with an Int of 11, Illusion to create a 5th fighter.

[larsdangly]

Wizards get into trouble in Death Test because they run out of ST quickly, and they are crummy fighters who get bumped off fast if they are used as front line fighters. You already realize that making your staff be a bow is a blatant cheat on the rules in Melee/Wizard, so that doesn't really help if you are trying to play straight.

[RobW]

Ha my solo “mode”:
* Just fighters and fighting talents (eg no physicker)
* Randomly choose direction at junctions, but:
— Never go backwards
— Tweak so that I go through every room
* Attack everyone! Always!
* In the gargoyle room, I think I walk
* Since SJs apparent clarification, I only Defend with 0-1 hex movement

[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.

[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.

[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.