At what point does the M-U become overpowered?

[Brad]

Take an 8th-level fighter played by a good player vs. an 8th-level magic-user played by a "bad" player. No magic items or special abilities beyond native class and race mechanics. Typical spellbook for the magic-user. Start separated by 100 yards on an open field.

I don't think it's a guaranteed 10 wins in 10 fights for the fighter. Not even close.

Oh, a challenge...okay, if you're going to pose these types of questions, you need to be more clear. Good and bad are normative statements; we need to quantify what those terms mean, specifically, if we're to conduct such an experiment. Secondly, why would a fighter played by a superior player be dumb enough to challenge a wizard on an open plain? Your "good player" doesn't sound very intelligent. If I was playing the fighter and some wizard challenged me, I'd just have him killed by assassins or something. You're thinking too literally about this.

[Lord Kilgore]

If I was playing the fighter and some wizard challenged me, I'd just have him killed by assassins or something.

What assassins? You're crossing the great plains alone and some mad crazy magic-user attacks for no reason you can imagine. I can dream up hundreds of plausible reasons why. It's not a totally impossible situation that you can simply avoid by being a "good player."

If you'd prefer, the characters are only 30 feet apart in a 10' dungeon corridor and the fighter has six men-at-arms. The group has just lost a surprise check to the magic-user and he casts whatever spell he wants. Whatever.

Again, the actual rules and game mechanics matter when playing a game. That's my point. That, and the claim that any questions of over- or under-powered parts of the game are answered by blaming players and unfair game masters is kind of silly.

[Brad]

What assassins? You're crossing the great plains alone and some mad crazy magic-user attacks for no reason you can imagine.

Of course you can come up with all sorts of contrived situations to prove my point to be "wrong". What if my first level fighter was randomly attacked by an ancient red dragon? This argument is analogous to me claiming Bruce Lee would beat up Chuck Norris, but you offer that Chuck would win if he was able to squeeze off a few shots with his pistol at 50 paces. If you can have random maniac wizards roaming the plains, accosting fighters on a whim, I can have legions of stealthy assassins who seek out and murder any of those wizards who might pose a threat.

And of course the rules and mechanics matter, but for a game like D&D they're not nearly as important. You're seemingly equating D&D with a computerized wargame. You can play it like one, to be sure, but I don't think that's much fun. To use an example, if I play poker using only the odds as a way of placing all my bets, I would be a very poor poker player. Bluffing and knowing when to gamble on outcomes is what separates the pros from novices. According to you, a novice with a full house will always beat a pro who just has an ace high. That's insane nonsense. The pro will nearly always win, even with the odds stacked against him, simply because he's more skillful.

[kaomera]

Well, I think what I'm seeing from all of this is that the situation is more important than either mechanical power or player ability.

[Lord Kilgore]

Of course you can come up with all sorts of contrived situations to prove my point to be "wrong".

One last time:

Mechanical advantages can never overcome player skill.

and backed it up with

And, no, I don't think a bad player could ever overtake a good player, regardless of in-game advantages

Yet any situations that overcome your absolute declarations are somehow "contrived." Okay, even if they are contrived, doesn't "never" mean "never"? As I've noted a couple times now, it's the "never" part that I was having issues with.

Anyway,

Well, I think what I'm seeing from all of this is that the situation is more important than either mechanical power or player ability.

I don't think that situation is MORE important than either mechanical power or player ability. It depends.

There will be times when situation (lost surprise check, physical environment, failed saving throw, any of an infinite number of variables) is of paramount importance and will overcome mechanical ability and player skill.

There will be times when mechanical ability (sleep spell, 18th-level fighter with an 18 STR, AC -3, wand of polymorphing, any of an infinite number of variables) is of paramount importance and will overcome the situation and player skill.

There will be times when player ability (clever thinking, familiarity with the monster or spell specifics, knowledge of how to use rules to maximum advantage, any of an infinite number of variables) is of paramount importance and will overcome situation and mechanical ability.

Normally, it will be a mixture of all three and I guess I don't think there's a way that any one of them can be said to always trump all the others all the time no exceptions.

[Brad]

Yet any situations that overcome your absolute declarations are somehow "contrived." Okay, even if they are contrived, doesn't "never" mean "never"? As I've noted a couple times now, it's the "never" part that I was having issues with.

You're being too literal!

"I'll never win the lottery."
"Well, it could happen. You can't say never."
"Yeah, and I COULD bang Ashley Greene tomorrow. But it's NEVER going to happen."

In natural language, "never" connotes extreme unlikelihood, not an absolutely zero chance of occurrence. I concede that anything is possible, but I'll still say it'll never happen.

[kaomera]

Normally, it will be a mixture of all three and I guess I don't think there's a way that any one of them can be said to always trump all the others all the time no exceptions.

OK, that makes sense - I was kind of using "situation" to refer to "which of the two is more important" (or I guess it's "which of the three", as you pointed out).

In natural language, "never" connotes extreme unlikelihood, not an absolutely zero chance of occurrence. I concede that anything is possible, but I'll still say it'll never happen.

Sure, but messageboard posts aren't quite "natural language". You're missing out on all of the various hints you'd get in real life. In general I'd only expect to get that informal about written language in personal correspondences with a close acquaintance, and even then there might be some miscommunication as a result.

[Irda Ranger]

Somewhere between 9th and 12th, depending on spell selection and magic items.

And before 5th level he's underpowered. 5th-10th is the "sweet spot". The spells are powerful enough to "make things go boom", but they're still rare enough (meaning, spells/day) that the M-U has to conserve them and use them prudently.

By the book the high-level M-U has weaknesses, but no high-level M-U is "by the book". He's taken precautions, and with access to a good spell research library and/or spells and magic items from AEC/1e, all those weaknesses are gone. Bad AC? Bracers of AC 0; Cloak of Displacement. Low HP? Missile Immunity; Spell Resistance; Fire Immunity; etc. etc. Sure, the DM can be stingy with items for a while, but I've never known a group of players to put up with a stingy DM for an entire campaign. The point of D&D is fun, after all, and getting "Stuff" is fun.

[greyarea]

What assassins? You're crossing the great plains alone and some mad crazy magic-user attacks for no reason you can imagine.

[ultima]Corp Por[/ultima]

[kaomera]

Somewhere between 9th and 12th, depending on spell selection and magic items.

And before 5th level he's underpowered. 5th-10th is the "sweet spot". The spells are powerful enough to "make things go boom", but they're still rare enough (meaning, spells/day) that the M-U has to conserve them and use them prudently.

OK, I may just not have been playing at "high enough levels", lol.

By the book the high-level M-U has weaknesses, but no high-level M-U is "by the book". He's taken precautions, and with access to a good spell research library and/or spells and magic items from AEC/1e, all those weaknesses are gone. Bad AC? Bracers of AC 0; Cloak of Displacement. Low HP? Missile Immunity; Spell Resistance; Fire Immunity; etc. etc. Sure, the DM can be stingy with items for a while, but I've never known a group of players to put up with a stingy DM for an entire campaign.

Well, what would you consider "stingy"? I do not remember ever seeing PCs that had any and all magic items they may have wanted, except for a few that where specifically generated at higher levels, 12-15+, and specifically for a higher-power one-shot game. And even then there where usually specific limitations (off the top of my head, undoubtedly badly remembered, something like: "any five items, only one vorpal swords or staff of the magi or similar, no wish-granting items, no artifacts", or something like that...). Also, you mention a "good spell research library", where the rules for learning new spells (as per the 1e / AEC Int table) applied, or generally ignored?

I did see a few PCs with a dozen or more significant magic items (IIRC typically because of long play due to regaining lost levels), but this would not all be high-powered or exceptionally desirable items. For instance (assuming my math is correct) the AEC tables give a 0.04% (4% of a %...) chance of a magic item turning out to be a Displacer Cloak, and then you have to deal with treasure distribution. There are undoubtedly other combinations that will produce a similar effect, but the idea that every M-U had enough items to cover every eventuality seems a bit stretched to me, I guess. Would a fighter of the same level / XP be assumed to have the same number / quality of items, or did you find that treasures tended to end up favoring the magic user?

However your comment on precautions seems spot on. IME a well-played M-U spent a lot of time and energy trying to out-think the opposition, so that he could put his spells to the best use without exposing himself to more risk than was absolutely necessary. I think that the issue was (or at least seemed to be) that the magic user tended to have a glass jaw - one mistake and you where pretty much out of the fight (or at least the other PCs had to rescue you).

The point of D&D is fun, after all, and getting "Stuff" is fun.

Personally, I've found that some "stuff" opens up fun options, but in general the more stuff you get / the less you work for it, the less significant and therefore fun that stuff is. I know that's not a universal opinion. I think the biggest example of this would be 4e, where I've found that the assumptions of the "magic item economy" make me loathe getting items as a player, as they've just kind of become the opposite of what I'd like them to be...