# Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?



## Bullgrit (Mar 17, 2009)

The Spotlight Interview with Rob Heinsoo at wizards.com has Rob saying this:







> I hated the fact that once you started playing level 11+ in 3E, the non-spellcasting character classes didn't matter as much as the spellcasters. There was fun to be had as a fighter, or as a monk (mostly through roleplaying), but the truth was that *adventures usually depended on the abilities of the wizard and cleric—where a missing wizard or cleric got some high-level 3E games I was in rescheduled*. Did 3E games get rescheduled if the fighter was missing? Only if the character was central to the storyline of that session, *not because the group actually depended on the fighter for survival while the wizard and the cleric were around*.



[Bolding by me.]
Now, I haven’t played a lot of any D&D above 12th level (I’ve played some, just not a lot), so maybe that’s why this statement seems totally off to me. 

In my experience, even at levels 9, 10, 11, and 12, I haven’t seen this phenomenon of non-spellcasting classes don’t matter. I’ve seen parties get by without one class or another -- they work around that hole in their party –- but they could do better with adding that class (even fighters). Heck, I’ve seen parties get by without an arcane caster in their number.

As for adventures depending on wizards and clerics – isn’t that a fault of the adventure? I mean, if you have an adventure that only spellcasting can get the PCs through, isn’t that as bad as an adventure where spells don’t work?

I know this complaint about high-level play was around back in AD&D’s day, too. And I can see how it might be true like when an AD&D1 magic-user got to 18th level and could throw around wishes. And fighter hit points slowed down to 2 (or 3?) per level after name level, yet fireballs and such kept getting more powerful with the M-U’s level. But that got toned down in successive editions.

So, since I’ve apparently missed this situation in the higher levels of D&D3, can someone give me examples of adventures or situations where non-spellcasting classes didn’t matter? Or where a wizard and cleric could get by perfectly well without a fighter-type? 

Bullgrit


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 17, 2009)

Can't speak for anyone but myself, but it's certainly been true in my games over the past five years. Basically, once you have the ability to scry/buff/teleport, the casters' power level goes way up. Once you have enough spells/day to not have to husband them to get through 4-5 combats, the caster's power level goes way up. The fighter's never been good at battlefield control, especially at high levels where the huge monsters live, while the wizard can start walling off people left and right. The CoDzilla can quickly take over the fighter's melee role, if the party has any kind of information gathering mojo whatsoever. It's harder to stop an opponent from pounding a will save, while death wards and righteous wrath of the faithful make it much easier to negate Fort save attacks. 

Basically, the best thing that a fighter can do is to inflict damage on a single opponent... but they're slow moving, only affecting a single opponent, and largely incapable of preventing a monster from walking around them to kill the casters. The casters are dealing with everyone else.


----------



## Gimby (Mar 17, 2009)

Partly its because Clerics in particular can bootstrap themselves to Fighter melee power with their spells.  

Given the appropriate domains, a cleric has the same effective weapon and armour proficiencies as the Fighter.  Use of Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment can give magic items of significantly higher value (The fighter has a +3 sword, you have a +1 flaming shocking sword - one GMW later you have a +3 flaming shocking sword, a +5 equivilent weapon).  At around these levels it becomes possible to have Divine Power up in all major fights giving you the same BAB and HP as the fighter (and a belt of giant strength +6).  Righteous Might becomes available for tougher fights.  

Feats give the fighter more options, but if you are planning on being a melee cleric you can get the important ones too.  

So in short, with a little thought melee clerics bring the same or better AB, AC, HP, Damage and combat options as a fighter of the same level, while having better saves, more out of combat actions and the full range of healing available.   

As for adventures depending on clerics and wizards, that appears largely to be because these classes bring unique options - its much harder to make the fighter "needed" because there's nothing unique it brings.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 17, 2009)

In my high level group the 17th level straight fighter archer is easily the most effective character at combat. We each do our thing but he is recognized by us as the toughest and dispatches foes the fastest.

Is he necessary for us? No. But I don't think any of us are necessary. We are currently proceeding without the cleric and doing fine (relying upon paladin healing and cure wands). I don't think any class or role is necessary and we would game with whoever is there and expect to be effective at handling the adventures and have fun.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 17, 2009)

I haven't seen it either, frankly, but then my players aren't  into the scry/buff/teleport method of adventuring either. There are, for one thing, too many PCs for that to work terribly efficiently.

I do think that the 3e cleric buffs go too far. It takes time to put them into effect, that's true, but a couple rounds of buff time is sufficient to be obnoxious. But that's not part and parcel of high level play. That's a pair of spells that are too powerful and play too nicely with each other and other buff spells.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 17, 2009)

*Yes*

I pretty much agree with Rob's points.

Certainly, in my 3E games I find myself using house rules and availability of splatbooks to attempt to rein in the spellcasters and help the martial types.

I think one big problem is saving throws, specifically the will save.  In my opinion, it was a mistake to tie the will save to a mental stat.  It seems to me that part of the high level fighter's schtick should be that he has an indominatable soul -- if his will save was significantly better than the other classes it would go a long way to making him more relevant at higher levels.

With regards to scry/buff/teleport, well this is another area where 3E failed.  The PCs should not be able to scry their opponents and wait until they have to go to the toilet to 'drop in'.  It's extremely unheroic and unfun.  I am glad that 4E fixed this , as I have work to make sure it doesn't become a problem in my 3E games.

And yeah, clerics do sortof overshadow fighters at high levels when they're tricked out as melee machines.  There's a sortof social contract in 3E regarding the cleric:   'you get to have the most powerful class, but you have to spend your rounds healing the others'.  When the PC doesn't folllow the social contract and instead becomes a fighter, the guy playing the fighter pretty much gets screwed.    This is yet another thing 4E fixed, although I have to say I'm really unhappy with the way clerics throw around radiant damage in 4E.

Ken


----------



## SHARK (Mar 17, 2009)

Greetings!

Well, in my Thandor campaigns, I have long since *nerfed* the whole *Scry/Buff/Teleport* dynamic, so that is not really a viable option most of the time.

Next, on one hand, adventures in my campaigns are typically multi-faceted, and simply require a combined-arms approach to have any hope of success.

The party thinking of going into an adventure without being accompanied by their prime warrior? Such a party would be almost certainly doomed to a swift and crushing defeat!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## carmachu (Mar 17, 2009)

We're just hitting 9th now and frankly I cant see our party without our Bar/F glass hammer. He does more damage per encounter then the mage ever will. 

We all have our talents, and meshing them together is what makes our party work. My cleric could buff and fight, but he's better to hang back and heal and do other things. Let the bar/F and the F/Cl do the fighting....


----------



## Nagol (Mar 17, 2009)

Part of the problem is that only spellcasters provide the out-of-combat capabilities required to discover, reach, and survive exotic adventure locales.

Fast long distance travel?  Spell casters offer Wind Walk, Teleport, and Shadow Walk.  
Non-spell casters? Horses and boats.

Planar Travel? Plane Travel (followed up by fast travel to get around the 5-500 mile scatter) and Shadow Walk.  
Non-spell casters? No equivalent.

Extreme environment survival? Water Breathing, Endure Elements/Resist Energy.  
Non-spell casters? No equivalent.

The adventure has investigative requirements?  Divination, Augury, Detect spells, Contact Other Plane, Scrying, etc. 
Non-spell casters? Gather Information and Diplomacy, if the information is known to non-hostiles.

Of course, non-spellcasters have the option of buying items to emulate the abiliites of spellcasters, but there are a lot of abilities to emulate and only so much cash to invest in what-if scenarios.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2009)

Ok, two things.

1. Level 11 is a little low. That's where the decline started, but it didn't kick in until you got to the levels where spells broke too many rules with absolute effects that could only be negated by other spells or items of gear that created spell effects. You know how it goes- _Forcecage!_ I counter with my Cloak of the Montebank! _Wall of Iron!_ I counter with my flying shoes! _Invisibility!_ I counter with my Goggles fo See Invisibility! Etc!

2. 3e was broken. As a result, any class could be built to be at least somewhat balanced, by exploiting aspects of the game. So your vanilla 3e Fighter was pretty useless at level 12, sitting there with his cleave and his weapon focus and his longsword and his shield. Meanwhile his friend with the spiked chain machine gun build was still relevant if not the best in the party (assuming the spellcasters didn't also have a build they got online), etc, etc, etc.

For any given class, there was at least one build that didn't suck. Its just that some of them got REALLY edge case and specialized. Bards, Hexblades, Spellthieves, Monks... they all had at least one way to really tweak them until they became powerful or even broken.

This has one good effect, and two bad effects.

The good effect is that you really can play any class in 3e all through 20 levels, if you know what you're doing. You might not be able to happily play any particular character for 20 levels without retraining rules (ie, the things you need at high levels may have to be taken at low levels before they do you any good, resulting in many functionally dead levels of advancement [ie, and the opposite, of course, the things you need at low levels may be useless at high levels]), but the class as a whole should work for any given level.  Of course, this really didn't help as a balancing factor, since anyone with the skill to break the Monk class could break the Psion far, far worse.

The first bad effect is that it makes discussing class balance really, really hard. Someone will say something like, "bards are underpowered in 3e," and immediately the bard's fans will pipe up to remind them that the bard can cast Haste and perform Inspire Courage and then stack some other buffing spells from some splatbook and turn the whole party into monsters. Which is technically true, but ignores that the vast majority of the class's options weren't very good.

The other bad effect is that... well, this one isn't inherently bad. But I think its bad.

You know the game Warmachine? Its a table top wargame that, at least in how it advertises itself, takes the approach that if everything is broken, nothing is broken. If every single unit in the game has some power that's like WOAH, THAT'S TOO GOOD! then isn't it like saying that every unit is equal? Well, maybe. But there's an aesthetic to that sort of play that doesn't appeal to me. It creates a high level environment where everyone has one superpower feat/item combo that demolishes a few types of foes, and is worthless against others. The spiked chain machine gun tripper? Almost automatically wins against certain encounters. Pointless against others. Etc. Meanwhile, spellcasters get a larger variety of superpower feat/item combos because they're really running feat/item/SPELL combos, and they get a lot more spells.

In my opinion, this type of play really overdoes the whole strengths/weaknesses thing for each character, making it almost a binary atmosphere instead of one with a gradient.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 17, 2009)

In the longest lasting 3.5 game I played in, the party ended up being around 14th level when we quit.  IIRC, the party consisted of:

1) Half-Ogre Fighter/Barbarian
2) Human Warlock
3) Dwarf Cleric (heavily min-maxed for melee)
4) Human Rogue/Scout (heavily min-maxed for melee)
5) Human Warmage

Note: There were probably some prestige classes mixed in there, but I can't remember any of them, so I just listed base-classes I was sure about.

If the DM prepped encounters that were balanced for the whole 5 PC party and then one player didn't show up, it heavily depended on which PC was missing from the group as to whether the encounter was still doable.

If the Warlock wasn't there, it wasn't a big deal. Fights might last a couple of rounds longer.  We rarely felt it much at all.

If the Rogue/Scout or Fighter/Barb wasn't there, we noticed it, but we could get through the encounters just fine. We spent more healing resources because the front lines were weaker and fights would last a little longer.

If the Cleric or the Warmage didnt' show up, we just didn't play because without them, any encounter designed with the entire party in mind would have been a total PC wipe. Lack of Cleric meant no healing resources during combat, no 3rd spellcaster (for fights where the melee guys couldn't be effective like vs. flying targets or incorporeal monsters) and of course, no buffs.  The Warmage usually accounted for about 1/2 of the total damage dealt in any encounter, so losing him basically halved the party's damage output. Any encounter that would challenge the whole 5-person party would have killed an entire 4 PC party which lacked either the Cleric or the Warmage.

On the other hand, any 3 PC party that included both the Cleric and the Warmage plus one of the melee guys could have probably handled at least 1 encounter designed for the entire 5-man party. It would probably be the only encounter they could get through that day, but they would likely have survived it.

So I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fighters and other non-caster types were useless after 11th level, but there is no question in my mind that they played 2nd fiddle to the casters in almost every way (I would argue that this started as early as 5th level actually).


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 17, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> The Spotlight Interview with Rob Heinsoo at wizards.com has Rob saying this:[Bolding by me.]
> Now, I haven’t played a lot of any D&D above 12th level (I’ve played some, just not a lot), so maybe that’s why this statement seems totally off to me.
> 
> In my experience, even at levels 9, 10, 11, and 12, I haven’t seen this phenomenon of non-spellcasting classes don’t matter. I’ve seen parties get by without one class or another -- they work around that hole in their party –- but they could do better with adding that class (even fighters). Heck, I’ve seen parties get by without an arcane caster in their number.
> ...




In my experience from the mods I run or the adventures I played, everyone was needed to round out the party. I never rescheduled a game because of any one player not making it, but at high level, missing a character (whatever class it was) was tough. Anyways, that was my experience. I know with different play styles and modules, I can see how one character can be very central to a session and that without it, it would be TPK-land or at least a very bad situation going to worse.


----------



## OchreJelly (Mar 17, 2009)

As others have already there are many reasons.  Here's some I have experienced:
- A spell system that quickly eclipses the skill system.  Even Sean K. Reynolds agreed that the game had a problem with absolute resolutions that could eclipse skills.  Why invest in skills like "hide" when invisibility does the job just fine?  Why train-up "open locks" when a knock spell makes it a snap?
- The economy of actions quickly goes out the window.  I had a player playing a high-level summoner.  He was pretty good "tanking" with summons for just about any scenario.  
- "Role Bleed over".  Druids and CODzillas are often accused of being classes that can do it all, and often better than a class like a fighter or a rogue.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 17, 2009)

I found that once everyone was high level, mobility became much more important. We tended to have fights all over the castle, or in the center of the battlefield, or in the skies over the city. In those cases having a bunch of iterative attacks is almost worthless. And in those cases where it matters, you have to be crazy to be the first one in because you get to charge, then the other guy gets a full round attack. Then the cleric better have Heal ready.

And there are certainly situations where the melee guys are just along for the ride. We got Teleport chased all over Faerun by the BBEG. The fighter got to dump out all his platinum and yell "I need a teleport scroll!" once the wizard had blown thru his 4 teleports. And he handed the wizard the scroll so he could teleport us again. I got to stand close and hold hands...

Sadly, when our wizard player left the group, I had to retire my monk. I was the only player that could advise our spellcasters after he left, and the monk simply didn't have the character to make me believe it. So I added a mageblade/unfetterered... with a 17th level sorcerer cohort.

PS


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2009)

There were certain ways to keep Fighters (including Fighter "off-shots" like Barbarians/Ranger) relevant. The trick was to spend a lot of spells buffing them.

Of course, that means they weren't at their best without the Cleric and Wizard around, and that hurts a lot. But if you did this, a Fighter will keep mattering even way beyond 11th level. At least in combat.
The situation looks worse outside of combat. The Fighter just doesn't get divinations, illusions or teleportation effects. Flight is somewhat available via magic items.

If the Cleric and Wizard horde for themselves, I think a Fighter or Rogue wouldn't have much to contribute on their own. Without the various defensive and offensive buffs, it's just hard to stay alive long enough to really affect the outcomes of combat.


----------



## Henrix (Mar 17, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. Level 11 is a little low. That's where the decline started, but it didn't kick in until you got to the levels where spells broke too many rules with absolute effects that could only be negated by other spells or items of gear that created spell effects.




Exactly my thought - that's where it begins.

At level 17 almost all important fights are won when the spellcasters cause the BBEG to go bang, not when the fighter has whittled down the opposition.
The fighter is just there to hold off the minions and occupy the BBEG till he fails his saves. The fighter needs the spellslingers to keep him alive through buffs, resistances, dispels, and whatnot.

And it's the spellcasters who get the party to the fight - how else do they go through the lava/to the other plane/the secret hideout you can only teleport or fly to?


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 17, 2009)

Like a lot of the "problems" that exist in 3.5e, the fighter sucking after level 11 is really dependent on *how* your group happens to game. 

In my current campaign, which is very unoptimized, I cannot imagine a session without any of the current PCs, including the 14th level fighter. We do not employ tactics like scry/buff/teleport simply because we find that boring compared to hopping on a horse and riding across the plains. The latter produces a more interesting game, for us, than the former. YMMV

I have also, recently, played in a high level game with some people I know from my FLGS. This game is highly optimized. Playing a fighter really is a bad choice because Clerics, Druids, and Wizards (and possibly Psions) can do everything a fighter does - and more. It is just not worth playing a fighter.

In my experience, the more an individual gaming group optimizes, the greater the likelyhood of them experiencing problems is.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 17, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Like a lot of the "problems" that exist in 3.5e, the fighter sucking after level 11 is really dependent on *how* your group happens to game.
> 
> In my current campaign, which is very unoptimized, I cannot imagine a session without any of the current PCs, including the 14th level fighter. We do not employ tactics like scry/buff/teleport simply because we find that boring compared to hopping on a horse and riding across the plains. The latter produces a more interesting game, for us, than the former. YMMV
> 
> ...




The real tears come from when you combine people from both groups who insist on playing the game different ways(optimized or unoptimized) in the same game. There's were the real disasters stem from. Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to get a stable group of like minded people for our games.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 17, 2009)

OK, it seems that everyone is pointing to scry/buff/teleport or mobility spells in general as the problem -- fighting in the air, planes hopping, etc. If that is the main problem(s), how did this get fixed with D&D4? Surely fighters can't fly (without magic items -- like in D&D3), plane shift, etc. in D&D4?

Are there not still things that a 20th-level D&D4 wizard can do that a non-spellcaster can't do? Fly is still a spell, yes? Invisibility? [I am not familiar with D&D4 enough to know what spells still exist or exactly how they work.]



> The fighter is just there to hold off the minions and occupy the BBEG till he fails his saves. The fighter needs the spellslingers to keep him alive through buffs, resistances, dispels, and whatnot.



Doesn't this mean the spellslingers need the fighter to keep the BBEG and minions off them so they can get off their save/die spells? What would happen if that fighter were taken out of the equation? Even if he were replaced with a wizard.

Bullgrit


----------



## Storminator (Mar 17, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> OK, it seems that everyone is pointing to scry/buff/teleport or mobility spells in general as the problem -- fighting in the air, planes hopping, etc. If that is the main problem(s), how did this get fixed with D&D4? Surely fighters can't fly (without magic items -- like in D&D3), plane shift, etc. in D&D4?
> 
> Are there not still things that a 20th-level D&D4 wizard can do that a non-spellcaster can't do? Fly is still a spell, yes? Invisibility? [I am not familiar with D&D4 enough to know what spells still exist or exactly how they work.]




Fly is a 16th level spell in 4e... and it's the same level as Greater Invisibility. So you can have one of those, not both. Inviso lasts for 1 round.

Plane shifting can be done by a fighter that spends a couple of feats, as is teleporting (the same 2 feats gets you both!). For 3 feats the fighter can plane shift, teleport, AND fly! 



> Doesn't this mean the spellslingers need the fighter to keep the BBEG and minions off them so they can get off their save/die spells? What would happen if that fighter were taken out of the equation? Even if he were replaced with a wizard.
> 
> Bullgrit




A wizard or cleric or druid could also keep the minions and the BBEG off just as well, if not better. That's essentially the problem. No matter what job you give a high level fighter, a high level W/C/D does it better.

PS


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 17, 2009)

Having played a wizard from zero to hero several times and in several editions, I fully agree with Rob.

It's not hard to build a fighter that can deal out admirable damage at higher levels. But it's imposible to build a fighter that can counter the arms race (death ward vs level draining monsters, etc). Fighters can't negate half the opposition with a single standard action. Fighters can't transform enemies into allies. Fighters can't obtain the information and resources needed to reach the combat in the first place.

Fighters are superb at dealing damage, if you know how. Too bad the very concept of "dealing damage" becomes less and less relevant as you level up. A single save-or-lose spell bypasses even the toughest hp-sponges.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 17, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> So, since I’ve apparently missed this situation in the higher levels of D&D3, can someone give me examples of adventures or situations where non-spellcasting classes didn’t matter? Or where a wizard and cleric could get by perfectly well without a fighter-type?
> 
> Bullgrit




I think that the point in the interview is partly mis-stated.  As has been noted, the 3.5 edition melee types (Barbarians, Fighters, etc), can inflict some very impressive damage, and they are plenty durable.  If they are present, they will generally have a big impact on the fight, (not withstanding fights engineered to make them useless, such as flying monsters against melee types with not flight abilities.  While were at it, lets also concede that it is also possible to create combats that neutralize the players spell casting abilities to a great extent via spell resistance).

Still, while it did mostly miss the point, it did not land far from the target.  while Fighters can impact an encounter, the total impact of a high level non spell casting character is nowhere near the same level as that of a primary spell caster.

A well built Barbarian or Fighter with level appropriate equipment can take what was meant to be a challenging combat encounter and totally brutalize it, turning an epic fight into a cakewalk.  But the encounter will still happen, and the total disruption to the DM's plans is minimal unless he expected the villain to survive and escape.

A well built Spell caster with well chosen spells can allow the entire party to circumvent entire dungeons (scry / buff / teleport).  It can make otherwise balanced opponents completely ineffective.  The cleric can take over the role of the primary front line fighter with a handfull of spells.  

Finally, consider a well balanced party, the classic Fighter / Wizard / Rogue / Cleric combo, at about level 15.  If the player running the fighter cannot show up, chances are pretty good that the party can work around that players absence.  If the Cleric shows up, your probably going to have a problem with a complete lack of healing.  If the Wizard cannot make it, the fights will all be a great deal more difficult because threats that would have been trivially neutralized now must be dealt with more directly.

If the absence of a given character class is that much easier to work around, than that player is simply not as relevant or important as the others.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 17, 2009)

Lord Z really covers it...so...

I will just say that in 2E and 3E, starting at level 8, and especially after level 12, I could really feel the shift in the balance of power. As a DM I had to start thinking about how to keep the non-spellcasters in the mix of things, something I didn't have to do before. 

As for 4E, I haven't done higher level play, but one thing I noticed right away is that when you can make multiple attacks you can still move in the same round. This alone would make a difference for keeping the martial types relevant.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2009)

Regarding Bullgrit's question of how 4e handles the spell effect arms race:

It mostly doesn't exist anymore.  Absolute effects have been significantly altered or eliminated.  Most shut-down powers are short term, or have multiple solutions.  Effects have been moved to different power levels of the game.  Monsters have had some basic redesign that takes into account spell effect synergy.  And with monsters no longer being designed on a class system, the game doesn't tacitly tell you that its ok to optimize an 18th level spellcaster and treat it as a CR 18 enemy regardless of what spell combinations it knows.

But perhaps more importantly the game is designed on a cooperation based system with a strong concept of combat role.  So not only do you not get spell/spell solution binaries like death magic versus death ward, you also don't feel as bad as a martial player when a spell user takes control of the battlefield to negate some enemy tactic.  That's his job.  You have a job too, and they're not in conflict.  That spellcaster isn't going to polymorph into a fire giant next round and start doing your job as well.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 17, 2009)

Count me in as another person who simply hasn't seen the "CLERIC/WIZARD TAKES OVER THE ENTIRE PARTY" problem.

Games go badly without the cleric if we don't have another person who can heal because, well, we don't have the healer.  But that's why other classes have UMD and wands (which often works better then the cleric)

The problem with clerics isn't buffs, the problem is with persistent spell or divine metamagic, both of which can be easily abused (and that's without the nightstick silliness or whatever they're called).

Druids though, I'll give you them being a bit too much ;p


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 17, 2009)

To be fair, it isn't so much a "Wizard/Cleric takes over the party" problem as a "Bob takes over the party" problem, where Bob almost always plays a Wizard or CoDzilla.

A Wizard/Cleric/Druid won't inherently take over the party, but is the primary tool of a player who takes over the party.


----------



## Drowbane (Mar 17, 2009)

There are exceptions to every rule...

But for the most part, a party without a fighter (ranger, paladin, barbarian, bard...) isn't missing much.

Take the Classic Four.  You can sub out a Fighter and switch in a (melee built) Druid or Cleric from level 1 without risk.  That said, I have a number of character concepts that just don't work built as Casters... thus the warriors are still relevant in my games.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 17, 2009)

I've run a number of high level (15+) 3E campaigns, and in one of the last ones, there was no cleric in the party. There was a druid, but no cleric.

The effect of that was to make undead with level drain entirely too powerful. Druids can't cast _restoration_ or _greater restoration_. Ability drain or level drain? You weren't coming back from that.

When the design of the game requires one character class to be present or the DM can't use an entire set of monsters... that's a problem.

Cheers!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> To be fair, it isn't so much a "Wizard/Cleric takes over the party" problem as a "Bob takes over the party" problem, where Bob almost always plays a Wizard or CoDzilla.
> 
> A Wizard/Cleric/Druid won't inherently take over the party, but is the primary tool of a player who takes over the party.




Bingo.

Wizard/Cleric/Druid isn't the problem, it's a problem with the player.  It's a problem that has and will be in every game since the dawn of time until the end of time.  You can't pin it on edition.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 17, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Wizard/Cleric/Druid isn't the problem, it's a problem with the player.  It's a problem that has and will be in every game since the dawn of time until the end of time.  You can't pin it on edition.



 So you're asserting that Bob could have taken over the party equally effectively with any class?

If not -- and I hope not, because that would be absurd -- then you must concede that the removal of grossly overpowered classes removes the ability of "hostile takeover" players to take over the party using force of class power.

Whether 4e has actually solved class balance is another debate.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rechan (Mar 17, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Regarding Bullgrit's question of how 4e handles the spell effect arms race:
> 
> It mostly doesn't exist anymore.  Absolute effects have been significantly altered or eliminated.  Most shut-down powers are short term, or have multiple solutions.



Although it is there at a small level.

Sleep is a nasty, nasty spell. 

Fortunately even if the bad guy(s) fail all saves, there's at least a single round for them to do something.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 18, 2009)

My impression of the fighter at higher lvs is that it lacks options. I have little problem optimizing it for damage, but that is pretty much all it is good for. Anything else is a bye. 

Stuck in a forcecage/maze? 
Target of a will-save effect? 
Difficult terrain? Sucks to have your mobility stymied by a blade of grass.
Lack of tanking capabilities (so you can't actually hold off the enemy dragon and force it to want to attack you over the squishier mage). 
Reliance on full attack (so anytime I am forced to move, my damage output drops dramatically). 

Basically just look at a warblade (doesn't even have to be all that optimized). It is everything the fighter should have been, and simply highlights its shortcomings. 



> Wizard/Cleric/Druid isn't the problem, it's a problem with the player. It's a problem that has and will be in every game since the dawn of time until the end of time. You can't pin it on edition.




Problem is - I don't think I even need to go out of my way to optimize a spellcaster or abuse rules loopholes just to make it overpowered. The nature of the class automatically does it for me. If anything, I would actually need to really play it at just a mere fraction of its true capabilities just to keep it balanced (which to me, is even more difficult than playing a class to the most of its abilities).

Conversely, I doubt I can break the fighter however hard I try. But I would need to be constantly playing him at 100% efficiency just to contribute effectively (hopefully). Anything less...


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2009)

In my campaign, at 12th level, the fighter type was very important. The campaign is currently 16th-17th level, and the players have pondered some of the problems of not having one for the past couple of levels. As it is, the dwarven scout often tanks. If you play in my campaign, and your group does not have a fighter or some other kind of meat shield, you will experience pain and possibly death. 

I don't know why other people's campaigns are different, but when we game, NPCs and monsters are likely to get right in the wizard's face. Dragons bite, grapple, and breathe on whatever they can reach. Some opponents have significant spell resistance. 

It's true, at various times, a duskblade, a paladin, and a barbarian have stood in for an honest to goodness fighter. I don't know why a fighter would feel they would be missing out. The biggest problem with fighters is that people often view them as beater-noob-speedbump characters, when in fact, fighters generally have similarly complex tactical options to a wizard. 

As far as I can tell, the only place a fighter really seems like a bit of a dork is when it comes to noncombat logistics. Lacking face skills, scouting, travel spells, and curative powers, they are mostly relegated to tending animals, intimidating things, or perhaps subbing in for a missing role (for instance, Regdar the diplomat).


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

> Fly is a 16th level spell in 4e... and it's the same level as Greater Invisibility. So you can have one of those, not both. Inviso lasts for 1 round.
> 
> Plane shifting can be done by a fighter that spends a couple of feats, as is teleporting (the same 2 feats gets you both!). For 3 feats the fighter can plane shift, teleport, AND fly!



 . . . what? Are you serious? My first thought on this is that you're pulling my leg.

I have the D&D4 PH, and I've looked through it at the low-level stuff (up to around level 6-8). I'll have to look through it in more detail up to the higher levels.

OK, I just looked through the D&D4 PH. The invisibilities can last longer than 1 round, and I didn't see feats that let a fighter plane shift, teleport, or fly. So you must just be joshing me.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kishin (Mar 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> In my campaign, at 12th level, the fighter type was very important. The campaign is currently 16th-17th level, and the players have pondered some of the problems of not having one for the past couple of levels. As it is, the dwarven scout often tanks. If you play in my campaign, and your group does not have a fighter or some other kind of meat shield, you will experience pain and possibly death.
> 
> I don't know why other people's campaigns are different, but when we game, NPCs and monsters are likely to get right in the wizard's face. Dragons bite, grapple, and breathe on whatever they can reach. Some opponents have significant spell resistance.




Except that:

a) Meat shields have no way to be 'sticky' in 3.5E. That dragon can just wander right by the fighter, so his presence is invalid anyway.

b) Nothing will get near a well-played wizard. Particularly with Celerity. Their exist strategies are numerous. Nor will Spell Resistance matter when you have things like Assay Spell Resistance.


----------



## rgard (Mar 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> <SNIP> or perhaps subbing in for a missing role (for instance, Regdar the diplomat).




 my first chuckle in this thread!  Thanks.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 18, 2009)

> a) Meat shields have no way to be 'sticky' in 3.5E. That dragon can just wander right by the fighter, so his presence is invalid anyway.




This. 

And for a little bit of fun, let me share an excerpt with you.



> Another really funny party was Fighter, Wizard, Wizard, Nymph. Both of the wizards focused on control spells, with one favoring summons and the other favoring defensive stuff. Basically, this party was the exact opposite (even though the fighter in this party was one of the fighers in the other party) of the other. They simply did not so any damage, instead completely looking up the fight with stunning gaze, acid fog, wall of ________, trips, summoned elementals, etc. while slowly chipping the opponent away. Every combat took a long time to resolve, but usually it was a forgone conclusion early on. The opponents would get separated and stalled while the fighter individually pounded them. For a powerful single opponent would be subjected to repeated save-or-abilities from behind barriers of spell created obstacles and the fighter. Probably the most "professional" party I'd ever been in, from the perspective that they always were able to solve every encounter they faced with a clear, efficient strategy that was often ad-libbed and always effective.
> 
> But, seriously, the second party absolutely controlled combats. I remember one encounter involved them getting surrounded and ambushed by a group of Gythanki bandits on a barren stretch of an unfamiliar plane with the only terrain feature being the Mercenary and Pacifist Sphinx that they were riding who decided to take a nap when the action started. Being surrounded by enemies (two of which had ninja levels which we all know are deadly against wizards who haven't got detect invisible up!) would seem to be a tricky encounter, especially with no walls to use blocking out enemies. But the party quickly readjusted to the situation, rushed one side of the fight, disabling as many as possible before covering themselves with solid fog to prevent retaliation. The enemies wanted to avoid clumping together, so they kept spread apart while the party "fog cloud jumped" attacking one or two at a time before going after another. At one point in the fight every single Gith was stunned, held or tripped and there was at least 8 of them. In fact, the party only ended up killing one of them when the Nymph cdged one of the held opponents. She felt really guilty about that, particularly her player after I mercilessly added three minutes of gory details to the "Merciless display of cruelty". Good times.
> 
> It also helped convinve me that the game is less fun with two wizards, because you really, really always have a solution to every problem as a standard action, even when both wizards are intentionally limiting their spell lists for thematic and balance concerns.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> So, since I’ve apparently missed this situation in the higher levels of D&D3, can someone give me examples of adventures or situations where non-spellcasting classes didn’t matter? Or where a wizard and cleric could get by perfectly well without a fighter-type?




OK....here is what happened in our group in our Age of Worms 3.5e campaign.

In the lower teen levels, the rogue was our scout (he was a rogue/shadowwhatever so he was really stealthy) and detrapper.

As we gained higher levels...the only traps left were magical in nature.  The party warlock who could detect magic and dispel magic at will became the detrapper as he could do it from a distance with no danger to the party.

As we gained higher levels...the rogue was still really stealthy, but my Warmage/Earth Elemental Adept could travel through dirt and rock at will, and have Greater Invisibility (the invisibility that works on just about everything and lasted a long ltime) and was even better at scouting than the rogue.

The rogue became totally useless towards the end of the campaign with some of the higher level magical abilities we gained.

DS


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Wizard/Cleric/Druid isn't the problem, it's a problem with the player.



The player who picks the class which dominates the game.

And in my experience, that player _wasn't _playing a Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin or Bard.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Mar 18, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Like a lot of the "problems" that exist in 3.5e, the fighter sucking after level 11 is really dependent on *how* your group happens to game.



And that's all there is to it.

As a practical matter, no two D&D groups play the game the same.  Most don't even play by the same _rules_ (not even the ones that _think_ they're playing it RAW).  And few people even realize how their house rules and style preferences alter the experience of playing the game, so they come to absurd conclusions like "3E is broken."

No particular "problem with 3E" was univerally experienced, whether it's "fighters suck at high level," or "CoDzilla," or the "15-minute adventuring day."  The system just allowed those problems to occur for those people whose play-style led them to it.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2009)

Kishin said:


> Except that:
> 
> a) Meat shields have no way to be 'sticky' in 3.5E. That dragon can just wander right by the fighter, so his presence is invalid anyway.




First of all, that's not true. There are AoOs, and there are a number of scenarios under which a dragon does not want to incur one (wounding dragonbane weapon, anyone?). The fighter can also ready an action to interpose himself if the dragon does move. If the fighter has to shadow the wizard, he can at least rest assured the dragon must choose each round whether to attack the wizard with cover, or to move and take only a standard action. 

Second, it's my assumption that many party members will prefer to engage the dragon from a range, in which case, the dragon may choose to breathe or use a spell, facing further harassment from the fighter, or to attack the fighter, forsaking attempts to close. 

Third, the fighter can simply charge or otherwise harry the dragon each round while the wizard maneuvers, again, limiting the dragon to standard actions.



> b) Nothing will get near a well-played wizard. Particularly with Celerity. Their exist strategies are numerous. Nor will Spell Resistance matter when you have things like Assay Spell Resistance.




Nothing?


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 18, 2009)

*Disagree.*

My ever in flux group we have played all the 1 - 20 modules (finishing off the latest) and most assuredly always have campaigns that go 1 to 20 module or not, whether we need to change dms or not.  2x we even went epic (22 and 25th level respectively).
Warriors often outshine the casters.  Unless casters are mollycoddled.

If you insist on comparing base classes naked then casters cannot cast as they have no components.  INATE in the system are wealth tables per level, items, artefacts, and character interactions.

If a 12th + level character has not got the respect/indebtment of MANY a church/organisation/person it begs the question how you got to that level.  If your group cannot cast a spell you really should be able to go to many, many npcs that can.  Look at big business/governments or any other powerful entities... they trade/they assist eachother.  Why would a campaign treat pcs differently?

All our gm/dms understand the dynamic.  PCs aren't bubble boys who cannot touch foreign objects the entire universe is out to scupper nor are they protected by bubbles that are immune to highlevel, powerful opponents with tactical experience and intelegence.

If your at 12+ level play and the opponents cannot teleport thru or fly over puny wall spells, have spell resistance etc etc what opponents do you fight?   gobilins?

If they aren't practiced at targeting or dispelling highly magical threats or using spells like 'protection from good/evil' to negate summoned goons (or big enough to swat puny summoned critters) they would already be extinct (just like pcs that never dispel the big bads, or non-flying non casting non trading plains dwelling monsters).

There are wealth tables for a REASON.  You remove that its unbalanced.  The 15th fighter should have his helm of teleport/cloak of the monte bank, ring of free action, boots of fly, potion of invis etc.  

I have yet to see the caster (their not the best at spotting) not surrounded by companions that survives the invisible highly intelegent and experienced demons full attack.  For that matter they struggle when visible demons/devils port in beside each party member... not to mention grapple (you can lock mouths shut with a sucesful check as well as do damage under the rules).  Along with silence casters are really walking dead without a silent d.door or 3 or other get out of/avoid jail card.

5 pcs teleport into your room (all buffed no doubt).. run, exp.  if your the demon/dragon with teleport/d.door and a good speed.  Come back in 10.

Its the campaigns and so the dm/gms fault if this discrepancy in fighter uselessness occurs.  Stick to the rules and you will be fine, it all sorta balances and they all need eachother, some luck and alot of wit!

I have indeedy played in groups where the dm biases the casters... they never get dispelled/grappled despite it being THE obvious tactic exp. from the average bad guys who inevitably are higher level and strong.  Yet every fighter weakness is targeted.

In these campaigns the fighter probably gets no items and cannot arrange thru the connections and respect built from a life time of heroics/horrors some equipment.
The world even is not oblivious: there are gods and epic entities... gods want powerful souls, entities want power/lackies etc.  The best sports stars get sponsered and companies don't even get to keep their souls 
(? perhaps).  

Its quite sane to allow a limited planetery resource like a ~15th level character to have connections he can PAY to get equipment necessary to fulfill the intended design of the game you chose to engage with.

Its amazing how a dm that knows his spells (and feats and weapons for that matter) and sticks to the rules and has a sense of cause and effect equalises said rort cheated discrepancy.  Woe to me : (


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> . . . what? Are you serious? My first thought on this is that you're pulling my leg.
> 
> I have the D&D4 PH, and I've looked through it at the low-level stuff (up to around level 6-8). I'll have to look through it in more detail up to the higher levels.
> 
> ...



He's referring to the fact that ritual magic is available to anyone trained in it.  To be trained in ritual magic, you must be trained in Arcana, and have the Ritual Magic feat.  Wizards are automatically trained in Arcana, and receive Ritual Magic as a bonus feat.  A Fighter can spend a feat to train in Arcana and can pick up the Ritual Magic feat.  Total cost, 2 feats, 13 intelligence as a prereq.  Total value, standard access to all ritual magic.

Thematically, it would be a character with a scholarly knowledge of the rules and rituals of magic, but no particular combat magic aptitude.  An engineer, if you will.

Such a character could plane shift (by crafting a portal to another plane), fly (by instilling himself with overland flight), and teleport (by crafting a teleportation circle).  He couldn't just zap between planes, launch into the air on a whim, and disappear in an instant and reappear elsewhere.  But he could do it with time and planning.

I don't know how germane this whole aspect of the debate really is, but that's what's being referenced.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 18, 2009)

As for the whole wizard/cleric can do anything better than the other classes.....why would you?  Sure I can be invisible and hide better than the rogue, but I wasn't memorizing invisibility every day because we had a rogue in the party.  Same is true for knock.  Sure if I want to be an a-hole and steal everyone's thunder than I probably could but I game with friends so I don't.

People must have had a greatly different experience than I did with high level wizards.  I remember being completely frustrated with spell resistance.

1. Ok, I cast fireball...It doesn't beat his spell resistance
2. Next round....I cast fireball......Woot beat the resistance.......saved for half.
3. Don't beat the resistance again....etc
4. Rinse and repeat so that only 25% of spells really hit for significant damage.  Meanwhile the fighter is kicking arse and taking names every round.

Heck, I played an 18th level psychic from Green Ronin's psychic handbook.  I could teleport if I had been to a place before pretty much at will.  I could also mindswap with other creatures and take their bodies.  That was pretty cool in theory when I tried to change bodies with the Dracolich from Age of Worms.  Unfortunately, saves and resistances never worked out.  While I was jacking around doing my telepathy gig the fighter wielding the two weapon bastard swords was dealing 70 points of damage per round.

Guess my experience was different.  Now if you want to say 3E was broke because everything was either all or none then I'll give you that.  As any character could do a lot of damage at high level....I found the save or die effects annoying.  Same as the fighter doing 10 points of damage or 90 points of damage per round.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> First of all, that's not true. There are AoO




Have fun hitting the dragon for one singular attack at maybe 20-30 HP?



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> and there are a number of scenarios under which a dragon does not want to incur one (wounding dragonbane weapon, anyone?). The fighter can also ready an action to interpose himself if the dragon does move. If the fighter has to shadow the wizard, he can at least rest assured the dragon must choose each round whether to attack the wizard with cover, or to move and take only a standard action.




Interpose himself? The dragon flies over him. Flying fighter? Flies over/under/past him.

Doesn't take the dragon more than a standard action to grapple the Wizard. Then the party's over.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Second, it's my assumption that many party members will prefer to engage the dragon from a range, in which case, the dragon may choose to breathe or use a spell, facing further harassment from the fighter, or to attack the fighter, forsaking attempts to close.




Or he'll ignore them and squash the mage. None of that is specifically stopping the dragon from doing that. Engaging a dragon at range does not freeze it in place.



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Third, the fighter can simply charge or otherwise harry the dragon each round while the wizard maneuvers, again, limiting the dragon to standard actions.




Until the dragon grapples the wizard. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Nothing?




Yes.

Celerity. Dimension Shuffle. Contingency. The list's a mile long.


----------



## Victim (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't think fighter types were irrelevant at higher levels - I've seen some pretty brutal characters with only casual optimization - but rather they're as relevant as the rest of the group lets them be.

Supported, a well built fighter type can dish out heaps of reliable damage.  And, in my experience anyway, providing that support is often a more efficient use of caster resources than direct attacks.  Even the full attack restriction can be eased - spells like Tactical Teleport can drop melees into perfect positions for ginsu action, and Pounce type abilities allow full actions while charging.  

But even in that case, the character can basically be a weapon aimed by the spellcasters...

The other thing is that the fighting man has to remember that there's flying and invisible stuff.  Magic swords and armor are not everything - flight items, potions, etc are important to keep the fighter relevant in a fight.  Even if your friends are unselfish, that doesn't mean they'll always be able to provide the countermeasures you need in a fight.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2009)

Kishin said:


> Have fun hitting the dragon for one singular attack at maybe 20-30 HP?




That depends on the level range we're talking about. For teens, sure... at which point, your AoO has taken out 10% of its entire hit points. 



> Interpose himself? The dragon flies over him. Flying fighter? Flies over/under/past him.




Sorry, Charlie. If you move, and I use a readied action to get in your way, I can guarantee I'm between you and the wizard.



> Doesn't take the dragon more than a standard action to grapple the Wizard. Then the party's over.




Or the fighter beats on the dragon while the wizard uses dimension door to escape. 



> Or he'll ignore them and squash the mage. None of that is specifically stopping the dragon from doing that. Engaging a dragon at range does not freeze it in place.




I did not say it did. Again, he can choose to squash the mage, but he'll get in only one standard attack. A dragon attacking one person per turn as a standard action is losing the fight.



> Celerity. Dimension Shuffle. Contingency. The list's a mile long.




Explain to me how any of those are unbeatable gamestoppers. For a caster of any given level, there is a dragon who can credibly threaten them. Mind you, there are some dirty tricks for dealing with dragons, but none of them guarantee the wizard or anyone else will be entirely safe.

I'm not sure what your point was about the dragon grappling the wizard, unless you were trying to make my argument. If you don't have a fighter, that probably is it for the wizard. But a fighter, especially one with appropriate backup, can keep the heat on the dragon. Sure, the dragon can kill the wizard in two rounds... but is he willing to die to do it?


----------



## CubeKnight (Mar 18, 2009)

+1 to did have the problem.

In all the campaigns I've been, at higher levels non-casters just can't keep up. Unless casters deliberately gimp themselves, or do something of the sort, they just keep outshining the non-casters time and time again.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> OK, I just looked through the D&D4 PH. The invisibilities can last longer than 1 round, and I didn't see feats that let a fighter plane shift, teleport, or fly. So you must just be joshing me.
> 
> Bullgrit




Skill Training (Arcana) -> Ritual Caster.
Missing was the mention of: Tons of gp. But that's the same for the Wizard.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 18, 2009)

Well I did not have a pure fighter in my game but our Jhimari Peacekeaper triton was more melee than caster and he was never overshadowed (until Dagon ate him . . .). And I think the reason was simple. He could move anywhere the monsters could because they were all underwater, and he had decent ranged options. A normal fighter can also have these as long as he gets the proper buffs or wondrous items. There are protective measures for almost everything in 3.5 but there are also countermeasures.
The main problem is that as in all games of the genre, the optimised character can dominate the battlefield to the expense of the average character. And with the wealth of options in 3.5 in a system that did not inherently support balance on its basic structure (like 4E does), it was inevitable that some players would be able to break the system. And the classes with the most options (primary spellcasters) would be the most likely candidates for optimization. If all your players frequented the CharOP boards, then your party would probably be balanced and could have a fighter (or at least someone with a few levels of fighter and a melee build).


----------



## Storminator (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> . . . what? Are you serious? My first thought on this is that you're pulling my leg.
> 
> I have the D&D4 PH, and I've looked through it at the low-level stuff (up to around level 6-8). I'll have to look through it in more detail up to the higher levels.
> 
> ...




There are invisibilities that can last longer, but the spell Invisibility lasts until the end of your next turn, with no sustain.

As others have said, Wizard multiclass feat (gets Arcana for free), Ritual Caster feat (Planar Portal, Linked Portal, etc), and Acolyte Power feat (choose Fly as 16th level utility power).

So at 16th level (when Fly is available), having spent 3 of 10 feats, and devoted some ability points to INT (this is the most stressing cost, IMO), you have a fighter that can plane shift, teleport, and fly, along with any number of other rituals as a bene. 

One other thing I thought of later, is that wizard ranges are drastically smaller. In 3e, that greater inviso, flying wizard could be attacking from 600+ feet up. In 4e he's still within longbow range. Granted a fighter doesn't have his awesome powers at range, but he can easily get some shots in.

PS


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

OK. So it's not a joke. It's just . . . something.

Bullgrit


----------



## Storminator (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> OK. So it's not a joke. It's just . . . something.
> 
> Bullgrit




And that something would be the ability of any class to perform the major, campaign defining functions that were previously reserved for the primary spellcasting classes.

PS


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Count me in as another person who simply hasn't seen the "CLERIC/WIZARD TAKES OVER THE ENTIRE PARTY" problem.




A serious question for you Professor Cirno;  What levels do you typically play the game at?

Related to that:
What is a typical party layout for you?
What kinds of monsters does the DM typically use?

One thing I have noticed with any discussions in these boards about any supposedly 'common' problem is that for every 18 or 23 people who say the problem has come up for them and regularly poses difficulties, there will be 3 or 4 for whom the problem has never come up.  

Just because you have never seen something come up regularly or at all in play does not mean that it is not a problem for many others.

Anecdotally, it is a reasonably safe assumption that the primary spell casting classes are the ones who are typically going to be able to pull something off that the DM had not have accounted for.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

> One thing I have noticed with any discussions in these boards about any supposedly 'common' problem is that for every 18 or 23 people who say the problem has come up for them and regularly poses difficulties, there will be 3 or 4 for whom the problem has never come up.



Well, going back through this thread, I find:

Yes, it is a problem: 19

No, it is not a problem: 13

Other/unknown/both: 6

Majority says yes it was a problem, but hardly a 20-4 ratio.

Bullgrit


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Well, going back through this thread, I find:
> 
> Yes, it is a problem: 19
> 
> ...



You may add me to the 'Yes, it is a problem' group 

Maybe you should have created a poll. I didn't post yet, because my opinion was already well represented by others.


----------



## Henrix (Mar 18, 2009)

broghammerj said:


> People must have had a greatly different experience than I did with high level wizards.  I remember being completely frustrated with spell resistance.
> 
> 1. Ok, I cast fireball...It doesn't beat his spell resistance
> 2. Next round....I cast fireball......Woot beat the resistance.......saved for half.
> ...




1. Why is your 'high level' wizard bothering with fireball. A mediocre spell at best, and not worth it at above 11th level.

2. Why ever are you casting a spell that is stopped by Spell Resistance? And why don't you have spell penetration and items that help with that? Are you sure you are a high level wizard?


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

> Maybe you should have created a poll. I didn't post yet, because my opinion was already well represented by others.



I didn't make a poll for this because I wasn't asking for how many people saw this problem versus how many didn't -- I wasn't looking for a tug of war match. I was asking for info/examples of the problem -- I was looking to understand the problem.

[Edit: Oh, and I wasn't asking for people's opinions, I was asking for anecdotes and examples. So you can still pipe up with that.]

I only went back and counted up the "votes" because when Lord Zardoz said, "...for every 18 or 23 people who say the problem has come up for them and regularly poses difficulties, there will be 3 or 4 for whom the problem has never come up." That statement was demonstrably incorrect, right in this thread, and I felt it unfair -- it seemed to suggest that those who hadn't seen the problem were a very small minority, and could be discounted.

I mean, 19 to 13 is very far from 20-4. And if you consider that I was specifically asking for people to tell me about the problem -- basically inviting those players who have seen the problem to post their experience -- it is no surprise that there's more people here saying they've seen it. I was directly asking for people to come in here and say they have seen the problem. I'm surprised the ratio wasn't much higher -- it could have been 20-0, and it wouldn't reflect any real ratio of seen/not seen.

Plus, it always annoys me when someone gives numbers for something based solely on their own biased feel. I'm a data geek -- I like hard data. Feel and bias just grates my nerves. 

86.3% of ENWorld posters will state something as fact without any real evidence outside their own belief or desire for it to be true. ;-)

Bullgrit


----------



## OchreJelly (Mar 18, 2009)

If a problem exists with a game, should it not be addressed?  In the early days of 3E development Ryan Dancey discovered that the key problem TSR had was that it didn't listen to its customers. WotC can be credited with starting a process of actually listening and doing their homework to address issues players had with the game.  By doing actual market research, and performing focus groups, surveys etc. they found some surprising results.  

I feel like I can safely say that even back then there wasn't 100% agreement among gamers as to what was a problem with the game and what wasn't.  But if their findings were such that a certain number of players claim that "THACO is hard" or for a pre-4E example, "grapple rules are a pain" then I think it's pretty fair to flag that as something to change, _even if it was never a problem at your table_.

I guess I count myself as one of the lucky ones in that when the punchlist of improvements was revealed for 4E I found myself saying "yes!" to every single one of them, even though WotC never asked me personally, but it was clear there were others who shared my concerns with the game.  

I'm really not trying to say 4E is perfect, but my larger, meta-point is that to argue that something wasn't ever problematic at your table does not equate to the problem not existing.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> The Spotlight Interview with Rob Heinsoo at wizards.com has Rob saying this:[Bolding by me.]
> Now, I haven’t played a lot of any D&D above 12th level (I’ve played some, just not a lot), so maybe that’s why this statement seems totally off to me.




Its been my experience. On one hand you have a guy with virtually no out of combat classed based utility, and on the other, you have a superhero who gets to pick which super powers he has each day. If your casters arent showing up your fighters, its because they're not trying or going out of their way to not hurt the fighter's feelings. Its Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit.  3rd edition made it even worse for the poor guy in combat, as he couldnt even move and make all of his attacks in the same round without scrounging for some splat power that gave pounce or its equivalent.




> As for adventures depending on wizards and clerics – isn’t that a fault of the adventure? I mean, if you have an adventure that only spellcasting can get the PCs through, isn’t that as bad as an adventure where spells don’t work?




I guess you could write adventures that take place in an anti-magic zone, but I think the casters would feel rightly cheated. Its magic's all encompassing "do anything" ability coupled with D&D's safe casting mechanics that make most problems easily solvable with "I cast spell x". Its a system issue, not just an adventure issue.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

It's interesting how many people in this thread are defending the decision for D&D4 to fix the problem. Yet no one is questioning or attacking that decision or D&D4.

Many people are saying the problem exists, but so far there's been very little examples of it in play.

For the record: I'm not saying the problem did not exist. Nor am I saying that D&D4 did not fix it. In fact, for me D&D4 (right or wrong, good or bad, fixed it or not) is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Can someone give examples of the subject (not theories on or defense of the issue)?

I mean, if someone said, "I've never seen dragons used in D&D, please tell me your experiences with dragons," would people come in explaining the existance of dragons and defending the use of dragons?

Bullgrit


----------



## Henrix (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Its Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit.




Well put.


----------



## OchreJelly (Mar 18, 2009)

I think there have been numerous examples in this thread.  People have posted how a fighter can be on the same playing field as a wizard in terms of out-of-combat spells (flight, planeshifting, teleporting etc.).  It costs them only a few feats if they want to be ritualists but they can do so if they want, rather than attempting to multiclass. 

Likewise, beyond scry/buff/teleport a lot of the things that made casters gods before have been downplayed.  No more longterm buff sets, no invis casters flying constantly 600 feet from the fight.  No long term combat flight really anywhere, no polymorph abuse, no army of summonables, no save-or-die.  Strangely there's a lot more combat teleporting, but it doesn't really take anything from the fighter.  

Part of it of seeing it, however, will involve getting into the 4E mindset.  The system supports much more cooperation amongst players.  The fighter does his thing, and the wizard does his other thing.  The other players at the table will both be grateful that both are there.  I don't think there's a better way to get more concrete than that other than by suggesting to give it a play session or two.  In play you really see it.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2009)

broghammerj said:


> As for the whole wizard/cleric can do anything better than the other classes.....why would you? Sure I can be invisible and hide better than the rogue, but I wasn't memorizing invisibility every day because we had a rogue in the party. Same is true for knock. Sure if I want to be an a-hole and steal everyone's thunder than I probably could but I game with friends so I don't.
> 
> People must have had a greatly different experience than I did with high level wizards. I remember being completely frustrated with spell resistance.
> 
> ...




If its single target, why the hell isnt the wizard casting scorching ray, or one of the many, many superior optionsl over fireball? If the fireball is hitting mass foes, that damage adds up.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 18, 2009)

I typically play anywhere between 1-20, though typically the games are 3-17/18.

I fully admit that wizards, clerics, and druids can bleed into multiple other classes, but that usually only happens when 1) they purposefully set themselves to do it, which is because 2) the person doing it is doing it on purpose.  I've never seen a wizard/cleric/druid *accidentally* steal the rogue's role, for example.

People are saying that "The only way wizards aren't eclipsing everyone else is because they're trying not to."  My experience has been the opposite of that.  When I play as a divine or arcane caster, my primary focus is to cover things that *aren't* already being covered.  I've yet to step on someone's toes.  It's not because I'm actively saying "Oh ho ho, I better not take knock, the rogue will feel useless!"  I think "Knock?  We have a rogue.  Don't need it."

Yes, casters have a lot of variability they can work with.  They can put themselves into multiple roles.  That doesn't mean they have to, or even that they do it by law of nature.  It seems bizarre to have to say this, but you can make a wizard that doesn't make any other class seem useless, unless the other classes are all wizards too.

In the end, the fact is, there are people who make parties of all bards.  Bards are, aha, not known for their _optimization_.  And yet people here are claiming that's impossible to do.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> If its single target, why the hell isnt the wizard casting scorching ray, or one of the many, many superior optionsl over fireball? If the fireball is hitting mass foes, that damage adds up.




Probably the reason that the Wizard felt like a failure: because he only chose fireball as an attack spell.

I mean, Scorching Ray is awesome becausr it breaks the DMG guidelines for damage spells. 4d6n at 3rd level, 8d6 at 7th, and 12d6 at 11th.

ProfessorCirno:


> In the end, the fact is, there are people who make parties of all bards. Bards are, aha, not known for their _optimization_. And yet people here are claiming that's impossible to do.




You've never tried have you?
Sublime Chord, Snowflake Dance, etc.

Bards can be when optiomized better than most classes of equal optimization. You need knowledge/books to do it though.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll give you a few concrete examples.

We were around 15th level.  The plan was to scout out a castle prior to an assault the next day.  The wizard is far better at this.  He can cast invisibility, silence 15 ft radius, and fly to get over the wall.  Alternatively he could cast change self and appear as guard, charm person to win over the real guards, and use knock to open the locked doors.  At any sign of trouble he could simply teleport out of the castle if detected.  There are probably many different variation of infiltration tactics due to the variety of spells.

The rogue on the other hand has to move silently, hide in shadows, and pick a lock to get in.  All of these have a chance of failure while the wizards spells are virtually automatic successes.  If the thief is detected then he is hosed as he has no other way out but to fight.

Most of the time the wizard *CAN BE* a better commando type character.  This never really happened for a few reasons:

1. The wizard player wasn't an a-hole and knew scouting was the thief player's gig and chose not to step into his role.
2. The wizard thought his role was battlefield control and damage which he chose to memorize for spells......The wizard didn't wake up every morning and say, "I need to memorize knock, invisibility, silence, charm person, teleport because I may have to do some scouting today."
3. This scenario also assumes the rogue does not have items such as a scroll of teleport, a ring of invisibility, etc. which I assume a high level character is likely to have.  The rogue right out of the PHB lbs for lbs is a weaker character than the wizard.  Everyone forgets there is the DMG which has suggested wealth levels and items by level.

Another example you talk about is the missing cleric.  Battling the BBEG without the cleric was  problem.  If the 160 HP fighter gets torched by a spell, beaten down by high damaging physical attacks, and then assaulted by swarms of minions....he is in trouble.  There is no way to heal that much damage quickly without a cleric.

To work around this the DM made healing potions, scrolls, and wands available to the other players.  This prevented the game from being canceled if the cleric didn't show up (which is ridiculous in my opinion).  Did that over shadow the other characters abilities...no.  It did represent that the cleric was an essential part of the team just like everyone else.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> If its single target, why the hell isnt the wizard casting scorching ray, or one of the many, many superior optionsl over fireball? If the fireball is hitting mass foes, that damage adds up.




Whoa you guys are literalists!  I used fireball as a generic name for an offensive spell...insert any spell's name.  Yes, I realize that you can optimize spells against certain opponents.  My point is that at high levels *my experience* is that the wizard did all or none damage due to saves and resistances.  That none part happened a lot making the character frustrating.  Meanwhile the fighter is whittling away at the BBEG taking off HP every round.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 18, 2009)

I think this is an impossible nut to crack when dealing with 3E. Consider a core only game to one with all WOTC splat material and then one with splats from dozens of sources. There is no common ground with regard to resources and options because there are so many possibilities. Everyone's personal experiences will be shaped by what was (or wasn't) used in thier games.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> It's interesting how many people in this thread are defending the decision for D&D4 to fix the problem. Yet no one is questioning or attacking that decision or D&D4.
> 
> Many people are saying the problem exists, but so far there's been very little examples of it in play.
> 
> ...




Several examples HAVE been given. Fighters are easy to lock down, and lack the ability to lock other things down (and when they do, its frequently decried as "cheese", see any spiked chain thread). They have to dump a load of cash into duiplicating spells in order to function, and that's assuming the DM either awards the necessary gear or doesnt throw a fit over players buying/creating magic items. Their poor will saves and low mobility are a hinderance in combat, when the game moved to require a full round action to get a full attack. There are a myriad of ways to negate AoO's (tumble, withdraw, etc), which arent overly lethal and frequently a better option that awaiting the full attack the following round. Spellcasting became considerably more difficult for a fighter to disrupt in 3rd edition with the remova of segment based cast time.

And that's just combat. You can build a character that does gobs of damage (lancer for example), but its not readily apparent to many players and relies on material outside of the PBH. One of the classes that was considered the most basic requires a lot of planning to function well.

Outside of combat, where a significant portion of my games take place, fighters are even worse off from their character abilities. They have a god awful skill list and 2 piddly skill points per level. Contrast this to wizards, who I feel, make more of an impact in fights, and can easily rule non combat encounters with a vast array of spells. Hell, most things a wizard can summon have more non-combat utility than the fighter. 

You'll note I included the phrase "character abilities". I've seen many times someone pipe up that their fighter was the tactical leader of the group or the party spokesperson (apparently ignoring social skills). If the same fighter player was playing a caster, he could come up with the exact same plans and give the exact same speeches. Stuff you add to the fighter outside the scope of the rules can also be added to a caster character that has more rules based options.

You'll hopefully forgive me if I dont list each and every time the mage in our current game uses said spells in the way they were intended. If you havent seen it, you're playing with blinders, low level or your wizards are being lazy and/or stupid. I dont think enumerating times where detect thoughts, charm person, phantasmal force, gaseous form (and that's low level stuff) etc came into play will change your mind.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 18, 2009)

Lord Zardoz said:


> Finally, consider a well balanced party, the classic Fighter / Wizard / Rogue / Cleric combo, at about level 15.  If the player running the fighter cannot show up, chances are pretty good that the party can work around that players absence.



In the case of the high-level party that I was discussing earlier, if the Fighter/Babarian didn't show up for a session, what generally happened was the Warmage or Cleric would use a scroll to Charm, Dominate or Geas the first really tough monster we came across. Voila, instant replacement for the lost PC for the session. There was no way for the Fighter to pull something out of his hat to replace one of the caster's like that.


----------



## Hejdun (Mar 18, 2009)

It seems to me that a lot of the "problems" with high level wizards are mostly theoretical.  Almost all of the arguments for why they're overpowered seem to just fall apart in the face of real circumstances.  I played a wizard from 5th level up to epic levels, and only at the very end did things get ridiculous.  The real breaking point is probably 17th level, when you get 9th level spells.  Let's review a few of the arguments:

1.  Anything you can do, I can do better.
Possibly true, but why would you want to?  One example that's been thrown about is that Wizards make better scouts than Rogues, because they have Knock, Fly, and Invisibility.  Yeah, Knock is better than Open Lock, but the Rogue can open as many locked doors as he wants without giving up any resources.  Each single locked door/chest a wizard wants to unlock costs a 2nd level spell (which you'll have at max about 6 of).  So on our scouting expedition, you're looking at expending a 3rd level spell (fly) and a ton of 2nd level spells (multiple Knocks, Invisibility, Silence) just to do what the Rogue can do all day long.  And you still won't have anything that can see or hear enemies before they bash your head in, because the Rogue's Spot and Listen are way better than yours.

Yeah, a Cleric could become a better fighter than the fighter, but only for 2 combats a day and only if you give him 4 rounds to cast all his spells first, and only if the enemy doesn't see him glowing like a Christmas tree and cast a dispel magic on him.

2.  Save or Dies make fighters expendable.
A single Save or Die has a very, very low chance of actually working against an enemy that matters.  First of all, CR=level monsters with spell resistance have at least SR at least 10+lvl, so that means you're looking at a 45-50% chance to fail against spell resistance minimum.  Yeah, you could take Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, but those cost 2 feats and only give you an extra 20% chance to succeed.  Yeah, you could use Assay Spell Resistance, but those burn up 4th level spell slots mighty quickly.

And even if you beat spell resistance, you still need the enemy to fail their saving throw.  Again, if you're attacking an enemy that matters, their saves are very, very good.  You're only looking at a 10-20% chance that the enemy actually fails their save.  So yeah, Save or Dies are great the 10% amount of times they work.  The other 90% of the time you're just wasting resources.  Save or Dies are really only good for when you're getting overwhelmed with medium threats that you have a decent (50%+ chance) of killing right away before they mob you.  If you want to pull off a Save or Die on an important enemy, it'll take multiple rounds of stacking Enervations on them to give your SoD a chance to succeed.

3.  I can just cast an "I Win" spell.
Pretty much every "I Win" spell is either very conditional, easily prevented/reversed, or has various other reasons why you wouldn't want to cast it all the time.  Take Forcecage, for instance.  It costs you 1,500gp a pop, which isn't peanuts even to a high-level character.  It can be quickly bypassed by a lot of enemies.  It doesn't do anything to actually kill the enemy.  It's Close Range, which means you have to get in, for instance, breath weapon range of the dragon.

4.  I'll never actually die because I have Contingency.
First of all, there's a million things out there that can kill you, and you only get one Contingency.  And even if you're lucky enough to pick the one situation that you happen to run in to, it only saves your neck once.  But secondly, every single defensive spell you're casting is taking the place of an offensive spell that you could be casting instead.  So yeah, you could buff yourself to the gills, but it'll cost you a good chunk of your power to do so.

In Conclusion
In reality, I never had nearly enough spell slots to do everything that I wanted to do, or wished I could do, or needed to do.  And you always had to pick exactly the spells you need for the day in advance, meaning that every wrong choice materially decreases your power.  The Paladin in our group was extremely important even up to the last combat.  We'd frequently get into a situation where we'd be fighting enemies who I could try to blast, but doing so would take 2-3 high level spells that I would really like to save, and I'm not even sure if it'll work, and the Paladin can chew them up in a few rounds anyways.

Secondly, you aren't acting in a vacuum.  I spent a lot of my time Dispelling Magic because we were fighting something that kept throwing Blade Barriers in the way, or trapping us with Walls, or going Invisibile.  At least half of time in combat was spent countering enemies' abilities instead of setting up my theoretically awesome combos.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> I've run a number of high level (15+) 3E campaigns, and in one of the last ones, there was no cleric in the party. There was a druid, but no cleric.
> 
> The effect of that was to make undead with level drain entirely too powerful. Druids can't cast _restoration_ or _greater restoration_. Ability drain or level drain? You weren't coming back from that.
> 
> ...




It seems to my that 4e does the same thing, if one role isn't present.  Well I would argue you can always do without the leader role.  I found the Warlord and CLeric to be the lowest on 4e desirability from a strict numbers level.

But as far as Defender, STriker, and Controller, it seems the 4e encounters are designed assuming all those roles present.  

I used to run alot of solo modules and 2 player modules.  4e seems a bit harder to run smaller groups.

I think the 4e design requires even more that all roles are present (except for leader, I found them near useless).  

I lost my familiarity with all the 4e types as I haven't opened a 4e book since thanksgiving, but there are distinct counters to the monster roles, that if that role was missing the encounter becomes much harder.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 18, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> It seems to my that 4e does the same thing, if one role isn't present. Well I would argue you can always do without the leader role. I found the Warlord and CLeric to be the lowest on 4e desirability from a strict numbers level.
> 
> But as far as Defender, STriker, and Controller, it seems the 4e encounters are designed assuming all those roles present.
> 
> ...



I think there's a pretty big difference between:

1. We need someone who can fill this general tactical role, and
2. We need someone who can cast Restoration.  No substitutes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> You'll hopefully forgive me if I dont list each and every time the mage in our current game uses said spells in the way they were intended. If you havent seen it, you're playing with blinders, low level or your wizards are being lazy and/or stupid. I dont think enumerating times where detect thoughts, charm person, phantasmal force, gaseous form (and that's low level stuff) etc came into play will change your mind.




Oh, clearly those of us who didn't have the problem just had wizards that were lazy and stupid.  After all, nobody's experiences could *ever* differ from yours unless they were doing something *wrong*


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 18, 2009)

Hejdun said:


> 1. Anything you can do, I can do better.
> Possibly true, but why would you want to? One example that's been thrown about is that Wizards make better scouts than Rogues, because they have Knock, Fly, and Invisibility. Yeah, Knock is better than Open Lock, but the Rogue can open as many locked doors as he wants without giving up any resources. Each single locked door/chest a wizard wants to unlock costs a 2nd level spell (which you'll have at max about 6 of). So on our scouting expedition, you're looking at expending a 3rd level spell (fly) and a ton of 2nd level spells (multiple Knocks, Invisibility, Silence) just to do what the Rogue can do all day long. And you still won't have anything that can see or hear enemies before they bash your head in, because the Rogue's Spot and Listen are way better than yours.




Wizards make scrolls...it is a class feature.
Yes, but the Roguie can't see invisible (until epic).



> Yeah, a Cleric could become a better fighter than the fighter, but only for 2 combats a day and only if you give him 4 rounds to cast all his spells first, and only if the enemy doesn't see him glowing like a Christmas tree and cast a dispel magic on him.



Um, Beads of Karma says the chance of dispelling him is close to 0.
The ability for divine casters to boost caster level is extremely easy. In fact, it is core: non-core both arcane and Divine can, but Divine gets even more than.



> 2. Save or Dies make fighters expendable.
> A single Save or Die has a very, very low chance of actually working against an enemy that matters. First of all, CR=level monsters with spell resistance have at least SR at least 10+lvl, so that means you're looking at a 45-50% chance to fail against spell resistance minimum. Yeah, you could take Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, but those cost 2 feats and only give you an extra 20% chance to succeed. Yeah, you could use Assay Spell Resistance, but those burn up 4th level spell slots mighty quickly.



Are we talking Core?

If non-core: why is even using save spells? At least no save and suck should be used:
Bands of Steel. You want the target to save successfully. He is helpless than.



> And even if you beat spell resistance, you still need the enemy to fail their saving throw. Again, if you're attacking an enemy that matters, their saves are very, very good. You're only looking at a 10-20% chance that the enemy actually fails their save. So yeah, Save or Dies are great the 10% amount of times they work. The other 90% of the time you're just wasting resources. Save or Dies are really only good for when you're getting overwhelmed with medium threats that you have a decent (50%+ chance) of killing right away before they mob you. If you want to pull off a Save or Die on an important enemy, it'll take multiple rounds of stacking Enervations on them to give your SoD a chance to succeed.



Scorching Ray has no save; only SR.


> 4. I'll never actually die because I have Contingency.
> First of all, there's a million things out there that can kill you, and you only get one Contingency. And even if you're lucky enough to pick the one situation that you happen to run in to, it only saves your neck once. But secondly, every single defensive spell you're casting is taking the place of an offensive spell that you could be casting instead. So yeah, you could buff yourself to the gills, but it'll cost you a good chunk of your power to do so.



Nipe, you can have one spell "Contingency", but as many as you can afford Craft Contingency (Complete Arcane).


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I think there's a pretty big difference between:
> 
> 1. We need someone who can fill this general tactical role, and
> 2. We need someone who can cast Restoration. No substitutes.




Before the cleric was demoted to leader role, he had a older role which was to buff, and restoration when broken down mathematically is a buff. 

I can't argue for what is in the PHB II as I have no idea what classes are in it, but there does not seem to be much difference between needing the cleric to fill the buff roll, or crossing it to a scroll reading rogue or Bard, and swapping one of the two classes out of its tactical role.

There were plenty of ways to get restoration.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Sorry, Charlie. If you move, and I use a readied action to get in your way, I can guarantee I'm between you and the wizard.




Please cite RAW on how you can prevent vertical movement without having vertical movement yourself. 

Also how readying an action to move in front of something prevents it from just moving AROUND you.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Or the fighter beats on the dragon while the wizard uses dimension door to escape.




None of this specifically prevents the dragon from choosing to engage the wizard.




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I did not say it did. Again, he can choose to squash the mage, but he'll get in only one standard attack. A dragon attacking one person per turn as a standard action is losing the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Can someone give examples of the subject (not theories on or defense of the issue)?




A couple years back, I was invited to play in a high level (18-20th) game. The game was five players with the following classes: Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Cleric, Druid. One wizard focused on battlefield control, the other on debuffs. One cleric focused all his spells on buffing the party, the other on summons and healing, and the druid focused on shape-changing. We had wands for everything. We never needed a fighter because the druid and the summons occupied that role. We never needed a rogue because the wizards had wands that occupied that role. There was no situation that this party could not handle.



ehren37 said:


> You'll hopefully forgive me if I don't list each and every time the mage in our current game uses said spells in the way they were intended. If you haven't seen it, you're playing with blinders, low level or your wizards are being lazy and/or stupid. I don't think enumerating times where detect thoughts, charm person, phantasmal force, gaseous form (and that's low level stuff) etc came into play will change your mind.




Seriously, people can enjoy doing things different than you. Referring to them as stupid and/or lazy is not appropriate.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 18, 2009)

Hejdun said:


> In Conclusion
> In reality, I never had nearly enough spell slots to do everything that I wanted to do, or wished I could do, or needed to do.



Good thing that you could craft & use cheap consumable magic items then, hmm?


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, clearly those of us who didn't have the problem just had wizards that were lazy and stupid. After all, nobody's experiences could *ever* differ from yours unless they were doing something *wrong*




Or they are so shocked that someone plays in a different way they just "won't beleive you" because obviously there is no other way to play the game.  LAughable really.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 18, 2009)

> But as far as Defender, STriker, and Controller, it seems the 4e encounters are designed assuming all those roles present.



I disagree with this statement. My experience is much, much different.

I've ran many games with no controller present. The only time it shows that a controller would be useful is when there are a bucket of minions on the field. 

A lack of a leader gets really obvious when the only healing in combat that's available is either 1) a potion, or 2) a second wind (of which you only get one, at the expense of a standard action).


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I disagree with this statement. My experience is much, much different.
> 
> I've ran many games with no controller present. The only time it shows that a controller would be useful is when there are a bucket of minions on the field.
> 
> A lack of a leader gets really obvious when the only healing in combat that's available is either 1) a potion, or 2) a second wind (of which you only get one, at the expense of a standard action).




Fair enough I figured the only really necessary roles were striker and defender anyway.  There really is no need for a controller or leader.  Same with City of Heroes.  If you had a tank and a blaster you were golden.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Can someone give examples of the subject (not theories on or defense of the issue)?



Plenty of people have already given you their experiences with the subject in this thread.

High-level fighter-types can dish out tons of damage in 3e, given the opportunity to make full attacks.  They simply need the support of lots of magic to get into the fight (_fly, haste, true seeing_, etc.) and to survive being in the fight (too many protective wards to list, healing).  So they definitely contribute inside of a fight, but then their one area of expertise (dealing damage) requires a lot of outside support and can be performed by just about anyone.

Outside of combat, they contribute very little.  It's up to the spellcasters to identify & locate targets and move the party to & from the target.  Any obstacle encountered at high levels is usually met with the fighter-types sitting back while the spellcasters figure out the proper combo of spells to bypass it.

The above is not theory, it's what I have observed while playing 3e D&D since 2000.  In 1e/2e I rarely saw high levels, or when I did, the groups rarely had straight warriors.  Most people were multiclassed something/caster or just straight casters.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 18, 2009)

I will also say that a barbarian will not live without a leader present.

I've seen a Barbarian in play several times, and the barb is usually the first one, and the most likely to get in single-digit hit points.


----------



## Mort (Mar 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I typically play anywhere between 1-20, though typically the games are 3-17/18.
> 
> I fully admit that wizards, clerics, and druids can bleed into multiple other classes, but that usually only happens when 1) they purposefully set themselves to do it, which is because 2) the person doing it is doing it on purpose.  I've never seen a wizard/cleric/druid *accidentally* steal the rogue's role, for example.




The point of the problem is Casters (particularly wizards) can easily step on another classes toes - other classes cannot step on casters toes. The wizard can do much of what the rogue can do if he wishes, the rogue cannot (except to a limited degree and at great expense) do what the wizard can do. 

More importantly the wizard can completely nulify the rogue but the reverse is not true. Obvious low level example: wizard lock - explicitly cannot be picked (but a wizard can use knock to open it).



ProfessorCirno said:


> People are saying that "The only way wizards aren't eclipsing everyone else is because they're trying not to."  My experience has been the opposite of that.  When I play as a divine or arcane caster, my primary focus is to cover things that *aren't* already being covered.  I've yet to step on someone's toes.  It's not because I'm actively saying "Oh ho ho, I better not take knock, the rogue will feel useless!"  I think "Knock?  We have a rogue.  Don't need it."
> 
> Yes, casters have a lot of variability they can work with.  They can put themselves into multiple roles.  That doesn't mean they have to, or even that they do it by law of nature.  It seems bizarre to have to say this, but you can make a wizard that doesn't make any other class seem useless, unless the other classes are all wizards too.
> 
> In the end, the fact is, there are people who make parties of all bards.  Bards are, aha, not known for their _optimization_.  And yet people here are claiming that's impossible to do.




Again it is a problem when you can do your role AND someone elses easily.

Besides that though, it's a bit vague to say I can do my role and not step on other's toes. It's not about doing your role all the time, it's about getting stuff done. Because casters have so many varied spells, they have more options to "get stuff done" than other classes. I for one got pretty tired of the 6 second solution to practically every problem in 3e.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 18, 2009)

I think Rogues get it worse than fighters at higher levels.  A lot of their stealth/scouting schtick can be replaced with cheap, low-level magic.  The lack of traps over 10th level in the DMG makes their trapfinding skills less important.  A lot of high-level monsters seem to be immune to sneak attacks.  Monsters tend to get bigger at higher levels, and it's harder to flank bigger monsters.  It gets harder and harder for rogues to hit in combat because monster AC needs to scale to challenge the fighter's good BAB.  Their poor Fort. and Will saves hurt them more and more because of the way save DC's scale AND because save or die and save or suck spells become more and more common.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Can someone give examples of the subject (not theories on or defense of the issue)?




The problem with a discussion like this is that many folks anecdotal evidence is often incomplete.  This matters with references to things like play-style, campaign breadth, character choices, group dynamics, available rules supplements and so forth.

I've run several 3/3.5e campaigns.  My main game ran for 6.5 years, running from 1st level to 28th level.  We had 6 players consisting of a cleric, rogue, paladin, fighter (archer), wizard and first a second fighter (archer) who was later replaced by a druid.  All characters eventually took prestige classes and most WotC supplements were adapted into the game.

Were the paladin and fighters outclassed by the wizard, cleric and druid at higher levels?  The answer is a solid: _sometimes yes, sometimes no_.

Example 1: The party and associated mounts, pets, cohorts and so forth are 17-18th level.  In a desperate act, they seek out the enemy assaulting the town under their protection and discover that it is a Winter Wight (CR 23).  It is arrogant, toying with them as blow upon blow misses, arrows fail to render harm, its wounds repair themselves and spells bounce off of him like spitballs.  The party considers fleeing to avoid a TPK, as it's clear that the Wight could finish them off if it desired to do so.  But then spell number 28, from the wizard, results in a natural '1', destroying the winter wight instantly, ending the combat...the only such roll that would allow it to fail a save.  Neither the archer, rogue nor paladin could have accomplished such a feat.  Combat ends.

Example 2: The party is 11th-12th level, travelling into the north.  While camped out on a treacherous mountain pass, giants attack.  Throwing boulders from up the pass at the cave the party has camped in, battle is enjoined.  Rolling a boulder before them, the giants approach, using it as as a shield for cover.  The wizard summons a massive illusion to distract them, then peppers them with spells from a long distance.  The cleric, by comparison, makes stew around the campfire, feeding the equally bored rogue.  The Paladin makes a show of standing in the cave entrance, but only one giant closes the gap.  After the wizard destroys the boulder, the archers and wizard do horrible damage to them.  Combat ends.

Example 3:  The heroes are 21st level and facing a full-scale Githyanki invasion force.  250 gith fighters, two astral dreadnoughts, 10 dragon-riders gith knights, 20 gith group-leaders, 4 undead ghostly gith (CR20), 2 templated githyanki gish, 1 23rd level caster.  End result?  The druid uses flames to wipe out dozens of gith per round.  The cleric decimates the super-gith ghosts.  The wizard begins destroying things left and right.  The paladin begins fighting the dragonriders in jousts.  The rogue sneaks up on the casters and begins murdering them in earnest.  The archer uses the benefits of range and magical powers to target enemies with unerring accuracy.  Players force few survivors to retreat to the astral, where they will soon follow to find and kill the Githyanki Queen herself.

Example 4:  The players are racing to free slaves from a mining colony and defeat an evil clockwork abomination and his extraplanar army.  Archers drop the attackers at extreme range, but then the Bodaks arrive.  Only the cleric has a chance to protect the party and stop them.  When the devourer attacks, the paladin only barely escapes with his soul, until the cleric puts it down.  The archers and rogue are totally ineffective aginst them.


The trend I've not discussed here (without going into massive detail) is that in each combat, terrain played a major part, ranged attackers were more effective and magic was a necessity.  As the levels grew higher, magic was needed simply to survive (why did the cleric sit the battle out?  Because he was loaded for bear with healing and restoration powers...but those aren't terribly useful in the middle of a fire-fight).  Magic _could_ have been unbalancing if not for two things:

1.) I don't play with JERKS.
2.) The party worked as a team.

Through the majority of the game, each player could dominate in their category...though spell-casters had the opportunity to co-opt other roles if they put their minds to it....something the other characters could not.  The cleric and wizard used things like Limited Wish or Miracle, but the Paladin set the game record for most damage dealt in one round (something like 230 points?  I'd have to check the old story hour).  

In all honesty, before I fully grasped 3e at high levels, the main threat to game balance was the archers, not the spellcasters.  That's entirely my fault, though, and not the system's mistake.  On the other hand, stories became much more challenging to write at first, with so many options placed in the players' hands by spells and magic items.  I can see how some would run into this problem...and I think we had it happen some times. 

But I can't say that it was a consistent problem for us.  I worked hard to make sure that each character had their time to shine, melee and ranged fighters included.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 18, 2009)

I think a lot of the problem is with the style of the players and the DMs.  A good DM will design encounters that challenge most/all of his or her players.  If a wizard or cleric is always the star in my game, they will likely get a "reputation" and somebody that can defeat their tactics will come along & challenge them - how about another wizard of higher level, aided by a few powerful minions.  (You should have seen the woman playing the cleric's jaw drop when an evil invisible baddie appeared right behind her while the rest of the party was fending off the evil cleric mounted on a wyvern...) 

My party is currently at level 12 and the fighter, fighter/paladin and rogue are all very useful.  The party psion is often the star, though, so I often have to come up with tactics to stymie him... but, that's mostly my fault for not knowing the rules on psionics that well.

Granted, not every encounter at higher levels will challenge every party member, though, but you can hopefully balance that out over the long run.  A powerful foe that causes disease is not a great threat to the paladin that is immune to disease,


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 18, 2009)

This problem is sometimes overblown, but it definitely existed. However, I think there are things people sometimes forget:

-Fighters and Clerics were an important duo in 3E. A fighter, paired with a cleric with good buffing spells, was a potent force. Also; spellcasters, because of their low HP, poor ACs, and terrible melee ability, needed combat classes around them to survive, even at higher levels.

-Power over time and DM Management. In 4E, the everything is equally balanced at every point in the game. And this is a fine approach. In 3E, there is more of a balance over time that some people dislike and others are fine with (I was always fine with it). Wizards trade being weak early on, for having all kinds of super cool powers later on (of course in most campaigns later on never happened, because storylines tend to collapse before you reach 14th level). Fighters start out solid, and end pretty solid, but don't get the cool powers wizards acquire at higher levels.  But there is still an important balancing feature many forget. Wizards have a limited number of spells per day; and a good DM knows how to get them to use up their abilities over the course of each day. Sure a wizard have a number of real mindblowing spells; but he needs to reserve those for the right moment. This boils down to DM management. At first, I had trouble keeping wizards balanced at high level in my games. But I learned over time, how to pace encounters, and what kinds of encounters to throw, that ensured everyone participated, and that wizards had to pay attentiont to spell management at higher levels. Eventually a wizard only has low level spells to throw at his enemies; but a fighter always has the same high Base Attack and feats to use. 

-Magic Items. Fighters need magic items to shine. A fighter with the right magic item, is just as cool at higher levels as a wizard. 

-Power Attack. Fighters that learn to use power attack effectively, do pretty well at higher levels. 

All that said, 3E is not balanced in the way 4E is. But I don't think it is broken when it comes to fighters; just more easily strained. It isn't the same kind of balance found in 4E (which is a pretty absolute balance-- and there is a trade of there in terms of how cool the spellcasters end up being); but it has a balance in the long duree thing going that works for lots of people.


----------



## Henry (Mar 18, 2009)

Speaking from my own anecdote, I know exactly what Rob's describing. In our 19th level 3.5 game, we played two weekends ago when the player of the Truenamer called in sick. He's the only real magic-user of the group -- he does the healing, the status buffs, the status removals, etc. We kept playing anyway, but by Tyr, we should have cancelled. Had he been there, the adventure that night would have been of average difficulty. Instead, the DM didn't alter the session, played it as he wrote it, and as a result, ever single encounter was either hideously frustrating or a near party wipe. Had I been missing (I play the Crusader), I doubt they would have noticed, strategy-wise.

It's actually lent me strong persuasion to retire my Crusader (which I am loath to do, since I enjoy playing him) and write up a Wizard or Mystic Theurge. If the Truenamer player misses again, or worse retires his PC like he's been hinting because he is getting tired of the mechanics, then someone is going to need to take up the slack, or call the game.


----------



## Henry (Mar 18, 2009)

Speaking from my own anecdote, I know exactly what Rob's describing. In our 19th level 3.5 game, we played two weekends ago when the player of the Truenamer called in sick. He's the only real magic-user of the group -- he does the healing, the status buffs, the status removals, etc. We kept playing anyway, but by Tyr, we should have cancelled. Had he been there, the adventure that night would have been of average difficulty. Instead, the DM didn't alter the session, played it as he wrote it, and as a result, ever single encounter was either hideously frustrating or a near party wipe. Had I been missing (I play the Crusader), I doubt they would have noticed, strategy-wise.

It's actually lent me strong persuasion to retire my Crusader (which I am loath to do, since I enjoy playing him) and write up a Wizard or Mystic Theurge. If the Truenamer player misses again, or worse retires his PC like he's been hinting because he is getting tired of the mechanics, then someone is going to need to take up the slack, or call the game.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 18, 2009)

I think there certainly can be a problem at high level with casters, but some of it is because the DM has used only certain kinds of encounters.

Scrying has not so far been a problem for our group as no self respecting BBEG has a lair that is not warded with Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum made permanent. No scrying, so no teleporting. They are sometimes also protected with Forbiddence etc.

In addition, many BBEG employ Wall of Dispel Magic, which completely batters clerics etc who rely on buffing because they don't even know the wall is there unless they have detect magic up all the time (and I rule that focussing to look is a standard action) and it can strip all their buffs off in no time flat.

I also like to use Ray Turning to defeat all the "no save rays" that can break the game. This also takes disintigrate out of the game as well


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Or they are so shocked that someone plays in a different way they just "won't beleive you" because obviously there is no other way to play the game. LAughable really.




Given that the OP's mind seemed made up, no one specific anecdote would sway him. There's little point in going over individual cases where its instantly countered with "we dont do that in my game".

How's this. 

High level highters are obsolete in my games. I have a fighter who typically cant hit anything or overcome its DR and gets essentially clobbered the moment he stands in place to face a full attack on a monster. He enjoys using improvised weapons from objects in the room, wearing no because it shows off his wardrobe, and has a low strength, dexterity and constitution due to his advanced age and injuries. Prove that fighters are a viable class to me. 

Oh, its a problem with the build? The way the character is played? 

Welcome to how stunned I am when someone mentions that not only are high level caster NOT the driving force in their games, but that they also dont see how its possible. I'd be equally confused if someone said their bard did poorly in social situations. Given the enormous toolset at their disposal, if a wizard in the teens is not rocking out, I'm inclined to say the fault lies with the user. Given their weak out of combat character based options, if  fighter in your group isnt marginalized by casters, I dont know what else to say.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm with a group that has slowly been playing through the Age of Worms adventure path in 3.5.  (We only play every two weeks or less.)  After last session, some of us made 19th level.  Our mix of classes is pretty standard.  Paladin (with young gold dragon mount/cohort), Wizard, Cleric, Archer Ranger, and an Artificer (with a warforged fighter cohort).

So do the spellcasters outshadow the fighter types?  Sort of.  There's no question that we need the wizard and cleric for transportation, divinations, healing, and buffing.  However, the player of the wizard has deliberately not learned a lot of the 'solve any problem' spells, though he easily could.  (On the other hand, he took the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil prestige class.)  The cleric is played by a player who, bless her heart, is very bad at looking at a D&D battle and figuring out the mechanically optimum thing to do.  She's the sort who uses the entire Spell Compendium to pick her spells and then decides to use a 4th level spell against a great wyrm dragon because she thinks the effect sounds cool.  (Actual event.)

On the other side, the Artificer has carefully made sure the ranger and fighter cohort are tricked out with exactly the magic items they need to do their thing.  The paladin (played by me) can regularly do 200+ points of damage per round with only a 5% chance of missing, due to some extremely carefully chosen spells and feats.  I'd say that over most combats the wizard, paladin, and ranger win the day.

So does that mean that Bullgrit is right?  No, he's completely wrong.  On the one hand, I recognize that the mechanics of high level play are pushing towards dominance by spellcasters.  Heck, it's the carefully chosen Spell Compendium spells that allow my paladin to compete.  The fighter cohort rarely gets to do much, being limited by full attacks.

On the other hand, even if my paladin is competitive, combat is boring for me.  My guy is carefully built to do a lot of damage in one way and that's what he gets to do.  I don't have to do much thinking beyond lining up for my characters charge.  It can't compare to the ability of the wizard and cleric to carefully decide day by day what spells to prepare and round by round what to use.  And their are still a lot of situations where the group can't get by without support that only the two full spellcasters can provide.

There was a problem in high level 3.5 for fighter type characters, and it did need to get solved.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Given that the OP's mind seemed made up, no one specific anecdote would sway him. There's little point in going over individual cases where its instantly countered with "we dont do that in my game".
> 
> How's this.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, it comes down to either conscious decision (I know what this class is capable of and I choose not to do it / Choose to explore a different concept) or just that the person behind the caster (and I realize that this is anathema to even suggest) _isn't very good at the mechanical aspects of D&D._ Yet, to suggest that this latter type of individual exists is apparently some terrible sin, when really, it is no different than my own cheerful admission that I am a horrible volleyball player. Likewise, people being told on an internet forum that their group's experience is invalid or that they're not fully exploiting the possibilities of a class tend to very easily see it as an attack on their playgroup, which is essentially an attack on both them and their friends. A double whammy.

Tabletop gamers tend to take a lot of pride/invest a lot of themselves in the hobby. To suggest that it is possible to be a poor player of the mechanical side of the game has thus evolved into a sort of grievous offense, when in reality it doesn't mean they cannot contribute in other ways or HAVE FUN.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 18, 2009)

I remembered another actual play experience pertinent to this discussion today. Quite a while back (we may have still been playing 3.0e at this point) I was playing a Fighter in a mid-level party (10th or 11th level) and another player was running a Wizard. We came upon a group of Grey Renders and my Fighter took on one while the rest of the party handled the others. My character managed to kill his creature but needed several dozen points of healing from the Cleric during the fight to stay on his feet. Immediately after the fight, the Wizard cast _Raise Dead_ on the Gray Render my Fighter had just defeated.

This means that we have a monster that would have won a straight up fight vs. my character if not for healing from another PC, which has now been reanimated with significantly more HP (zombies get 2x the base creatures HD, plus the HD are increased to d12s), an AC bonus, higher BAB, increased Str, DR, darkvision and (in most cases) better saves.  In other words, the Wizard just created (for the low, low price of 500gp) a "tank" that was already slightly tougher than my character while alive and leaves him completely in the dust as an animated undead creature.

So the Wizard, using a single spell that wasn't even of the highest level he could cast, essentially rendered my entire contribution to the combat effectiveness of the party redundant. Oh but wait, that's not the whole story. You see, he'd memorized _Raise Dead_ twice that day, and since a 2nd Gray Render would put him at exactly the HD of undead he could control at his level (40HD total) he did it again.

I could have gotten up and gone home at that point in the game and the party's combat effectiveness would still have been significantly higher than when we started that fight after I'd left.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 18, 2009)

Chalk me up as another person who has experienced save or dies favoring the save side of the equation, and the DPR classes (especially the fighter, thanks sneak attack immunities) carrying the day, even after level 10.

And with that I would like to point out that the fighter wasn't a meatshield, the fighter was a spearhead.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Given that the OP's mind seemed made up, no one specific anecdote would sway him. There's little point in going over individual cases where its instantly countered with "we dont do that in my game".
> 
> How's this.
> 
> ...




Much better thank you

There is a difference between citing that a party can succeed encounters without a caster, and saying that the wizard does not overshadow the fighter.  Obviously the wizard does.  However I have been in games where the fighter on occasion had to carry the party through until a rest point (Outside the hostile area or whatever) was reached, or the casters regained spells.  I did not experience the complete fighter incompetence at higher levels.  

Everyone I play with can agree the wizard/caster is most powerful.  For us it has never been a problem.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 18, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I did not experience the complete fighter incompetence at higher levels.



I don't think it's ever really been about Fighter "incompetence". Fighters do well at high levels and can certainly lay the smack down if the situation is right. I think it's more about the fact that most casters (if they want to) can, with a wave of their hand, replace the Fighter with something that can do the Fighter's job just as well as he can, if not better.

I have seen people I'm gaming with get very excited about their Fighter scoring a critical hit and doing lots of damage and then, a few minutes later when they realize the Druid's buffed bear companion missed with 2 out of 3 attacks and still did more damage than their character, just feel crushed. And I don't blame those people for feeling that way. It sucks when you realize that, no matter how well you play your character, another player can do both his job AND your job at the same time because of magic.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 18, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I don't think it's ever really been about Fighter "incompetence". Fighters do well at high levels and can certainly lay the smack down if the situation is right. I think it's more about the fact that most casters (if they want to) can, with a wave of their hand, replace the Fighter with something that can do the Fighter's job just as well as he can, if not better.



The other half of it is that spellcasters operate on exceptions based design, and 3.5 non spellcasters do not.

So a fighter who wants to not get murdered by a grappling enemy might pick up a feat to improve his grapple checks or his ability to escape grapples.  A spellcaster picks up Freedom, or Dimension Door, or Blink, or just puts the tentacled beast in a force cage from a hundred feet away.  The fighter is attempting to shift mathematical odds in his favor.  The spellcaster is bypassing the math entirely in favor of an absolute effect.

The fighter's only hope to combat this is magic items that mimic a spellcaster's abilities.  Of course, spellcasters can also use magic items.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 18, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The other half of it is that spellcasters operate on exceptions based design, and 3.5 non spellcasters do not.
> 
> So a fighter who wants to not get murdered by a grappling enemy might pick up a feat to improve his grapple checks or his ability to escape grapples. A spellcaster picks up Freedom, or Dimension Door, or Blink, or just puts the tentacled beast in a force cage from a hundred feet away. The fighter is attempting to shift mathematical odds in his favor. The spellcaster is bypassing the math entirely in favor of an absolute effect.
> 
> The fighter's only hope to combat this is magic items that mimic a spellcaster's abilities. Of course, spellcasters can also use magic items.




But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic. That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 18, 2009)

Stoat said:


> I think Rogues get it worse than fighters at higher levels.  A lot of their stealth/scouting schtick can be replaced with cheap, low-level magic.  The lack of traps over 10th level in the DMG makes their trapfinding skills less important.  A lot of high-level monsters seem to be immune to sneak attacks.  Monsters tend to get bigger at higher levels, and it's harder to flank bigger monsters.  It gets harder and harder for rogues to hit in combat because monster AC needs to scale to challenge the fighter's good BAB.  Their poor Fort. and Will saves hurt them more and more because of the way save DC's scale AND because save or die and save or suck spells become more and more common.




Now this is definitely true. Fighters (and Barbarians and Paladins and archer Rangers) can still be pretty effective meatshields and deal a lot of damage at high levels (especially if the casters like buffing). Rogues, though... immunities to sneak attack are common, huge and larger creatures are difficult to Tumble into flanking position on, high-CR creatures have ACs set assuming they're facing full BAB types.

In 2e this was even worse, to the point where I arbitrarily retired two thieves and replaced them with wizards after trying various kits and multiclass combos to build an effective thief at level 8+.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 18, 2009)

> Given that the OP's mind seemed made up, no one specific anecdote would sway him. There's little point in going over individual cases where its instantly countered with "we dont do that in my game".



My mind seemed made up? Yep, my mind is made up that I have never experienced the phenomenon I quoted from the interview. I'm sorry it upsets you that I am unwilling to admit that I've seen something when I know I have not.

I have not seen the dark side of the moon, either. No amount of you telling me will change my knowledge that I have not seen that place.

You should note that I never said or so much as suggested that the phenomenon did not exist. I especially have not said that no one experienced it. You, however, are forcefully stating that the problem absolutely exists and that everyone has experienced it, even if we are too dumb or blind to understand it.

I have said absolutely nothing to try to convince anyone that my experience was right and others were wrong. I specifically asked for others to tell me their specific experiences with the phenomenon. Ironically, you refuse to tell a specific example. You spend paragraph after paragraph telling me the concept, and then end by saying that you can't take the time to give a specific example of seeing the example.

I find it very strange that you have such a strong and antagonistic response to my query. You are aggressively attacking me over something I have not done or said. Are you reacting before actually reading what I've said, or are you confusing me with someone else, or are you just wanting to fight?



> So does that mean that Bullgrit is right? No, he's completely wrong.



The only thing I've said that could be identified as right or wrong is that I have never experienced this phenomenon. So now you, too, are directly telling me that my experience is completely wrong? I have experienced something that I have no memory of experiencing?

Overall in this thread, I really don't how this turned into a some kind of war.

Thanks to those of you who actually offered up your experiences with the phenomenon. My lack of experience with this does seem to be a result of having rarely played above 12th level.

Bullgrit


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic. That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.




Wizards should be able to twist the laws of the (game) reality but when they start twisting the laws of the (game) system it starts to break down. 
Compare 4e mirror image to 3e's version. 4e gives a bonus to AC based on the number of copies. 3e gave a miss chance. 3e by passes the basic of rule of how attacks hit or miss, by adding another layer of protection on top of the to hit roll.
Both versions twist reality by making illusions but only one twists the system. 

But fighters can't bend the numbers, that's the problem. They have to obey all the rules like grapples checks and rolling attack bonus against AC while the spell casters can ignore them. 

Problems with needing multiple fights per day is that with too few spell casters are overpowered, and too many you no longer have a full party but rather party and commoner with a crossbow. So the first three fights were easy because the caster was able to participate and the last one is hard because you have a commoner now. 
This is ignoring the fact that trying to build in some filler encounters to suck up spell slots can mess with campaign flow that isn't designed from the get go to allow them. Another problem is that spell casters start having more and more power in dictating how many encounters there are in a day with spells like rope trick and teleport.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic. That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.




That may have been the intention, but functionally, it doesn't happen that way on the game table.  Wizards casting spells is a completely mechanical action, a simple cause -> effect, no different from the fighter swinging a sword and rolling a d20 to see if it hits.  

As for the whole fighter works over long term while wizards has finite resource thing, one thing about high level (or even mid-levels) 3.5 combat is that it's very short in terms of rounds.  You really want a spell to get the most bang out of your action buck.  At 10+ levels, your fighter runs out of hp way faster than the casters run out of spells and the only way to fill up those hp again is dependent on spells and magic items.

The problem is that magic is too broad and needed for too many things in 3e.  Healing, defense, mobility, status ailments etc. (basically anything beyond "I attack and roll d20") all requires magic while magic can by itself duplicate mundane things such as those that are covered by skills.  If you have classes that has innate access to magic while some don't, there's gonna be a imbalance at some point.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic. That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.



I think that's why the problem generally doesn't show up until about mid-levels. By that point, two things are happening 1) Casters have acquired additional resources at a faster rate than non-casters (and I'm not just talking about spell slots here, but wands, staves, scrolls and other magic items) that not only virtually ensure they never run out of casting ability, but also greatly expand their versatility; and 2) The spells they do cast have longer-lasting effects compared to lower levels.

As I mentioned above, the mid to high-level caster can essentially create a Fighter replacement with a single spell that lasts for a full day or more. With _Charm Monster_ and a few healing spells, the replacement could last for the entire adventure.  That means that even if the caster is out of blasting spells he's still contributing as much as the Fighter's character if not more, plus he got to be three or four times as effective as the Fighter for the first half of the game session.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> That may have been the intention, but functionally, it doesn't happen that way on the game table. Wizards casting spells is a completely mechanical action, a simple cause -> effect, no different from the fighter swinging a sword and rolling a d20 to see if it hits.
> 
> As for the whole fighter works over long term while wizards has finite resource thing, one thing about high level (or even mid-levels) 3.5 combat is that it's very short in terms of rounds. You really want a spell to get the most bang out of your action buck. At 10+ levels, your fighter runs out of hp way faster than the casters run out of spells and the only way to fill up those hp again is dependent on spells and magic items.
> 
> The problem is that magic is too broad and needed for too many things in 3e. Healing, defense, mobility, status ailments etc. (basically anything beyond "I attack and roll d20") all requires magic while magic can by itself duplicate mundane things such as those that are covered by skills. If you have classes that has innate access to magic while some don't, there's gonna be a imbalance at some point.




In practice at my table this is how it played out. It is different from swinging a sword, because you are using magic, and magic breaks the laws of reality. In any game, the laws of reality are the system being used. I am not saying this is the only approach to spells; but it is the approach of 3E, 2E, and 1E. 4E takes a different tact; and it works in terms of balance better than 3E, but for some (myself included) it does so by reducing the coolness of magic. 

In terms of rounds, your mileage varies. Depending on the structure of the encounter and the tactics of the players, I have been in campaigns where 3E encounters lasted a round or two, and in others where they went on forever. This really boils down to DM management. Yes fighters are dependant on spells to heal, that can't be denied. But spellcasters are dependant on fighters to protect them from attacks, so they don't die and their spells don't get interupted. Getting healed as a fighter, has never been a problem for me in any 3E game. And provided that is taking place; the fighter is able to consistently perform at an even rate for the entire day. 

Yes magic can duplicate many other things. That was part of what made it great. But again it was limited. You couldn't cast the same spell all day.

Don't get me wrong, I concede that 4E is more balanced than 3E on this front, I just think the "brokeness" of 3E is overstated. Both systems offer very different approaches, and 4E wins on balance. But I think 3E, at least for my taste, wins on flavor when it comes to magic. I do like both systems, but would be lying if I didn't say I come down more on the side of 3E.  I never had much of a problem with higher level fighters or wizards in my games (except very early on as I was learning the system). But I do recognize others have.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I think that's why the problem generally doesn't show up until about mid-levels. By that point, two things are happening 1) Casters have acquired additional resources at a faster rate than non-casters (and I'm not just talking about spell slots here, but wands, staves, scrolls and other magic items) that not only virtually ensure they never run out of casting ability, but also greatly expand their versatility; and 2) The spells they do cast have longer-lasting effects compared to lower levels.




Magic item management was a big problem in 3E, and you really had to treat spellcasters and non-spellcasters differently. The wealth chart in the DMG is a useful guideline, but I found non-casters needed more access to cool items to give them an edge. So I concede you point here, but I think it is easily remedied by not handing out tons of wands, staffs, etc to wizards, who are already uber powerful. Yes, spell increase in potency and length with level, but they still have a limited number per day, and I promise you if you throw the right encounters at them, things tend to balance out more. 



> As I mentioned above, the mid to high-level caster can essentially create a Fighter replacement with a single spell that lasts for a full day or more. With _Charm Monster_ and a few healing spells, the replacement could last for the entire adventure. That means that even if the caster is out of blasting spells he's still contributing as much as the Fighter's character if not more, plus he got to be three or four times as effective as the Fighter for the first half of the game session.




I don't have a problem with this, because it really benefits the whole party. If a caster wants to take charm a powerful creature and suceeds. THen that's okay. It isn't like the party is fighting one another here. Again, this depends on the situation, and how the wizard is contributing if he is contributing more. I fully accept they are more powerful than fighters at higher level. I even think this is appropriate. Since the concession in 3E is that magic is cool and super powerful. Wizards trade off being weak earlier, so they can raise undead armies later on. This is a trade off that I am comfortable with as a player and a DM, because this is how I like magic in my settings. What I am saying is DMs who manage events better, and know the system, can ensure hat fighters still contribute in a meaningful way. Remember though, a spell like charm person or monster, while cool, doesn't give you absolute control over creatures. It just makes them regard you as a friend or ally. That doesn't mean they automatically go dungeon delving with you. That is up to the DM (or the opposed Chr check).


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I remembered another actual play experience pertinent to this discussion today. Quite a while back (we may have still been playing 3.0e at this point) I was playing a Fighter in a mid-level party (10th or 11th level) and another player was running a Wizard. We came upon a group of Grey Renders and my Fighter took on one while the rest of the party handled the others. My character managed to kill his creature but needed several dozen points of healing from the Cleric during the fight to stay on his feet. Immediately after the fight, the Wizard cast _Raise Dead_ on the Gray Render my Fighter had just defeated.
> 
> This means that we have a monster that would have won a straight up fight vs. my character if not for healing from another PC, which has now been reanimated with significantly more HP (zombies get 2x the base creatures HD, plus the HD are increased to d12s), an AC bonus, higher BAB, increased Str, DR, darkvision and (in most cases) better saves.  In other words, the Wizard just created (for the low, low price of 500gp) a "tank" that was already slightly tougher than my character while alive and leaves him completely in the dust as an animated undead creature.
> 
> ...




This brings up an additional question for me. It's one thing to recognize that wizards and clerics are pretty powerful. It's another thing to make mistakes in holding them to the limits they are supposed to have. That can only make the situation more challenging for the non-wizards.

I assume you mean _animate dead_ rather than raise dead. But there are still some pretty serious problems with your case here. A gray render, as a 10 HD magical beast, doesn't gain any BAB by becoming a zombie. He doubles his hit dice but goes from getting +1BAB/HD to half that. So that's a wash, actually. He has 20d12 hit dice compared to 10d10+70, which means he only ends up, on average, 8 hit points ahead of a regular gray render. His strength is only 2 points better. He loses his power attack, cleave, and improved bull rush. And, even worse, he gets only a single action per round (no full attacks). Heck, he even loses 2 points off his CR.

It's substantial to have something like that under a wizard's command. But let's not exaggerate what the zombie gray render can do or what it is. Your fighter fought an all-around more difficult opponent than the zombie the wizard animated it to be. Sure, he can soak up the damage as a tank, but he's going to dish it out very inefficiently compared to a fighter with half its hit dice.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> IThis means that we have a monster that would have won a straight up fight vs. my character if not for healing from another PC, which has now been reanimated with significantly more HP (zombies get 2x the base creatures HD, plus the HD are increased to d12s), an AC bonus, higher BAB, increased Str, DR, darkvision and (in most cases) better saves.  In other words, the Wizard just created (for the low, low price of 500gp) a "tank" that was already slightly tougher than my character while alive and leaves him completely in the dust as an animated undead creature.
> 
> So the Wizard, using a single spell that wasn't even of the highest level he could cast, essentially rendered my entire contribution to the combat effectiveness of the party redundant. Oh but wait, that's not the whole story. You see, he'd memorized _Raise Dead_ twice that day, and since a 2nd Gray Render would put him at exactly the HD of undead he could control at his level (40HD total) he did it again.




Undead hit dice are crappy. There is no way the gray render comes close to a fighter in terms of fighting ability. Plus, feats, right? Fighters have them, gray renders don't. Zombies are stupid... in the world I would like to live in, fighters are capable of tactical decision making, even artists. Rather than making the fighter redundant, the wizard has duplicated part of the fighter's job (absorb damage, hit hard), enhancing the fighter's ability to melee by relieving him of doorstop duty and allowing him to choose when and how to use himself as a living shield. 

If a cleric summons a fire elemental, I'm not going to suddenly claim the wizard is redundant and should go home because elemental damage dealing is covered. 

It's true, fighters suck at logistics. But they are good at so many things when it comes to combat. A fighter can reasonably be expected to deal top end damage in melee, perform adequately as a ranged combatant, absorb tons of hit point damage, and shrug off negative levels... all in one build. And you lose very little fighter-ness if you want to add a single level of anything else. Take a single level of Cleric with the Magic domain, and suddenly, you can use most magic items. 

Rogues? At the levels at which their lockpicking and trap disarming abilities are becoming less relevant because of the vast availability of magic, rogues can develop an extremely respectable Use Magic Device ability, letting them double up virtually any casting roll you like. Rogues can, in fact, create their own zombie gray renders, if they felt the need for such a thing.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Gunpowder said:


> Wizards should be able to twist the laws of the (game) reality but when they start twisting the laws of the (game) system it starts to break down.
> Compare 4e mirror image to 3e's version. 4e gives a bonus to AC based on the number of copies. 3e gave a miss chance. 3e by passes the basic of rule of how attacks hit or miss, by adding another layer of protection on top of the to hit roll.
> Both versions twist reality by making illusions but only one twists the system.




I agree and disagree. I think you can achieve the twisting of reality as 4E does, by not twisting the system, but it does water down the effect of magic for some people. Lots of people prefer this, because they feel magic was too potent in previous editions. But others feel that only when magic twists the system, does it twist reality in a meaningful way. Personally, I prefer my magic to twist the system, but thats just my preference.



> But fighters can't bend the numbers, that's the problem. They have to obey all the rules like grapples checks and rolling attack bonus against AC while the spell casters can ignore them.




They bend the numbers by having higher BAB, and things like power attack. A fighter is built all around to have a better chance of succeeding on his attack roles. Things are tilted in their favor on things like a straight up attack and a grapple. Wizards can outright break the way things are done temporarily, but they have a limited pool of resources, and a very small pool of HP. 



> Problems with needing multiple fights per day is that with too few spell casters are overpowered, and too many you no longer have a full party but rather party and commoner with a crossbow. So the first three fights were easy because the caster was able to participate and the last one is hard because you have a commoner now.




If a wizard manages his spell, he ends up with enough to use on most fighters, but he isn't casting high level spells left and right, so he doesn't overshadow the noncasters. This was actually one of the easier things for me to manage in 3E. Both as a DM and as a player when I, rarely, played a spellcaster. 



> This is ignoring the fact that trying to build in some filler encounters to suck up spell slots can mess with campaign flow that isn't designed from the get go to allow them. Another problem is that spell casters start having more and more power in dictating how many encounters there are in a day with spells like rope trick and teleport.




Well, most things in the game operate this way. You construct encounters based on what will be challenging and fun for the party. It really doesn't take many to force a wizard to expend high level spells. If you are throwing monsters at them, that require a mix of spells and steal, things usually work out okay. It isn't just the number of encounters, it is the nature of and construction of encounters as well.  

Teleport is a tricky spell. But there is still a chance of a mishap. If players are delving into a dungeon, that is a place they have at best "Seen Casually" or "Viewed Once" (12% chance of off target or mishap, 23% chance of off target or mishap). And they can only teleport to places they know. They can't just teleport past the dragon and into the villain's secret lair, if they don't know where it is. It is still a potent spell, but like most spells, you need to pay careful attention to the text.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> So I concede you point here, but I think it is easily remedied by not handing out tons of wands, staffs, etc to wizards, who are already uber powerful. Yes, spell increase in potency and length with level, but they still have a limited number per day, and I promise you if you throw the right encounters at them, things tend to balance out more.



Unfortunately, casters can make their own magic items (and IME, often did, at least for wands and scrolls). I fail to see how changing the encounter make-up is going to level the playing field. Anything that will challenge the casters more is also going to challenge the non-casters more. My experience was that most non-casters were already on the ragged edge of keeping up when encounters were moderately challenging to casters. Simple making encounters tougher or longer just meant PCs (almost always the frontline melee characters) started dying.



> What I am saying is DMs who manage events better, and know the system, can ensure hat fighters still contribute in a meaningful way.



I agree with this, although IMO it really comes down to the players who are running the casters rather than the DM unless the DM does some heavy house-ruling regarding what spells and class abilities are allowable. For a while in 3.5, I was playing a Druid with a bear companion. It became obvious that my bear was "stealing" fun from the party's Fighter. The Fighter wanted to kick butt in melee but anything within the realm of challenging (i.e. wouldn't wipe the floor with him the first round) for him was quickly dispatched by my buffed bear companion within a round or two. So, I retired that character and played something else. We all play the game for different reasons, but most people enjoy the rolling dice and killing stuff part of the game to some extent and my Druid character was very simply taking away opportunities from the Fighter's player to do those things and transferring them to me via the animal companion. To me, it was a major flaw that part of the "point" of the Druid class in 3e was the animal companion and the result of it was this unfair transfer of fun.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Unfortunately, casters can make their own magic items (and IME, often did, at least for wands and scrolls). I fail to see how changing the encounter make-up is going to level the playing field. Anything that will challenge the casters more is also going to challenge the non-casters more. My experience was that most non-casters were already on the ragged edge of keeping up when encounters were moderately challenging to casters. Simple making encounters tougher or longer just meant PCs (almost always the frontline melee characters) started dying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic. That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.



Lets assume that even works in theory.  Its a big assumption, but lets go with it.

That assumes that the game can always, or at least usually, compel the players to face (or at least fear facing) enough encounters over the course of a day to deplete their spell pool.  This will be particularly difficult in a game with a high degree of player freedom, particularly when the players have a built in incentive to avoid encountering enough situations to deplete their spells.  This is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult when they can use the spells themselves to avoid encountering enough encounters to deplete their spells.  This is almost flat out impossible if you have a game where money can be transformed into ways to not run out of spells.

I'm not convinced that these herculean efforts in pursuit of a goal that's dubious in the first place are worthwhile.  At the very least, if this is the theory, I think we can safely declare 3e and every other version of D&D before 4e to be an absolute mess.  The idea that spells will break rules completely, that you will have enough encounters over the course of the day to deplete your spell pool, that you will have similar numbers of encounters per day at level 1 as at level 20, and that spellcasters will gain more spells per day as they go up in level, is simply incoherent.  The fact that spells break rules completely instead of just adjust numbers means that many lower level spells will not actually decrease in power as you go up in level.

...Actually, now that I think about it, it could be done if the average number of rounds per combat were to increase dramatically as level increases.  But with spells that rewrite rules instead of work within them, creating that effect is probably going to be impossible.

...And don't get me started on the idea that spells that create bonuses to d20 rolls need to grow in the size of the bonus as players increase in levels.  That undermines the alleged balancing system of 3e, and is flat out mathematically illiterate unless the express intention is for the power to grow objectively more powerful.  A +3 to hit that isn't calculated as part of the underlying expected attack bonus, that is, an additional +3 that's not figured into monster defenses, is equally useful at level 1 as it is at level 20.  4e has mostly, though not completely, avoided that error.  Its something that irks me to no end, because there's just no _reason_ for it.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I assume you mean _animate dead_ rather than raise dead.



Yep. That was a mistake.



> But there are still some pretty serious problems with your case here. A gray render, as a 10 HD magical beast, doesn't gain any BAB by becoming a zombie. He doubles his hit dice but goes from getting +1BAB/HD to half that. So that's a wash, actually. He has 20d12 hit dice compared to 10d10+70, which means he only ends up, on average, 8 hit points ahead of a regular gray render. His strength is only 2 points better. He loses his power attack, cleave, and improved bull rush. And, even worse, he gets only a single action per round (no full attacks). Heck, he even loses 2 points off his CR.



It wasn't my character, so I'm not crystal clear on all the details, but I believe the Wizard had either feats or PrC features that enhanced the undead he created. So, yes, the base _Animate Dead_ spell only gives the Gray Render a slight (+1) bump to his attack rolls due to +2 Str and a slight bump to HP (~10 by my quick calculations). These zombies were considerably better than the base spell. On the other hand, even the base Gray Render zombie is large and has reach plus a sizeable bonus to grapple checks in addition to DR, some immunities and darkvision.



> It's substantial to have something like that under a wizard's command. But let's not exaggerate what the zombie gray render can do or what it is. Your fighter fought an all-around more difficult opponent than the zombie the wizard animated it to be. Sure, he can soak up the damage as a tank, but he's going to dish it out very inefficiently compared to a fighter with half its hit dice.



Perhaps he was more inefficient at dealing out damage, but that's part of my point. My increased efficiency at dealing damage didn't really make that much difference to the party as a whole. My job wasn't really to dish out damage because the other characters in the party (like the Rogue and the casters) were well ahead of me in ability to do that. My job was to stand in the front line, provide a flank for the Rogue and give the casters room to cast their spells by soaking hits from the opponents. In that role, the zombie(s) were simply better than I was.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 19, 2009)

Some counter points to Hejdun's earlier comments.

Disclaimer:  I am reaching a conclusion that no amount of well worded anecdotes or number crunching or debate will fully overcome any gamers in game experiences.



Hejdun said:


> 1.  Anything you can do, I can do better.
> Possibly true, but why would you want to?  One example that's been thrown about is that Wizards make better scouts than Rogues, because they have Knock, Fly, and Invisibility.  Yeah, Knock is better than Open Lock, but the Rogue can open as many locked doors as he wants without giving up any resources.  Each single locked door/chest a wizard wants to unlock costs a 2nd level spell (which you'll have at max about 6 of).  So on our scouting expedition, you're looking at expending a 3rd level spell (fly) and a ton of 2nd level spells (multiple Knocks, Invisibility, Silence) just to do what the Rogue can do all day long.  And you still won't have anything that can see or hear enemies before they bash your head in, because the Rogue's Spot and Listen are way better than yours.




The reason casters often have the option of doing this in practice is because of two things;  The 2 hour adventuring day, affordability of low level scrolls, and the general ineffectiveness of low level spells vs level appropriate opponents.  The Rogues spot and listen are better than the casters, but the casters Invisiblity and Silence type spells are better then most opponents Spot and Listen rolls, so the point is moot.



> Yeah, a Cleric could become a better fighter than the fighter, but only for 2 combats a day and only if you give him 4 rounds to cast all his spells first, and only if the enemy doesn't see him glowing like a Christmas tree and cast a dispel magic on him.




Not all CR appropriate opponents are going to have access to dispel magic, especially if the DM prefers to use monsters without class levels.



> 2.  Save or Dies make fighters expendable.
> A single Save or Die has a very, very low chance of actually working against an enemy that matters.  First of all, CR=level monsters with spell resistance have at least SR at least 10+lvl, so that means you're looking at a 45-50% chance to fail against spell resistance minimum.  Yeah, you could take Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, but those cost 2 feats and only give you an extra 20% chance to succeed.  Yeah, you could use Assay Spell Resistance, but those burn up 4th level spell slots mighty quickly.




Fair point.  However CR appropriate opponents without Spell resistance only have saving throws.



> And even if you beat spell resistance, you still need the enemy to fail their saving throw.  Again, if you're attacking an enemy that matters, their saves are very, very good.  You're only looking at a 10-20% chance that the enemy actually fails their save.  So yeah, Save or Dies are great the 10% amount of times they work.  The other 90% of the time you're just wasting resources.  Save or Dies are really only good for when you're getting overwhelmed with medium threats that you have a decent (50%+ chance) of killing right away before they mob you.  If you want to pull off a Save or Die on an important enemy, it'll take multiple rounds of stacking Enervations on them to give your SoD a chance to succeed.




Save or Die spells are viable whenever the player has the means to either pump up the DC of the required saves, and / or use spells that target a weak saving throw.  However, the usual complaint about Save or Die is from players, not DM's.  Players tend to be unhappy when a single die roll can screw them.  I would agree that on the whole such spells are balanced.



> 3.  I can just cast an "I Win" spell.
> Pretty much every "I Win" spell is either very conditional, easily prevented/reversed, or has various other reasons why you wouldn't want to cast it all the time.  Take Forcecage, for instance.  It costs you 1,500gp a pop, which isn't peanuts even to a high-level character.  It can be quickly bypassed by a lot of enemies.  It doesn't do anything to actually kill the enemy.  It's Close Range, which means you have to get in, for instance, breath weapon range of the dragon.




"I Win" spells are generally conditional in such a way that they are useless against some opponents, but are very often going to be quite useful against many other possible opponents.  Force Cage may have shortcomings, but it is still very viable against a dragon.  Breath weapon may suck, so that just means you first make sure you have sufficient resistance to the breath type before you get in close.  Cost of components is generally a lousy way to balance a spell, but getting gold is hardly a problem at higher levels.  It may not be cheap, but it wont make or break the players either.



> 4.  I'll never actually die because I have Contingency.
> First of all, there's a million things out there that can kill you, and you only get one Contingency.  And even if you're lucky enough to pick the one situation that you happen to run in to, it only saves your neck once.  But secondly, every single defensive spell you're casting is taking the place of an offensive spell that you could be casting instead.  So yeah, you could buff yourself to the gills, but it'll cost you a good chunk of your power to do so.




The simplest use of Contingency is to guarantee an escape given a precondition.  Yeah, it can be worked around.  But it can still save the caster precious actions in combat.  Why prebuff when you can just in time buff.

[/QUOTE]In Conclusion
In reality, I never had nearly enough spell slots to do everything that I wanted to do, or wished I could do, or needed to do.  And you always had to pick exactly the spells you need for the day in advance, meaning that every wrong choice materially decreases your power.  The Paladin in our group was extremely important even up to the last combat.  We'd frequently get into a situation where we'd be fighting enemies who I could try to blast, but doing so would take 2-3 high level spells that I would really like to save, and I'm not even sure if it'll work, and the Paladin can chew them up in a few rounds anyways.

Secondly, you aren't acting in a vacuum.  I spent a lot of my time Dispelling Magic because we were fighting something that kept throwing Blade Barriers in the way, or trapping us with Walls, or going Invisibile.  At least half of time in combat was spent countering enemies' abilities instead of setting up my theoretically awesome combos.[/QUOTE]

Wizards who make a habit of creating spell scrolls will circumvent the problem of needing to memorize a spell that they may absolutely need but are not likely to use.  While there are some spells that are obvious wrong choices at time, some spells are never the wrong choice.  Most wizards have a semi-standard selection of spells that sledom change, outside of some customizations specific to the current adventure.  The DM will know what the fighter is capable of for most of the adventure, only having to update this when the character levels up.  Characters with mutable spell selections are much harder to account for.

You do not act in a Vacuum, but neither does the DM.  It is very difficult for a DM not to metagame to some extent.  They may not hyper optimize encounters to screw the players (at least the good ones do not do this).  But they will often make sure to avoid encounters that they know will be a waste in time.  A DM only needs to be burned really badly once to start avoiding things that just will not work.  The DM generally wants to challenge the players, and it simply takes much more work to make sure that the Wizard and will be challenged.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Rogues? At the levels at which their lockpicking and trap disarming abilities are becoming less relevant because of the vast availability of magic, rogues can develop an extremely respectable Use Magic Device ability, letting them double up virtually any casting roll you like. Rogues can, in fact, create their own zombie gray renders, if they felt the need for such a thing.




So the answer to keeping rogues viable is to make them wizard-in-a-sticks?


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 19, 2009)

*Case in Point*

As thankfully pointed out by Ourph the zombie grey renderer is substantially worse than a real one.  Its probably telling that all those looking at the board didn't realise this or worse didn't point it out.  
No wonder 'casters rulez'.  HD limit on zombies from animate, no con bonus, dex penalty, no feats, ONE ACTION.. never mind that its a action to command them and they are as able to comprehend complexity as a retarded snake.

This typifies how casters manage to match fighters in games at fighting in some of the games I have personally played.  Poor rules understandin, poor DM ship, cheating, ignoring equipment etc.  Thats been my experience.

Charm/Dominate/Geas are much the same.  Its a chr check to order things and an action... utter waste of actions.  Then again if your in a caster biased worls where you can cheat (I REALLY miss those days) then mindless domination can be yours without action without ramification or sensible follow thru.

Flying wizards blasting things from 600ft: thats - 60 to spot.. man I can manipulate the system but a wizard with + 60 spot... I thought Rethian the eagle eyed (Wild Elf Shaman 6 Seeker of the Misty Isle 6 with 'Quick Reconnoiter' from 'Complete Adventurer' so spot and listen were free not move actions) was talented with +35 in a class skill at 12th level:  +60 cross classed... bugger me!

Couple times in this post wizards casting 'silence' have been mentioned...  

Wizards are mentioned as better infiltrators with disguise self or invis, I assume the DM never has listen checks or sense motive either...  then again maybe the wizards with +60 spot also manage +60 bluff as well?

Summon spells have a duration, enemies are often on home ground:  not hard to retreat or prot. from evil, DISPEL, or wall off the summoned creatures which wont have items like helms of teleportation.

Teleporting into the big nasties lair indicates a high level... as mentioned by another what sort of high level nasty doesn't have his home under 'Private Sanctuary' and/or 'Forbiddance' ?

Its all seems to be pointing to those that play dnd, an inately high magic world, and yet somehow get all the magic to themselves get to dominate (un-supprising).  Where as those in campaigns where the DM plays the world as just that: a highly magic world, its all pretty equal.  All have their moments.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

> Druids are definitely broken. I will defend lots of things in 3E. But druids aint one of them. They were broken in 3.0 and still broken in 3.5 (mostly because of splat books).




I would argue that druids are really the key reason why "core = balanced" arguments don't fly. Interestingly enough, I noticed that splatbooks added very little to the druid's power level overall, because the key components which made a druid powerful were all found in core (animal companion, wildshape, 9th lv spells, natural spell, wild armour property). 



> Again, the big thing with 3E is to be wary of player "Wish lists" (because those usually have more to do with broken builds than with flavor, to dissallow broken prestige class/feat/multiclass/magic item combos (from the splats), and keep a handle on magic items in general.




Ironically, I felt it was aggressive multiclassing by the melee classes that allowed them to close the gap in power level with spellcasters. They still wouldn't be anywhere near as strong, but at least the disparity was less.

So limiting wish lists tend to hurt those who really needed them the most (ie: the non-casters).  



> No one wants to walk around with a bear, or god forbid the GM allows, a Dire Ape. NPCs need to call out the silliness of a guy walking around in bear form all day.




Silliness perhaps, but you can't deny that it works. At lv8+, druids can stay in wildshape 24/7, and unless you can come up with a compelling reason for them not to (say a urban city setting), there is no reason why a druid should ever be out of wildshape when the party is adventuring in say, a dungeon setting, where the only npcs who will laugh at you are probably the very foes you set out to slay.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> If you follow the rules for making magic items in the DMG, it is pretty hard for players to just make what they want to order.



For wands and scrolls (i.e. the Swiss Army Knives of Wizards and Clerics)? I never found that to be so.  Know the spell? Having the money and time? Bingo, there's your magic item.



> Off the top of my head, Spell Resistance? Something that a wizard's spells don't effect as well will be less of a challenge for fighters and more of a challenge for wizards.



Again, this isn't what I found at all. You haven't really made the challenge tougher for the casters, perhaps more frustrating, but not harder. What you've done is made the encounter significantly harder for the melee guys.

If the casters can't affect the creature, that just puts more pressure on the melee characters to get up close and whittle away its HP. Without spell support from the party's casters in doing that, the opponent lasts longer, devotes more attention to killing the PCs who are actually hurting it (i.e. the melee guys) and usually (IME) ends up killing someone who is a non-caster. You'll rarely see a caster die in this situation because they would be either 1) so inefficient at hitting stuff with melee weapons that there is no good reason for them to get close to the creature (read: Wizard) or are out of melee casting support spells like buffs and healing (read: Cleric). You might very well see the Cleric using up more spells during this encounter, but that's because it's going to take all of his healing to keep the melee guys going long enough to win. After that, what does the party do....? Do they press on knowing that the melee guys are going to get hit, need healing and it's not going to be there or do they rest? IME, the party rests, which means the casters get their spells back.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Perhaps he was more inefficient at dealing out damage, but that's part of my point. My increased efficiency at dealing damage didn't really make that much difference to the party as a whole. My job wasn't really to dish out damage because the other characters in the party (like the Rogue and the casters) were well ahead of me in ability to do that. My job was to stand in the front line, provide a flank for the Rogue and give the casters room to cast their spells by soaking hits from the opponents. In that role, the zombie(s) were simply better than I was.




Actually, I'd say your role was to deal out a lot of damage _while_ anchoring the front line. That's why a fighter as the power to rack up a lot of damage consistently. If that weren't the case, the wizard would have done better with a wall of stone with a hole in it than the gray render as well.

Now, I'd admit, 4e was onto something by coming up with some powers to penalize the monsters who try to get past the tanks (I'm not sure they've succeeded in really changing the situation, though they've added another facet to the topic). I think a good addition to 3e would be some reactive feats for fighters to hinder the ability of monsters to get past him. Something a bit more advanced than just combat reflexes.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Lets assume that even works in theory. Its a big assumption, but lets go with it.
> 
> That assumes that the game can always, or at least usually, compel the players to face (or at least fear facing) enough encounters over the course of a day to deplete their spell pool. This will be particularly difficult in a game with a high degree of player freedom, particularly when the players have a built in incentive to avoid encountering enough situations to deplete their spells. This is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult when they can use the spells themselves to avoid encountering enough encounters to deplete their spells. This is almost flat out impossible if you have a game where money can be transformed into ways to not run out of spells.




I have been DMing 3E since it was released, and with the exception of the first few months of play (which were problematic because of the learning curve of the system) I had no difficulty balancing wizards out at hire levels, not by depleting them with a high number of encounters, but by throwing the correct encounters at them. I also never had much of a problem with players using teleport willy-nilly to avoid encounters, because I enforced the rules of the spell. Again though, it wasn't the number of encounters, so much as the nature of encounters that mattered. 

You are overblowing magic item creation. 1) Magic items are incredibly expensive to make to boot. 2) They require time and, in most cases, a forge 3) XP Costs are a serious deterent 4) They occur outside of combat which gives the DM a lot of leeway. 




> I'm not convinced that these herculean efforts in pursuit of a goal that's dubious in the first place are worthwhile. At the very least, if this is the theory, I think we can safely declare 3e and every other version of D&D before 4e to be an absolute mess. The idea that spells will break rules completely, that you will have enough encounters over the course of the day to deplete your spell pool, that you will have similar numbers of encounters per day at level 1 as at level 20, and that spellcasters will gain more spells per day as they go up in level, is simply incoherent. The fact that spells break rules completely instead of just adjust numbers means that many lower level spells will not actually decrease in power as you go up in level.




I think you are being a little hyperbolic here. These criticism have been answered a number of times in this thread. 



> ...Actually, now that I think about it, it could be done if the average number of rounds per combat were to increase dramatically as level increases. But with spells that rewrite rules instead of work within them, creating that effect is probably going to be impossible.
> 
> ...And don't get me started on the idea that spells that create bonuses to d20 rolls need to grow in the size of the bonus as players increase in levels. That undermines the alleged balancing system of 3e, and is flat out mathematically illiterate unless the express intention is for the power to grow objectively more powerful. A +3 to hit that isn't calculated as part of the underlying expected attack bonus, that is, an additional +3 that's not figured into monster defenses, is equally useful at level 1 as it is at level 20. 4e has mostly, though not completely, avoided that error. Its something that irks me to no end, because there's just no _reason_ for it.




No it doesn't. Low level spells increase in power, but only so they remain useful. They pale compared to higher level spells. 

Obviously you are happier playing 4E. I am glad you like the new system. Personally, I enjoy 3E. And I think the trade of pays off most in terms of flavor. 4E is more balanced. I don't deny this. I am just saying 3E brokeness is overblown. That it can be managed. I do it in my games. I have explianed how. And others here agree. Is it as balanced at 4E? Probably not. But, in my view, it is cooler. It has a magic system, that matches what I want. And if the magic system is managed well, everyone has fun.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Actually, I'd say your role was to deal out a lot of damage _while_ anchoring the front line. That's why a fighter as the power to rack up a lot of damage consistently.



I understand your point, but I can only assure you that the difference between the damage I was dealing out and the damage the zombie was dealing out didn't appear to me (or any of the rest of the group when we discussed it later) to be particularly significant to the success or failure of the party.  Especially when the zombie (with its huge grapple bonus) could simply grab an opponent and squeeze it thus immobilizing it, preventing it from attacking other characters AND dealing damage to it every round. While I might be able to deal more damage, as Cadfan pointed out above, I couldn't just circumvent a threat to the rest of the party with an overwhelmingly successful tactic the way the zombie could.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

> As thankfully pointed out by Ourph the zombie grey renderer is substantially worse than a real one. Its probably telling that all those looking at the board didn't realise this or worse didn't point it out.
> No wonder 'casters rulez'. HD limit on zombies from animate, no con bonus, dex penalty, no feats, ONE ACTION.. never mind that its a action to command them and they are as able to comprehend complexity as a retarded snake.



Who even bothers with grey render zombies, when there are much better alternatives around? You could be settling for skeleton hydras and dragons instead (using the draconomicon variant), which are statistically superior, not least of all because they have fewer HD, thus allowing you to control a greater number. A 5th lv cleric can animate a 5-headed hydra. Low HD (and consequently few hp), but great damage potential due to its 5 attacks/round.

You want a tank? The wizard with 10AC is the tank, with mirror image+displacement making him even harder to hit than the fighter with 50AC. Or summon a huge centipede to grapple the foe instead.



> This typifies how casters manage to match fighters in games at fighting in some of the games I have personally played. Poor rules understandin, poor DM ship, cheating, ignoring equipment etc. Thats been my experience.



Nope. Just a very basic understanding of how magic works is required. No need for cheating.


----------



## Drowbane (Mar 19, 2009)

Henry said:


> Speaking from my own anecdote, I know exactly what Rob's describing. In our 19th level 3.5 game, we played two weekends ago when the player of the Truenamer called in sick. He's the only real magic-user of the group -- he does the healing, the status buffs, the status removals, etc. We kept playing anyway, but by Tyr, we should have cancelled. Had he been there, the adventure that night would have been of average difficulty. Instead, the DM didn't alter the session, played it as he wrote it, and as a result, ever single encounter was either hideously frustrating or a near party wipe. Had I been missing (I play the Crusader), I doubt they would have noticed, strategy-wise.
> 
> It's actually lent me strong persuasion to retire my Crusader (which I am loath to do, since I enjoy playing him) and write up a Wizard or Mystic Theurge. If the Truenamer player misses again, or worse retires his PC like he's been hinting because he is getting tired of the mechanics, then someone is going to need to take up the slack, or call the game.




Sounds like a case for "Leadership"


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> For wands and scrolls (i.e. the Swiss Army Knives of Wizards and Clerics)? I never found that to be so. Know the spell? Having the money and time? Bingo, there's your magic item.




It is outside of combat. If you feel scrolls are unbalancing your game because wizards are making too many, get more strict. They need a full day for every 1000 gp base cost. Just because they have "down time" from adventure that doesn't mean they have free time to scribe scrolls. It is very easy say the wizard doesn't have the time to scribe 20 scrolls in 40 days. 



> Again, this isn't what I found at all. You haven't really made the challenge tougher for the casters, perhaps more frustrating, but not harder. What you've done is made the encounter significantly harder for the melee guys.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I understand your point, but I can only assure you that the difference between the damage I was dealing out and the damage the zombie was dealing out didn't appear to me (or any of the rest of the group when we discussed it later) to be particularly significant to the success or failure of the party.  Especially when the zombie (with its huge grapple bonus) could simply grab an opponent and squeeze it thus immobilizing it, preventing it from attacking other characters AND dealing damage to it every round. While I might be able to deal more damage, as Cadfan pointed out above, I couldn't just circumvent a threat to the rest of the party with an overwhelmingly successful tactic the way the zombie could.




If the gray render has the opponent immobilized, is there any better time for a fighter to demonstrate their damage output?

I should point out that the gray render zombie is absolutely useless against incorporeal foes.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 19, 2009)

*Understanding*

Summoned Centipides follow their base attack routines as mentioned in the monster manual and being vermin are immune to mind effects... how exactly do you train/get your freshly summoned intelegence " - " creature to grapple in the couple rounds you have it ?   

Mirror image and Displacement....  NPC uses their "ninja magic"TM and CLOSE their EYES !!  50/50 to hit assuming they don't have blind fighting!

You must be playing in a casters paradise.  I envy you!


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

> Summoned Centipides follow their base attack routines as mentioned in the monster manual and being vermin are immune to mind effects... how exactly do you train/get your freshly summoned intelegence " - " creature to grapple in the couple rounds you have it ?




The centipedes summoned via monster summon3 have the fiendish template tacked on, which grants them an int of 3, enough to understand simple instructions from the wizard.



> Mirror image and Displacement.... NPC uses their "ninja magic"TM and CLOSE their EYES !! 50/50 to hit assuming they don't have blind fighting!




Since we are on the topic of intelligence, not every foe would be smart enough to close their eyes to negate mirror image either (especially not low-int foes such as mindless undead/vermin/constructs, int2 enemies like animals). Of course, them being blind comes with their own drawbacks against the rest of the party (rogue can sneak attack with impunity, for instance). Either way, the party still comes out ahead. It is like a free glitterdust!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I should point out that the gray render zombie is absolutely useless against incorporeal foes.




This raises a good point. 

There are two things in 3.5 that really help DMs out. Stacking rules and Immunities/DR/Resistance. 

If numbers don't look right. Always check for stacking. My experience is 3 out of 4 times, someone is stacking things they shouldn't. 

If a wizard is overly reliant on fire spells, throwing a creature with fire resistance is useful. Also mixing up your encounters in general is helpful. The hard part about being a wizard is selecting the right spells to memorize that day. If you still think spells are too potent, go nuts with spell components. That way, not only does the wizard need to manage his spells, he needs to manage his components also.

3E is very customizable if your the DM. Once you know the system, it is really easy to tailor every foe to your party.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2009)

I've stayed out of this thread for a while, but since Bullgrit want's some actual experiences, here are mine. These are my observations.

1. D&D (even 3.5) was never designed to mesh with a skill system.

There are too many effects that are mundane dice rolls (swim, open locks, hide, heal checks) that magic doesn't aid, it eliminates (freedom of movement, knock, invisibility, neutralize poison/remove disease). This means that skill use is always second class to magic, provided magic is available. add to the fact there are cheap ways of replicating said effects (scrolls, wands, potions) and you have a game where skill users are almost always inferior except when a.) the magical effect is unavailable or b.) required multiple times in succession without rest. 

Note all these effects are low level too, meaning when the casters have graduated their attack and defense magic to higher level slots (for more damage, better effects and higher DCs), what better way to fill unused spell slots than with "problem solver" magic? The only time I didn't see mages doing this is when they "purposefully" avoided doing so to give skill users "something to do" (which, even when meant in earnest, still comes off patronizing). 

2.) More Casters, Worse the Effect

If you're "blessed" to have a game consisting of one warrior, one mage, one priest, one expert (typically ftr/wiz/clr/rog) the effect is less pronounced than if you have any duplicates or supplemental casters (such as sorcerers, druids, or bards). The more players who turn to casting, the worse it is for the non-caster. It multiplies the number of spells available, adds to the spells known pool, and allows the casters to split the burden of their primary role (nuker, healer) to augment into other roles. For example, one mage could focus on attack magic, while another focuses on summons and divination, and a third on buffing and transport (true story, saw it happen). 

3.) The Games ever-increasing need for magic

As the game goes higher and spell slots become more prevalent, magic becomes the go-to for challenges. Why cross a rickety old bridge when fly gets you there safer, or teleport moves the whole party? Additionally, non-casters find themselves heavily dependent on magical items and buffs to remain effective, while casters need very little beyond defensive items. This leads to two phenomenon; the first is the fact casters become the primary "solvers" of problems outside combat (like transport, info gathering, even camping) which limits the screen time of non-casters and secondly fighters become extremely dependent on their wizard and cleric buddies to "keep up with the Jones" among fighting level-appropriate monsters. 

4.) Versatility is only a Day Away

This one primarily applies to casters with prep spells; spontaneous classes actually are in the same boat as non-casters (and hence are typically viewed as weaker than prep-casters). Fighters, rogues, etc make relevant character choices twice; at char-gen and at level-up. Here, the select feats, skills, class-abilities etc that define their existence. If a particular adventure shows signs of requiring different expertise (A tomb of traps and undead, for example), these classes cannot adapt, they are fixed with those choice (the ranger cannot change FE:Giants to Undead, the rogue can't reinvest those ranks in Diplomacy into search, the fighter can't trade Imp. Critical: Scimitar for Power Attack, etc). 

Whereas the cleric, druid, or wizard can TOTALLY remake thier PCs primary function with 24 hours. Tomb of the Undead? the cleric memorized Death Ward and Searing Light while the Wizard trades Sleep for Magic Missile. This means a caster, with an opportunity to rest, can become dominant in a given situation while a choice the non-caster made at level-up comes back to bite them. 

5.) Realistic Limits on "Unlimited" Powers

This one goes back to concepts of "how many locked doors ARE there, anyway?" Most adventuring parties, with no time limit and ample opportunity, prefer to rest when their mage and cleric are low on magic (for reasons that should be obvious, but if not, see # 3). That means fighters "rarely" make many more "attacks" than a caster can. This doesn't mean he and the wizard have a 1:1 attack:spell ratio, but unless the fights are sufficiently "easy" the the wizard doesn't feel he need to use a lot of his spells in a given fight, the fighter won't have a lot of opportunity to "wipe out" all foes while the wizard stands idle. Sadly, the effects of magic has rendered the opposite true from time to time; the fighter stands idle (because of magical effect or simply low initiative) and the wizard wins the fight. 

In Conclusion

A fighter is still a powerful class, it is NOT however a versatile one. That is whee casters, shine, versatility. There is rarely a moment a wizard doesn't shine; he can sling fireballs, teleport the party back home, divine lost info, or sneak past a guard undetected. Non caster do not have that versatility and where they are supposed to shine (combat, skills) the wizard can match or upstage them. 

Simply put, a caster can do "everything" a non-caster can do, and a lot of things they can't. 

That's why they don't matter after 11th level; they stop bringing something unique to the table that can't be replicated with the right spell or item.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2009)

Runestar said:


> A 5th lv cleric can animate a 5-headed hydra. Low HD (and consequently few hp), but great damage potential due to its 5 attacks/round.




One attack actually. Zombies don't get more than a single action out of the round. No full attacks. It's one of the reasons zombies are at the low end of the undead spectrum with skeletons.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> One attack actually. Zombies don't get more than a single action out of the round. No full attacks. It's one of the reasons zombies are at the low end of the undead spectrum with skeletons.




I was actually referring to raising the hydra as a skeleton, not a zombie. Regardless, the hydra can attack with all its heads as an attack action, so it still can make the equivalent of a full attack even as a zombie (charge + attack with all heads).


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But in 3E (and previous editions) the reason for this is to preserve the importance and wonder of magic.




Then PC's cant be casters. Otherwise, in the D&D system, magic is not wondrous. Its something you announce you want to do, and with very very few exceptions (contact other plane), you do it. There's no chance of backfire or misfortune. Its something your character throws around on a daily basis, multiple times. By third level, you bend the laws of reality more often than you poop.  

Other systems capture this feel MUCh better than D&D could hope for. 



> That is what defines it, its ability to twist the laws of reality. The balancing factor, is fighters can consistently bend the numbers in their favor over a long period; but the wizards have a finite pool of spells to draw from. The key is to make sure wizards facing the kinds of encounters that deplete their spell pool over the course of the day.





And when the wizard is tapped, assuming he's not packing wands and scrolls, he starts wanting to rest. Even assuming the party wishes to press on, when the cleric is out, the party generally needs to stop. Rope trick was specifcally designed to allow easy resting in dungeons and hostile environs. 

For over 20 years now, my gaming experience has been that everyone rests at the same time, so the fighter, in practice, has less of a neverending supply of attacks than would be expected, particularly given his inability to restore his own HP. \


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Then PC's cant be casters. Otherwise, in the D&D system, magic is not wondrous. Its something you announce you want to do, and with very very few exceptions (contact other plane), you do it. There's no chance of backfire or misfortune. Its something your character throws around on a daily basis, multiple times. By third level, you bend the laws of reality more often than you poop.
> 
> Other systems capture this feel MUCh better than D&D could hope for.




This is all opinion. But I don't think PCs being casrters reduces the wonder of it. If they started out as 18th level casters maybe. But it takes time to get the really cool spells. For me, what makes magic wonderous is what it actually does. The existence of magic is a concession of the fantasy genre. That doesn't wreck the wonder, but it does dampen its mystique (which is why sometimes I do run low magic settings--- I actually ran campaign where all magic except good divine was outlawed). Lots of spells have chances of not working at times. If you use concentration checks, its definitely an issue, and most spells have a reasonable chance of failing or having a reduced effect (saving throws and mishaps). 

Every system does it differently. Personally I like how D&D handled magic up through 3rd edition. But the 4E magic didn't appeal to me (though I think the mechanics of the game are beautiful). 




> And when the wizard is tapped, assuming he's not packing wands and scrolls, he starts wanting to rest. Even assuming the party wishes to press on, when the cleric is out, the party generally needs to stop. Rope trick was specifcally designed to allow easy resting in dungeons and hostile environs.




Sometimes you don't have time to rest. Pacing is entirely under the DMs control.



> For over 20 years now, my gaming experience has been that everyone rests at the same time, so the fighter, in practice, has less of a neverending supply of attacks than would be expected, particularly given his inability to restore his own HP.




Well in my games, resting is real rest, you can't cuddle up inside a dungeon and expect to regain spells. Its just too hostile an environment. And as far as healing spells go. In every game before 4E that I played in, clerics always gave fighters all the healing they needed. There was never much concern that the fighter wasn't doing it himself, becuase that was the Clerics role in the game.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> You are overblowing magic item creation. 1) Magic items are incredibly expensive to make to boot. 2) They require time and, in most cases, a forge 3) XP Costs are a serious deterent 4) They occur outside of combat which gives the DM a lot of leeway.




Eh, not always. A wand of knock costs 2250 gp, 180 xp and 5 days. For 50 charges, or for eternal wands, 3/day. Caster level doesn't really matter, since its automatic (one reason I greatly prefer the Arcana Evolved version). It also opens arcane locked doors, which the rogue has considerably more trouble with.

There's a lot of good, cheap, low level utility magic options out there that adds up pretty fast to increase a casters out of combat utility, freeing them to memorize more devastating combat utility spells.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

> clerics always gave fighters all the healing they needed. There was never much concern that the fighter wasn't doing it himself, becuase that was the Clerics role in the game.



The point is that it seems fallacious to claim that fighters essentially get infinite resources unlike the casters. Fighters will inevitably get hurt in combat (by virtue of their role) and patching them up requires resources (in the form of slots or wands) unless you have access to at-will healing (eg: binder with Beur, ghaele PC). If the fighter does not get healed, he can't continue adventuring either, since he too will eventually be left with so little hp that the next hit will spell death. That will be when he has to rest to regain hp.

That the slots are coming from another PC does not negate the fact that the fighter is still using up resources. They may not be from the fighter, but he is still the cause of it being expended. 

If the party has to rest because the cleric is all out of spells, and a large part of it went to healing the fighter, whose fault is it that they have to stop? If the blame is always going to fall squarely on the casters for being the cause of the party having to stop to rest for the day, then I suggest you try running a game where the non-casters are responsible for their own healing/buffing. Lets see who runs out of stamina first - the cleric or the fighter?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This is all opinion. But I don't think PCs being casrters reduces the wonder of it.




Is picking a lock wondrous? Using a rope? Those have a higher chance of failure than creating an extradimensional space at 3rd level or making an undead minion at 5th. 




> If you use concentration checks, its definitely an issue, and most spells have a reasonable chance of failing or having a reduced effect (saving throws and mishaps).




Heh, man, no one fails concentration checks at high levels. Reduced spell effects/passed saves is hardly comparable to, say, Rolemaster, Cthulhu, Deadlands hucksters, etc. D&D magic is comparatively very housetrained and well behaved.




> Every system does it differently. Personally I like how D&D handled magic up through 3rd edition.




Most caster supremacists did 



> But the 4E magic didn't appeal to me (though I think the mechanics of the game are beautiful).




Ritual magic significantly helps return the feel. Part of the problem with 4E (for me) is the need to make a bunch of powers to fill a bunch of books, which result in many kind of feeling the same. Double so if you ignore the ritual magic (which are, IMO, the true utility powers).


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 19, 2009)

*Summons*

Ahh fiendish.  Thus they become int 3 magical beasts.

SRD: "It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

They have no language so you need to somehow be able to communicate.  Even then as its abberant behaviour a intelegence check or 'Handle Animal' roll would be in order.  Dfferent DMs prefer different mechanics.

As for eye shutting: its a free action where you can open them again at will (differing DMs let it be a free, swift, imediate action etc).  yes if the rogue makes his spot check and notices the mid combat eye closing for a couple seconds at a time then they can sneak attack but that really just serves to balance up the rogue which is all good.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Runestar said:


> The point is that it seems fallacious to claim that fighters essentially get infinite resources unlike the casters. Fighters will inevitably get hurt in combat (by virtue of their role) and patching them up requires resources (in the form of slots or wands) unless you have access to at-will healing (eg: binder with Beur, ghaele PC). If the fighter does not get healed, he can't continue adventuring either, since he too will eventually be left with so little hp that the next hit will spell death. That will be when he has to rest to regain hp.[quote[
> 
> They have limitless resources when it comes to attacks; but like all characters, fighters have a finite number of HP--though much higher than a wizards. This is different from having a limited number of spells, or being able to consistently make the same high BAB against foes.
> 
> ...


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This is all opinion. But I don't think PCs being casrters reduces the wonder of it.




Is picking a lock wondrous? Using a rope? Those have a higher chance of failure than creating an extradimensional space at 3rd level or making an undead minion at 5th. 




> If you use concentration checks, its definitely an issue, and most spells have a reasonable chance of failing or having a reduced effect (saving throws and mishaps).




Heh, man, no one fails concentration checks at high levels. Reduced spell effects/passed saves is hardly comparable to, say, Rolemaster, Cthulhu, Deadlands hucksters, etc. D&D magic is comparatively very housetrained and well behaved.




> Every system does it differently. Personally I like how D&D handled magic up through 3rd edition.




Most caster supremacists did 



> But the 4E magic didn't appeal to me (though I think the mechanics of the game are beautiful).




Ritual magic significantly helps return the feel. Part of the problem with 4E (for me) is the need to make a bunch of powers to fill a bunch of books, which result in many kind of feeling the same. Double so if you ignore the ritual magic (which are, IMO, the true utility powers).


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Is picking a lock wondrous? Using a rope? Those have a higher chance of failure than creating an extradimensional space at 3rd level or making an undead minion at 5th.
> 
> 
> > I am affraid I miss your point here. Just because spells are reliable in D&D, that doesn't make it less wonderous for me. Some systems have a slower, darker and more mystical approach to magic that creates a different feel; but that isn't what I mean when I say wonderous. I mean magic is a potent and really cool force in D&D. That it enables people to do things beyond what is normal.
> ...


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Eh, not always. A wand of knock costs 2250 gp, 180 xp and 5 days. For 50 charges, or for eternal wands, 3/day. Caster level doesn't really matter, since its automatic (one reason I greatly prefer the Arcana Evolved version). It also opens arcane locked doors, which the rogue has considerably more trouble with.
> 
> There's a lot of good, cheap, low level utility magic options out there that adds up pretty fast to increase a casters out of combat utility, freeing them to memorize more devastating combat utility spells.




This is true. But then, I would consider a waste of time to make wands of knock, if I have a rogue in the party who can pick locks without using up charges or spell slots. But if it is a problem in your game, something this RP and fluff heavy is pretty easy to manage as a DM.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 19, 2009)

I'll leave out the mathematical lecture on how +3 AC is exactly as useful at level 20 as at level 1, presuming that other bonuses to AC are progressed by level as typically expected.  I'm right, math says so, whatever.

As for spells like force cage, invisibility, flight, etc, these do not _precisely_ become less powerful as you level up.  They become less _frequently_ powerful.  Their counters become more common, but the effects of the spells remain just the same.   

Thing is, while their counters become more common, they don't become ubiquitous.  And since the spells remain at their original low level, and you get more low level spells per day, its easy to have one or two of each potential game-breaker on hand at any given time.  I mean, what else were you using your level 3 slots for once you got 8th level spells?  That's the natural evolution of the spellcaster.  He might feel awesome incinerating something with a level 3 attack spell when he's at 5th level, but once he gets to 15th he puts that level 3 attack spell away and memorizes some combination of Fly, Protection from Energy, Displacement, Invisibility Sphere, Major Image, Blink, or Haste.  And for the others, he either covers the needs they serve with something from one of his many other spell levels, or he spends a trivial amount on a scroll or wand.

You have to anticipate ALL of those, plus everything he can do with spells from a different spell level.  While also anticipating that he might want to blow spells quickly and then rest, and using the plot to counter him.

And while anticipating whatever his friend the cleric is up to.

And while creating an encounter that's still fun for the fighter and the rogue.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

> I don't disagree. That wasn't my point. I was saying that is how the cleric shines. They are healers. It is one of their roles. And their function in most parties is to keep the fighters going and give them buffer spells.




Except that healing during combat is for most part sub-optimal, because there are typically more efficient alternatives to do with those standard actions. Damage usually outpaces healing anyways, so your party is better off focusing on killing all the foes ASAP, then heal after combat. 

A cleric can do much better than be relegated to the role of healbot. Like buffing himself up into a decent fighter and fighting alongside the primary fighter. Anything but dedicated healing. 



> They don't have to rest. They just need to learn to manage their spells over a full day.




And one of them is not using their slots for healing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 19, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> With regards to scry/buff/teleport, well this is another area where 3E failed.  The PCs should not be able to scry their opponents and wait until they have to go to the toilet to 'drop in'.  It's extremely unheroic and unfun.  I am glad that 4E fixed this , as I have work to make sure it doesn't become a problem in my 3E games.



I don't know if it is something your table would be interested in, but we fixed it by removing the offending spells from the game.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It depends on the opponent. You wanted a situation where the fighter shined, and I give you one; now you are complaining that he has too  much work to do.



No, I wanted an example of an encounter that would deplete caster resources more significantly than a "normal" encounter without overpowering the non-casters.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Except that healing during combat is for most part sub-optimal, because there are typically more efficient alternatives to do with those standard actions. Damage usually outpaces healing anyways, so your party is better off focusing on killing all the foes ASAP, then heal after combat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> If the gray render has the opponent immobilized, is there any better time for a fighter to demonstrate their damage output?
> 
> I should point out that the gray render zombie is absolutely useless against incorporeal foes.



The Fighter with a magic weapon has a slight advantage over the zombie with such foes, but again, the Fighter's advantage is miniscule compared to the advantage that casters have over the Fighter against such foes.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> No, I wanted an example of an encounter that would deplete caster resources more significantly than a "normal" encounter without overpowering the non-casters.




This depends on what spells the spellcaster relies on and uses. I always tailor encounters to my player characters. But if I know the wizard has access to things like fireball, I may throw something at them that will be weakened by things like fire. Anytime you throw a flying creature into the mix, wizards are prone to unleash a bunch of spells. A large number of really weak opponents also is good. Most wizards can't resist an opportnity to use their area of effect spells. Its more about anticipating what spells your players will throw at what creatures. With any player, you learn what spells they rely on; and you adapt.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 19, 2009)

*Casters/Cash*

If the wealth per level is stuck too, nevermind elementary adventure design and cause and effect I cannot fathom how casters manage all they are claimed to be able to do.  As a wizard you have to find spells, roll to learn them, then scribe them into your book at 100 gp per page, 1 page per spell level, in a book with 100 pages and each spell takes 24 hours to scribe.  Then to memorise "The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying."

The cost adds up, the time adds up (I won't waste on the ones I don't need to expressly traumatise the DM).  Really heroic campaigns have time limits.  Opponents aint silly... how often are PCs in a 'private sanctum' they can be scryed, or if in a complex of anothers evil design opponents can burrow/port in to disrupt never mind the ever useful 'nightmare' spell. 

Nightmare is pretty standard, pcs sell of their possesions at a alarming rate as they level and get/make better so its pretty obvious for the ancient intelegent inspired big bad to get possesions and make dang sure the mighty mages and warriors comming for it are assaulted when they ARE NOT READY.

Spells are a 2 way street.  If your in a campaign were its skewed to where you have all the spells, magic items and bright ideas of course the casters (or anything else skewed/biased) reigns suppreme.

As a fighter you also are not in the slightest effected by a dip or 3 as they have HP and attack bonus to spare so you can probly cover your own healing between combats with the cheapest healings available (wands of cure light and lesser vigour), not that you need a dip if your a ranger or pally.  Warriors can dip legitamately without needing a mollycoddling system that provides prestige classes with bunches o bonuses and no penalties to compensate for simplicity.

Granted it takes real tactical skill to play a warrior well.


----------



## Victim (Mar 19, 2009)

A wizard can greatly reduce his cost of scribing spells by paying upfront by crafting a Blessed Book.  

High level casters tended to run around with Mind Blank much of the time, negating scrying, Nightmare, and many other attacks.

At the levels we're talking about, a wizard pretty much can live out of a Rope Trick or Magnificent Mansion.

Clerics and Druids get all their spells for free and don't strictly need rest, IIRC.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> In my experiene 3E parties don't function well if clerics don't use healing slots.



There's a game in my area, a 3.5 game, where the party's tactics boil down to this:  The fighter charges into battle.  The cleric buffs himself and stays out of battle.  After a round or two, the fighter is almost dead.  The cleric walks in, casts Heal on the fighter, and then beats the monsters to death.

I have to give major credit to the player of the cleric.  He's used some incredible real life social skills to convince the fighter's player that the fighter's contribution is incredibly important.  If someone didn't protect the cleric while he hulked up, their best weapon (the cleric) wouldn't work.

Righteous Might + Divine Power = 
+6 enhancement bonus to strength
+4 size bonus to strength
A fighter's base attack bonus and iterative attacks
Temporary hit points equal to your level
+2 size bonus to constitution and resulting hit points
+2 enhancement bonus to natural armor
Damage reduction versus evil, scales with level
Large size (may be a disadvantage, should be negated by the above bonuses though)
Reach
Your weapon becomes large and increases in die size

This is the sort of thing that people are talking about when they mention that the party is usually better off with two clerics instead of one fighter and one cleric.  Any disadvantages created by having to cast buff spells before entering battle are made up for by the advantages of a full suite of clerical spells.  After all, if the party takes a beating while the casters hulk up, the casters can just heal the party.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> There's a game in my area, a 3.5 game, where the party's tactics boil down to this: The fighter charges into battle. The cleric buffs himself and stays out of battle. After a round or two, the fighter is almost dead. The cleric walks in, casts Heal on the fighter, and then beats the monsters to death.
> 
> I have to give major credit to the player of the cleric. He's used some incredible real life social skills to convince the fighter's player that the fighter's contribution is incredibly important. If someone didn't protect the cleric while he hulked up, their best weapon (the cleric) wouldn't work.
> 
> ...




But they can do this to themselves and buff the fighter too. It isn't always an either or. In my groups the cleric and fighter usually confer before hand. You are also talking about two spells here. That means the cleric is doing nothing but casting for two rounds while he buffs. In my group, the fighters wouldn't let a cleric get away with doing nothing for two rounds, so he can take all the glory. 

The problem with the two cleric approach is it takes time to buff. Unless they know combat is around the corner, they can't cast the buffs till combat begins. You don't want two members of the party casting buffs for two rounds in high level combat. Not to mention, the fewer fighter types you have to protect the clerics, the greater the chance they get interupted while casting. 

Again, this comes down to DM management. I had a player doing stuff like this in one of my campaigns. Basically he let the other party do a bunch of work while he cast 2-3 buff spells on himself. There are a few ways to handle it. One, if it bothers the other players, they can just bring it up themselves. Buffing yourself to get all the glory, and not casting spells on the other characters is kind of an jerk thing to do. Another is to make it harder for the cleric to pull his buffs off. If he insists on spending two to three rounds buffing up, make him pay for it. Have the enemy attack him. Or another is to have them go up against casters that can effectively undo the buffs with reduction spells.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 19, 2009)

*PHB 1 and 2*

Figter prob has a beginning strength 6 points higher (2 at first level then level), Fighter gets first dibbs on str items so prob has +4 or +6 to str that is an enhancement bonus just like divine power.

Fighter gets wpn foc, spec, greater foc, greater spec, wpn mastery, improved crit and a martial wpn etc

Fighter has power attack and then probably some extra damage rort: leap attack/2 weapon etc 

Fighter got 2 extra rounds of attacks.


Cleric buffs just equate things. Further to equate to a fighter the cleric needs to be designed in a way that make him inferior to most other clerics. 

The group with a high caster level cleric: fighter buffing, group healling, greater dispelling cleric will take down the group with melle clerics quick smart. As in our campaigns the DM occasionally has pointed out thru NPCs. Why clerics buff and go into melle is beyond me as frankly harm equals a buffed clerics damage output pretty well, and heal or mass heal heals more than they can damage so its just diminished returns of a paper tiger living in a glass house throwing lava till a real group (i mean a standard role oriented group) that never suffers from all the deaths that plague some come and eat tham.


----------



## Victim (Mar 19, 2009)

My group always found cleric buffs like Recitation to be amazing.  Everyone gets +2 AC, saves, and attack (the cleric and maybe some other people get +3).  It helps the fighter.  It helps the cleric fight.  It means people generally need fewer heals (saves and AC reducing damage), so there's less need for emergency heals that cost the cleric combat actions.

Casting Divine Power and Righteous Might without some form of quick casting or Persistent is incredibly slow.  That's two rounds down (3 in Cadfan's example since the cleric needs to cast Heal) without really having any offensive payout from the those rounds.  If we have a 5 round fight, the cleric buffing himself has only 60% of the time for attack actions.  So Divine Power+Righteous Might has to add 66% to the cleric's melee damage just to break even with expending no spells.  

A mass buff like Recitation or Righteous Wrath can start paying for itself right away via your teammate's actions.

Sure, Divine Power (which does become somewhat less important as the cleric gets his own good STR items) and Righteous Might are a good combo.  But it's not exactly an easy call for most fights when you look at setup time (and with rounds durations, it's not all that easy to bring them up outside of combat).

And note that damage early is better than damage later.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 19, 2009)

It does indeed come down to DM style because there are loads of annoying things that can really stuff casters: like anyone who casts in combat drawing immediate attacks. Or how about feats like Mage Slayer, that mean that spell-casters always fail concentration checks when adjacent to you, and so cannot cast spells. What can you do if even low level monsters with the Mage Slayer feat get close to your casters: they are in serious trouble and only the mundane characters can dig them out of it.

Surprise attacks are deadly to most casters because they don't have time to react. I think wizards are incredibly vulnerable to being taken out in one hit. And if you think scry/buff/teleport is bad when the PCs do it, watch what happens when my monsters do..........

Then the PC casters have to waste spells every day preventing this sort of stuff, by having anticipate teleport or detect scrying up at all times: it really depletes them and makes them cranky. And when you know your enemies will also use force-cage, it gets annoying having to keep your disintegrate spells ready and unused for this.

It is actually my experience that the mage is the first character to go down in a high level fight very often, because they are an attack magnet. The same goes for the cleric/druid. As a DM, I just focus fire for a round or two and they usually go down and once they are down, the rest of the party start to sweat. Obviously, you don't always target the same characters but there are ways of causing mayhem if you think creatively. I seem to remember that casters in my games are VERY nervous about openly casting in combat for this reason.

There is also the problem of missing spell books: these are very vulnerable to lots of mishaps and without a book, the caster is stuffed.

And as for casters being able to do everyone else's job, who said that all traps over CR 25 have to be magical? I routinely include mundane traps that are well hidden and don't register to detect magic. Since ONLY Rogues can use search to find mundane traps over DC 21, not having a Rogue about is tantamount to suicide. Find traps is all very well, but who walks around with that up all the time, and if they do, more spells are wasted on this kind of preventative activity. If something is not magic, then the casters have virtually no way to tell if it is there and so no reason to cast a spell. By the time they find out they are wrong, they are dead......................

Magic item creation is also problematic if you maintain a strict campaign chronology so that 5 days of crafting means no adventuring at all for your character. This can be a very bad idea if world shaping events are happening, and one serious attack on your home base and all your time is wasted.

AS a DM, I just love PCs who create undead minions. Command Undead is a very low level spell and allows anyone, even a 3rd level wizard, to take command of your new minion automatically (no save) and turn it back on you. It doesn't look so clever when your Hydra Skeleton turns around and starts battering you with all your protection out in front. Indeed, a wizard can go down in one round from this sort of tactic. I love including a few low level casters in any set of monsters for just this sort of thing. If the party have been really "clever" they will have a number of undead minions with them for me to play with . Oddly, my PCs don't do this anymore............................


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2009)

I am not sure if the cleric has sufficient slots to consistently buff both the fighter and himself. So you may need to settle for buffed cleric + fighter instead, rather than buffed fighter + healing cleric. If you can support buffed cleric + buffed fighter, all the better. 

Typically, the party will rely on wands of vigor/CLW in between fights to heal, with touch of healing feat/belt of healing/SNA: unicorn to supplement as need be. 

Though you are right in that heal is pretty much the only healing spell I would consider casting. Plus it combos nicely with amulet of retributive healing.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Again, this comes down to DM management. I had a player doing stuff like this in one of my campaigns. Basically he let the other party do a bunch of work while he cast 2-3 buff spells on himself. There are a few ways to handle it. One, if it bothers the other players, they can just bring it up themselves. Buffing yourself to get all the glory, and not casting spells on the other characters is kind of an jerk thing to do. Another is to make it harder for the cleric to pull his buffs off. If he insists on spending two to three rounds buffing up, make him pay for it. Have the enemy attack him. Or another is to have them go up against casters that can effectively undo the buffs with reduction spells.




There was a really awesome phrase used earlier in this thread.  "A lot of effort in pursuit of a dubious goal".  That's what I think of every time I read one of your posts.

The DM can manage all of this, sure.  The DM can drive the game reality so that there's a lot of baddies and the PCs can't pause to rest (while making sure all these baddies aren't bunched in one place and just straight-out kill the unrested party).  THe DM can make it harder to pull buffs off.  The DM can work the game so that non-caster can shine.

But you know what?  A lot of DMs don't have the time or inclination to think about this stuff.  And frankly, I'd prefer that my DM be able to spend his limited planning time on stuff like the unique culture of the fantasy kingdom, the internal politics of the organization the PCs belong to, and fluff stuff like that.  I'd rather not have them putting in a lot of effort in pursuit of the dubious goal of making sure that magic feels 'special', yet non-casters still have interesting things to do.

4E starts out with the premise that everybody should have interesting things to do and builds the entire system around that.  Making magic feel special is regulated to the secondary goal rather than a primary precept.  If a DM puts the same effort into making magic feel special that he did into making sure that magic didn't overpower encounters in 3E, it ought to feel pretty darn special.

It goes back into something said in the article.  Third edition was/is such an awesome system that many players and DMs accepted the more troublesome parts of it as "just the way things are'.  Magic gets to break the rules of the game system because that's just the way things are because magic is special, and we use the excellent tools that third edition provides to get around that problem.  But why should we have to?


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> Ritual magic significantly helps return the feel. Part of the problem with 4E (for me) is the need to make a bunch of powers to fill a bunch of books, which result in many kind of feeling the same. Double so if you ignore the ritual magic (which are, IMO, the true utility powers).




I have not played everysystem by a long shot.  The wizard/fighter argument has come up in every fantasy system I played except HERO and WFRP.

Even my LARP has a constant argument about how powerful casters are to warriors.

What it seems 4e did is make everyone a wizard.  Everyone has spells.  Some have ranged spells, some have melee spells, but essentially when broken down to nucleotides, everyone was made a wizard.

A fighter is a melee battle wizard, a wizard is a support wizard.  Call powers what you want but they are really all spells.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

In the first two editions however, the caster was often rendered useless, by interrupting his casting with a normal attack.  I did not like this addition in 3rd edition because I thought they eliminated an important balance factour.

In the previous editions, my players always managed to gimp my uber villain caster in the midst of casting.

I also did it to the PC whan I could.

Caster Interruption was really one of the important balances to the caster.  This was largely (if not completely) eliminated in 3rd edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 19, 2009)

It was a little more difficult for casters to dominate play in older (pre 3E) games. Removing the requirement to announce spell use prior to initiative and a lot of of the danger of having a spell disrupted did more to raise the power of casters than just about anything else. 

Sure that sleep spell was super powerful but if you lost initiative and got shot before it went off (even odds with a simple d6 initiative check) then the fighter carried the day. At higher levels it was the same. Casters were always primary targets for the nastiest spells and effects. 

Instead of fixing this basic problem in 3.5 the designers instead decided that weakening the effects/durations of spells would solve the issue. This did little to tone down the effectiveness of casters on the tactical level, it just forced them to burn up more resources to achieve the same results which contributed to the 15 minute workday issue.

Casting spells in the thick of battle was always intended to be risky and uncertain. Removing that basic element helped turn the magic dominance dial to eleven.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It was a little more difficult for casters to dominate play in older (pre 3E) games. Removing the requirement to announce spell use prior to initiative and a lot of of the danger of having a spell disrupted did more to raise the power of casters than just about anything else.




I'm not actually convinced declaring the spell before rolling initiative has that big an effect in the trenches where the game is commonly played. One of the things 3e did when it came out was include some elements of how people actually play. I encountered more groups that just had the wizard pick the spell when his initiative came around rather than hold to a decision before initiative was rolled.

But I do think that the difference between getting hit before your turn in 2e and 3e has more of an effect I've noticed. If you hit the caster before the spell went off in the same round, you were assumed to have disrupted his actual cast time. That's not there in 3e. You actually have to hit him during his casting action and then he gets a concentration save to boot, and that means you either have to have a held action or the wizard has to be within reach and failing to cast defensively. Clearly, this narrows the window of opportunity to disrupt a spell.


----------



## jasin (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Call powers what you want but they are really all spells.



How so? Because of the format in which they're presented? Because they're limited-use?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This depends on what spells the spellcaster relies on and uses. I always tailor encounters to my player characters. But if I know the wizard has access to things like fireball, I may throw something at them that will be weakened by things like fire. Anytime you throw a flying creature into the mix, wizards are prone to unleash a bunch of spells. A large number of really weak opponents also is good. Most wizards can't resist an opportnity to use their area of effect spells. Its more about anticipating what spells your players will throw at what creatures. With any player, you learn what spells they rely on; and you adapt.



Mid to high level casters are going to be doing casting each round anyway, because they have the resources to do so. Throwing encounters at the party that can only be affected by magic isn't going to deplete the casters any faster because they are still limited to one action per round. Yes, the combats may last a little longer in this case because the non-casters are sitting around twiddling their thumbs (another problem with this scenario), but the main thing you'll be depleting in this scenario isn't offensive magic, it's the HPs of the casters and healing spells. If the casters are the only ones hurting the foes to any extent, then it makes sense for the foes to focus their attacks on the squishy Wizard and perhaps also the Cleric. Again, you've just made the encounter harder for the melee guys because their options are to 1) throw their bodies in front of the casters in an attempt to protect them, despite being unable to really harm the foes; or 2) stand back and hope the casters finish the bad guys before healing runs out, because if the casters go down, the encounter is going to be a TPK.

I'm still not seeing a scenario here where it's possible to deplete the casters of spell resources without hosing the melee guys in the process unless the players cooperate to make it happen.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> But I do think that the difference between getting hit before your turn in 2e and 3e has more of an effect I've noticed. If you hit the caster before the spell went off in the same round, you were assumed to have disrupted his actual cast time. That's not there in 3e. You actually have to hit him during his casting action and then he gets a concentration save to boot, and that means you either have to have a held action or the wizard has to be within reach and failing to cast defensively. Clearly, this narrows the window of opportunity to disrupt a spell.




Something I mean to try the next time I run a D&D game to address this was to increase the base Defensive casting DC to 20, and adjust casting interruption so it requires a concentration roll equal to 10 (or 15) + the amount of damage taken since the end of your last round. This may need adjustment to the highest damage from a single attack.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

jasin said:


> How so? Because of the format in which they're presented? Because they're limited-use?




The powers in 4e fill the roles that spells filled in previous editions.  The wizard had his basic attack but the core of the class was the vast amount of spells he had.

Now, regardless of class, there is the basic attack and then the core of the class... the list of powers (spells).  Each power within class has a variable effect following a theme.  

I realize the fluff of the powers is not that of spells.  A shift of several squares however is mechanically the same as a push effect from a spell.

Essentially, the spells of previous edition wizards, the core of that class, was added to be the core of every class.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 19, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Something I mean to try the next time I run a D&D game to address this was to increase the base Defensive casting DC to 20, and adjust casting interruption so it requires a concentration roll equal to 10 (or 15) + the amount of damage taken since the end of your last round. This may need adjustment to the highest damage from a single attack.




These adjustments won't do anything to really affect casting reliability. Increasing the defensive casting DC is meaningless if the caster is careful and rarely has to cast defensively. The casting interruption thing might punish casters a bit too much since the concentration check to cast at all will become nigh impossible at high levels.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> These adjustments won't do anything to really affect casting reliability. Increasing the defensive casting DC is meaningless if the caster is careful and rarely has to cast defensively. The casting interruption thing might punish casters a bit too much since the concentration check to cast at all will become nigh impossible at high levels.




At my table (or rather, in my group since it happen with other GM's too) this isn't much of an issue since defensive casting comes up semi-regularly. A tendency to focus on urban and interior environments may have something to do with this, I'm not sure. 

As for 'punishing' casters, isn't that kind of the point? I have not done numbers but how would a high level wizard getting smacked for a pile of damage and failing the concentration roll be any different then a 2e wizard getting smacked and not being able to cast at all that round? Admittedly, it's been more then a decade since I opened my 2e PHB, so I may be misremembering the rule there.


----------



## jasin (Mar 19, 2009)

insanogeddon said:


> Further to equate to a fighter the cleric needs to be designed in a way that make him inferior to most other clerics.



Isn't this an admission that figters are inferior to clerics? 



> The group with a high caster level cleric: fighter buffing, group healling, greater dispelling cleric will take down the group with melle clerics quick smart.



Have you compared a spellcasting cleric + fighter vs. spellcasting cleric + self-buff melee cleric?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 19, 2009)

Krensky said:


> At my table (or rather, in my group since it happen with other GM's too) this isn't much of an issue since defensive casting comes up semi-regularly. A tendency to focus on urban and interior environments may have something to do with this, I'm not sure.




In our games the good old 5' step back prior to casting helped with a lot of defensive casting issues. There were exceptions of course.



Krensky said:


> As for 'punishing' casters, isn't that kind of the point? I have not done numbers but how would a high level wizard getting smacked for a pile of damage and failing the concentration roll be any different then a 2e wizard getting smacked and not being able to cast at all that round? Admittedly, it's been more then a decade since I opened my 2e PHB, so I may be misremembering the rule there.




Actually, not quite the point. You are correct in that the spell will be spoiled in either example. The problem I saw with your implementation had more to do with the math rather than the intent. 

Damage and HP scale faster and higher than anything else. Adding damage taken to the DC of a concentration check will rapidly make such checks very hard to make, eventually preventing the caster from being able to cast hardly at all. 

The old initiative system starts every round on an even basis. There is a chance of getting the spell cast with no opportunity for interruption, and there is a chance of coming under fire and having the spell ruined. 

Another thing to consider with your proposal is that enemies will know that merely hitting the caster isn't enough. More damage = less casting=the wizard getting turned into a target dummy. The old system only required a single hit to spoil the spell so other enemies might attack other threats once the danger of the spell was eliminated.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Mid to high level casters are going to be doing casting each round anyway, because they have the resources to do so. Throwing encounters at the party that can only be affected by magic isn't going to deplete the casters any faster because they are still limited to one action per round. Yes, the combats may last a little longer in this case because the non-casters are sitting around twiddling their thumbs (another problem with this scenario), but the main thing you'll be depleting in this scenario isn't offensive magic, it's the HPs of the casters and healing spells. If the casters are the only ones hurting the foes to any extent, then it makes sense for the foes to focus their attacks on the squishy Wizard and perhaps also the Cleric. Again, you've just made the encounter harder for the melee guys because their options are to 1) throw their bodies in front of the casters in an attempt to protect them, despite being unable to really harm the foes; or 2) stand back and hope the casters finish the bad guys before healing runs out, because if the casters go down, the encounter is going to be a TPK.
> 
> I'm still not seeing a scenario here where it's possible to deplete the casters of spell resources without hosing the melee guys in the process unless the players cooperate to make it happen.




Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out. They are doing serious damage on their own. Yes, this means the players must cooperate to make it happen; but that is the name of the game. A group with loose tactics always does worse in D&D. A tight, well organized party that helps one another shine always does better. This is even a concession of 4E, where performing your Role in combat is essential to winning. 

I don't think any example I provide will convince you then, because even if the wizard is expending his spells every round, and combat lasts a long time; you are not satisfied. If you don't like 3E, you don't like it and I can't convince you it is managable at high levels. In my games it doesn't take long for wizards to become wary of the spells they use. They are'nt going to run out of spells, but they are going to try reserve their best spells for the "final encounter". If this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Anyways this is a minor point in a larger argument about casters; which is it isn't AS broken as people make it out to be, if the DM does his job, follows all the rules in the book, and sculpts encounters to the composition of his party. Does 4E handle this better? Yes. I have said again and again, 4E is more balanced when it comes to magic. For me, the trade off there is a loss of wonder in the magic. Not eeyone feels this way, but that is my reaction to the new system. If you find you can't manage a game of 3E at higher levels, then you are probably better off with 4E. Again, I am not trying to get into an edition war here. In my opinion both systems set out to do very different things. And if you place a premium on balance, then 4E is the better bet. If you like a potent casting system that bends reality, then you are probably better off with 3E.


----------



## Panzeh (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out. They are doing serious damage on their own. Yes, this means the players must cooperate to make it happen; but that is the name of the game. A group with loose tactics always does worse in D&D. A tight, well organized party that helps one another shine always does better. This is even a concession of 4E, where performing your Role in combat is essential to winning.
> 
> I don't think any example I provide will convince you then, because even if the wizard is expending his spells every round, and combat lasts a long time; you are not satisfied. In my games it doesn't take long for wizards to become wary of the spells they use. They are'nt going to run out of spells, but they are going to try reserve their best spells for the "final encounter". If this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Anyways this is a minor point in a larger argument about casters; which is it isn't AS broken as people make it out to be, if the DM does his job, follows all the rules in the book, and sculpts encounters to the composition of his party. Does 4E handle this better? Yes. I have said again and again, 4E is more balanced when it comes to magic. For me, the trade off there is a loss of wonder in the magic. Not eeyone feels this way, but that is my reaction to the new system. If you find you can't manage a game of 3E at higher levels, then you are probably better off with 4E.




Why does everyone else have to have a specified job except the full caster, who can do every job?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> There was a really awesome phrase used earlier in this thread. "A lot of effort in pursuit of a dubious goal". That's what I think of every time I read one of your posts.
> 
> The DM can manage all of this, sure. The DM can drive the game reality so that there's a lot of baddies and the PCs can't pause to rest (while making sure all these baddies aren't bunched in one place and just straight-out kill the unrested party). THe DM can make it harder to pull buffs off. The DM can work the game so that non-caster can shine.




Really though this just boils down to planning encounters, being aware of the rules and enforcing them. 



> But you know what? A lot of DMs don't have the time or inclination to think about this stuff. And frankly, I'd prefer that my DM be able to spend his limited planning time on stuff like the unique culture of the fantasy kingdom, the internal politics of the organization the PCs belong to, and fluff stuff like that. I'd rather not have them putting in a lot of effort in pursuit of the dubious goal of making sure that magic feels 'special', yet non-casters still have interesting things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Panzeh said:


> Why does everyone else have to have a specified job except the full caster, who can do every job?




Wizards aren't good healers, they are not good meat shields. They are not good melee attackers. They are good a duplicating some of the other classes roles on occassion, but through the temporary use of a spell. At high levels they can create some spectacular events and displays, and that is what makes them cool in 3E. Again, if you don't like the way it works in 3E, you may want to play another system.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Mar 19, 2009)

The most important guy in the band is the guy with the van.

Yeah, you can play local gigs without him, and you COULD get bus tickets, but nothing beats freedom of movement. That way you can ditch the gig if you get there and don't like the venue, even if you did just travel 120 miles to get there.

So, yeah. The casters get to be a bit more important once they can cast teleport or astral caravan. They give you more places to play.

It is a playstyle issue though. Some groups only want to be "Local" and don't get into the plane hopping scene.


----------



## Henry (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out.




In our groups, it's not a problem about the fighters being able to dish out damage in their respective spheres. Give a fighter an adjacent monster, and he can do his thing (with proper buffs of items and spells). Problem is - what if the wizard or cleric misses the session? Are you screwed? Can a fighter without any spellcaster in a group even tackle half of the threats?

I play a crusader, which is basically a melee only fighter in that level 19 game. He can do very well within melee range, but even with the proper feats and a +3 Mighty STR bow, he can only do about 2d8+16 damage with his attacks at range, because the high-level opponents we face with 37 AC and up means I miss with the bottom half of my attacks consistently. I can fly, IF I'm packing a potion. I can be immune to energy attacks, IF I'm packing the right potion or item. I can be stricken blind, exhausted, stunned, etc. by many of the opponents we face that have save DCs in the mid-20's to low 30's.

If I miss, the Truenamer can buff up a rogue or druid (and the druid can buff himself) and take up the slack. If the truenamer misses:

--We can't fly.
--We can't heal well. (Druid can do some, but he's not a full druid caster).
--We can't limit enemies' movements with spell effects.

I'm still effective, but in the encounter with a 20 HD or so Black Dragon, he just flew and strafed us with his breath until we hid. In an encounter with horned devils they flew, hit and run, poisoned us with poisons that we couldn't cure, and almost killed us. In encounters where he was there, against an invisible lich, the truenamer found the lich, made it detectible, and restricted its movement. Against a magical insect swarm, he made us all fly, and we bypassed them completely.

I do make plenty of contribution to the group, but I recognize that in any high-level 3E or AD&D game without the casters, we are going to have drastically difficult time of it, but not so much without the fighter types.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Henry said:


> I'm still effective, but in the encounter with a 20 HD or so Black Dragon, he just flew and strafed us with his breath until we hid. In an encounter with horned devils they flew, hit and run, poisoned us with poisons that we couldn't cure, and almost killed us. In encounters where he was there, against an invisible lich, the truenamer found the lich, made it detectible, and restricted its movement. Against a magical insect swarm, he made us all fly, and we bypassed them completely.
> 
> I do make plenty of contribution to the group, but I recognize that in any high-level 3E or AD&D game without the casters, we are going to have drastically difficult time of it, but not so much without the fighter types.




This is definitely an issue. If the spellcasters aren't there, fighters are much less effective. But I would be hesitant to play without fighters if I was playing a caster, because they do provide a needed level of protection (especially if the DM is strict about concentration. There are certainly some encounters that magic is the much needed ace for. Though a fair DM won't force a group to face anything they lack the resources to defeat. I try to design some encounters that require spell casters, and others that require non-casters so that everyone contributes. But your point is taken.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> In our games the good old 5' step back prior to casting helped with a lot of defensive casting issues. There were exceptions of course.




It sounds like it's a mix of close quarters and Pressing Attack being a common choice on both sides of screen contributing then. Fiddling with the DC in my game would have an effect, your millage may vary. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Actually, not quite the point. You are correct in that the spell will be spoiled in either example. The problem I saw with your implementation had more to do with the math rather than the intent.
> 
> Damage and HP scale faster and higher than anything else. Adding damage taken to the DC of a concentration check will rapidly make such checks very hard to make, eventually preventing the caster from being able to cast hardly at all.
> 
> ...




Hmm... I wonder if just changing it to an check based on the highest single damage taken during that round (from count infinity or whatever) would work. Anyway, not on topic.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Also there is a much easier fix to this whole problem if you still want to play 3E, but don't want the headache I presented. Mournblade mentioned spell interuption. Bring that back into the game. Don't allow concentration checks when a wizard is hit mid spell. This is a minor change that can balance things out some more, if you find the concentration checks are too easy to pass.




I don't like the idea of making magic (and remember we're talking about more than just a single character class here) even more swingy.  The solution you propose is really the same sort of tool 3E already uses to control spellcasters with spell resistance, high monster saving throws, and such.  "Your spell could do something that would alter the entire encounter if it worked, but the odds are stacked against it working."

It's actually weird to compare to fighter types.  At low levels, fighter types miss a lot of the time but rarely have any trouble with the getting into positon to attack or making their damage significant part.  Meanwhile spells usually succeed.  At higher levels, fighters are nearly guaranteed to hit most opponents but have to work harder to make hitting matter.  Meanwhile spellcasters "hit" somewhat less.



> Just doesn't appeal to me; as 3E doesn't appeal to you.




You have this funny idea, which you state several times, that 3E doesn't appeal to me.  That I don't like 3E.  In fact, I like it a lot.  It's an elegant system with a lot of appeal, and I've had a lot of fun with it.

Many of its features, including features that 4E dumped, have a lot of value to them.  I really like the idea of a unified system of mechanics for PCs and monsters, and I would like it without having to pay too high a cost for it.  Third edition made a lot of very difficult to implement mechanics work... some of the time.

Maybe I even like 3E better than you do, because I like it enough to really acknowledge faults I've seen in it.  Some things that 3E does, especially connected with magic and the skill system, simply start to break down at high levels.  And the thing is, a lot of what you've been writing is perfectly true.  It is possible to address those problems with tools already existing in 3E.  They don't necessarily lead to a bad game experience.

It starts to become a matter of cost/benefit more than anything else.  Are the features that become problematic worth the effort the system has to go to in order to preserve them?  Are they really that valuable?



> You don't have to. If you don't like magic that way, play another game. Some people actually like using the tools 3E offers. Its a toolbox system. I like the magic in 3E. It is cool, it is a great plot device for GMs, and it adds a sense of wonder and suprise that really makes me enjoy the game. Sure wizards are more powerful at higher levels. I accept that. If that creates problems, though, there are ways to manage it.




See, I think it would be possible to get that sense of "wonder and surprise" and use those plot deviced while still dumping all the problematic stuff.  Heck, in late third edition that's the way I saw the game going even within the 3E framework.

Take the Eberron setting which both made magic supremely controllable and unwonderous on the PC level while at the same time encouraging the DM to use 'eldritch machine' or 'draconic prophecy' plot device magic that obeyed no rules but the rules of narrative and story.

To me, that's where the wonder in magic comes from.  The stuff a character tosses around in a fight isn't really magic.  It's just a different form of boom.


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Caster Interruption was really one of the important balances to the caster.  This was largely (if not completely) eliminated in 3rd edition.




Yeah, I reintroduced this in my games and it goes a long way to reign in the spellcasters. Also, 5' step & cast is gone.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2009)

Panzeh said:


> Why does everyone else have to have a specified job except the full caster, who can do every job?




Part of the problem here is that magic has no defined bounds. Even if you only had spells with limited application early in the game, as long as there are ways to develop new spells, it's hard to keep magic from encroaching on other jobs. 
And if you defined bounds for what magic can do, how magical is it? Would it make sense? Would it make sense for magic to be able to one thing but not be able to do some other specific thing that seems related to what it can do?


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> as long as there are ways to develop new spells, it's hard to keep magic from encroaching on other jobs.




Actually, a player can attempt to design new spells.  Per RAW the DM decides whether, and to what degree, it is successful.  Hence, my sig.


----------



## evilbob (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry I'm late to this party and I haven't read through the last 9 pages, but I just wanted to say that my own personal experience differs greatly from that of Mr. Heinsoo.  In fact, it was so different I honestly wonder if perhaps his personal experience was, in fact, a bit unusual.

In my experience, 3.5 fighters hold their own well up past level 11 - especially two-handed weapon fighters.  It's actually closer to level 15 - when 8th level spells become available but more importantly 6th and 7th level spells become more common - when the power level is less even, and then level 16 comes along and boosts the fighter again.  But then level 17 happens, and suddenly it swings back against the fighter pretty heavily.

On the other hand, how many games actually get to level 17?  (By the end of the 3.5 life cycle, I had a personal rule:  never start a game under level 6.)

The main thing is that a fighter at level 11 can attack 3 times and will almost certainly hit 3 times.  And each of those attacks should be dealing gobs and gobs of damage.  And frankly, there's no reason you should ever -not- be able to do that damage, given the crazy amounts of potions and spells and wands and things that get thrown around in 3.5 - you can always get to the target, and frankly the target wants to get to you.

I've seen the most broken 3.5 cleric combination ever in play, and it still couldn't top a fighter for direct damage because a fighter gets everything the cleric can do PLUS feats.  Wizards can throw some pretty vicious save-or-dies around, but honestly fighters are more reliable because they hit more often and their damage is more guaranteed.

In my experience, the fighter's player being absent would have been much more important to the game than the cleric or wizard, except for one thing:  it was incredibly easy for someone else to NPC the fighter.  That's really the difference:  to NPC a cleric or a wizard, you have to be versed in dozens of spells and combos and tactics.  For the fighter, you pretty much had to know what dice to roll.  Sure they probably had a few tricks as well, but nothing like the casters.

But overall, given the choice?  I'd place the fighter dead last on the list of "characters we can start the game without."  Sure, clerics and wizards are next-to-last, but it's not like we're talking about a monk here.  If the monk didn't show up I wonder if anyone would notice?


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 19, 2009)

evilbob said:


> The main thing is that a fighter at level 11 can attack 3 times and will almost certainly hit 3 times. And each of those attacks should be dealing gobs and gobs of damage. And frankly, there's no reason you should ever -not- be able to do that damage, given the crazy amounts of potions and spells and wands and things that get thrown around in 3.5 - you can always get to the target, and frankly the target wants to get to you.




The other part of this, which I mentioned briefly earlier in the thread, is that playing a high level fighter in D&D starts to get kind of *boring*.

Roll attack, roll damage.  Roll attack, roll damage.  Yawn.  There's not much strategy or tactics involved.  If you're using one of the specialized maneuvers like grapple or something then you're probably specialized enough that you try to do it all the time.  Spellcasters get to shuffle their spells and pick which to use, as well as often having a bigger choice of opponents (or allies) to target round-by-round.  I think that's one of the biggest reasons that Book of Nine Swords was so popular.  It wasn't jsut that the classes in it were more powerful (debatable) but that the PCs had more interesting choices to make round by round.

You said it yourself.  Anybody can NPC a fighter.  And while not everybody wants to deal with the complexity of a high level 3E spellcaster, there's a middle ground between the two.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> I don't like the idea of making magic (and remember we're talking about more than just a single character class here) even more swingy. The solution you propose is really the same sort of tool 3E already uses to control spellcasters with spell resistance, high monster saving throws, and such. "Your spell could do something that would alter the entire encounter if it worked, but the odds are stacked against it working."
> 
> It's actually weird to compare to fighter types. At low levels, fighter types miss a lot of the time but rarely have any trouble with the getting into positon to attack or making their damage significant part. Meanwhile spells usually succeed. At higher levels, fighters are nearly guaranteed to hit most opponents but have to work harder to make hitting matter. Meanwhile spellcasters "hit" somewhat less.
> 
> ...




Wolf, based on your post, I don't think we disagree about the fundamentals then. We both acknowledge 3E has flaws when it comes to non-casters and casters at higher levels; and we both believe many existing rules in the system can be used to remedied these flaws. Where we disagree is whether it is worth the effort. I think it is. Personally I would like to see an easier fix. But if my option is between 3E with its flaws, and 4E; I go with 3E. If Paizo manages to fix these problems in a way that makes my job easier, that would be great. But for now, I don't mind the additional work 3E creates.

I do think we differ on what we want from magic though. I'll admit I sometimes like a low magic campaign, where the "real magic" is outside of PC bounds. But I also think stuff the wizards do with spells in combat is more than just another kind of boom. It has a level of coolness that seperates it from a normal attack. In fact, my favorite thing about spells in 3E and earlier editions, is they are open to very creative uses. I have had players do some interesting things with the less damage oriented spells, that really adds a level of shine to the game and makes magic spectacular.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I don't think any example I provide will convince you then, because even if the wizard is expending his spells every round, and combat lasts a long time; you are not satisfied. If you don't like 3E, you don't like it and I can't convince you it is managable at high levels.



Listen, I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just don't agree with some of what you are saying. If you're getting frustrated with the conversation, that's fine, we can agree to disagree, but I don't appreciate you implying that I'm just a 3e hater taking pot shots. I've been responding to your posts because I'm actually interested in what you're saying, my experiences just don't mesh with most of it. I do agree that some of your examples would move the game toward being MORE balanced between casters and non-casters if you used those methods all the time, but I still maintain two things are true, and even though I've read and understood all of your posts, I haven't read anything that's changed my mind about them.

1) The DM can't engineer encounters that significantly deplete the resources of the casters or hamper their ability to drastically affect the outcome of the fight, without also dramatically increasing the difficulty of the fight for the non-casters.  IME, when such an encounter comes along, it's actually the non-casters who are likely to suffer rather than the casters. The non-casters die in droves while the casters survive because they have more magical "Get Out of Trouble Free" cards to play.

2) It's actually the players who are most significant in evening the playing field between casters and non-casters, not the DM. Unless the DM heavily houserules the game, there are just too many powerful, out-of-the-box options for casters and almost none for non-casters in the game. The players can even the playing field by eschewing the powerful options that step on the non-caster's toes or make them irrelevant and by using caster resources to make non-casters more equal (i.e. buffing, casting invisibility, fly, stoneskin, etc. on the non-casters), but that's a style choice that requires player buy-in, not something that can be dictated by the DM.

IME that is the only way in which class power can remain even close to equal in high level 3e between casters and non-casters and even then it's only an illusion of equality, because as soon as the Fighter isn't around anymore, the casters can replicate the aspects of his role most important to the success of the party through magic. While if the Cleric or Wizard disappears for some reason, the Fighter has absolutely no ability to replicate the aspects of their roles most important to the party's success.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 19, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> The other part of this, which I mentioned briefly earlier in the thread, is that playing a high level fighter in D&D starts to get kind of *boring*.




That's funny, I find playing high level spell-casters starts to get kind of boring. 

I can spend hours trying to optimize my spell selection so that any encounter I face can easily be defeated with one spell. I can spend hours scrying locations waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike. I can spend hours optimizing my magic items and making sure my party is buffed and ready to go. Or, I can just say "to hell with it" and have fun and make do with Fireball. 

I choose the latter method - it is more fun! (for me)


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Listen, I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just don't agree with some of what you are saying. If you're getting frustrated with the conversation, that's fine, we can agree to disagree, but I don't appreciate you implying that I'm just a 3e hater taking pot shots. I've been responding to your posts because I'm actually interested in what you're saying, my experiences just don't mesh with most of it. I do agree that some of your examples would move the game toward being MORE balanced between casters and non-casters if you used those methods all the time, but I still maintain two things are true, and even though I've read and understood all of your posts, I haven't read anything that's changed my mind about them. .




My intentions were not to be hostile or angry, I appologize if it came accros that way. But I do feel we have reached an impasse. And my goal hasn't been to change anyone's mind, but present the solutions I found to the problem. I have given examples of what works in my game; and we disagree on how effective my remedies would be. I think our experiences are very different. The player element is an important consideration here. But I have seen my game go from imbalanced to balanced by implementing the various remedies I mentioned. If I fail to change your mind, that is okay. You seem like a polite poster and everything. But I am just running out of steam on this topic. Originally I just wanted to give my two cents on what I found helpful. Not get drawn into an argument about the merits and flaws of 3EWe can agree to disagree. I think I just misread your dissagreement more strongly than it was intended.  




> 1) The DM can't engineer encounters that significantly deplete the resources of the casters or hamper their ability to drastically affect the outcome of the fight, without also dramatically increasing the difficulty of the fight for the non-casters. IME, when such an encounter comes along, it's actually the non-casters who are likely to suffer rather than the casters. The non-casters die in droves while the casters survive because they have more magical "Get Out of Trouble Free" cards to play.




This just hasn't been the case in my game. In practice, these have worked fine for me. The casters may not be able to effectively fight the creature directly, but if they use their spells to assist the combat classes, things balance out pretty well. In fact this is sort of the reverse of the typical, fighter guards the wizard while he casts uber spell scenario. 



> 2) It's actually the players who are most significant in evening the playing field between casters and non-casters, not the DM. Unless the DM heavily houserules the game, there are just too many powerful, out-of-the-box options for casters and almost none for non-casters in the game. The players can even the playing field by eschewing the powerful options that step on the non-caster's toes or make them irrelevant and by using caster resources to make non-casters more equal (i.e. buffing, casting invisibility, fly, stoneskin, etc. on the non-casters), but that's a style choice that requires player buy-in, not something that can be dictated by the DM.




I do agree that players are important in this respect. But I have seen a broken game fixed by DM management, so I think the DMs role is more important as the rules adjudicator and narrator. 



> IME that is the only way in which class power can remain even close to equal in high level 3e between casters and non-casters and even then it's only an illusion of equality, because as soon as the Fighter isn't around anymore, the casters can replicate the aspects of his role most important to the success of the party through magic. While if the Cleric or Wizard disappears for some reason, the Fighter has absolutely no ability to replicate the aspects of their roles most important to the party's success.




I concede that the lack of spell caster has a more pronounced effect than the lack of a fighter. But they can't replicate everything a fighter brings to the table, and even when they come close, they are limited by what is available and the spells they have memorized. You can't assume access to every spell for every situation. By the same token, if the fighter is missing, but the cleric is around, he doesn't have a high BAB guy to use buff spells on (though summoning, which takes a round, can help). He can use them on himself, but as others have pointed out, that wastes a round on something that does about as much damage in the end as a simple area of effect or strike spell. Much better to have a fighter to buff, and then unleash other spells while he is going to town.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 19, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> That's funny, I find playing high level spell-casters starts to get kind of boring.
> 
> I can spend hours trying to optimize my spell selection so that any encounter I face can easily be defeated with one spell. I can spend hours scrying locations waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike. I can spend hours optimizing my magic items and making sure my party is buffed and ready to go. Or, I can just say "to hell with it" and have fun and make do with Fireball.




All of what you describe is a problem I call, "playing the game outside the game".  Basically the stuff most significant to the group's success or failure come from things that are far removed from roleplaying, much less the tactical battlefield.  Optimizing spells and magic items and buffs is stuff you can do at home, alone, with a set of rulebooks.  (Or at the very most by emails between you and the DM asking about the results of your divinations.)

That's a terrible gaming experience when it happens.  The most important part of a group's success or failure should not be happening away from the gaming table.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 19, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> All of what you describe is a problem I call, "playing the game outside the game".  Basically the stuff most significant to the group's success or failure come from things that are far removed from roleplaying, much less the tactical battlefield.  Optimizing spells and magic items and buffs is stuff you can do at home, alone, with a set of rulebooks.  (Or at the very most by emails between you and the DM asking about the results of your divinations.)
> 
> That's a terrible gaming experience when it happens.  The most important part of a group's success or failure should not be happening away from the gaming table.




I think you missed the point I am trying to make. I used your reference that a fighter is boring to suggest that so is a wizard, from a certain point of view. 

As to the larger point about this "problem" - I am not challenging whether a "problem" can exist with respect to fighters/rogues versus clerics/druids/wizards. I have already stated earlier in this thread where a cleric/druid/wizard can, through the use of magic, emulate the abilities of a fighter/rogue. That much is provable fact. What I challenge is this notion that just because a cleric/druid/wizard *can *emulate those abilities, does not mean that they *should*.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This just hasn't been the case in my game. In practice, these have worked fine for me. The casters may not be able to effectively fight the creature directly, but if they use their spells to assist the combat classes, things balance out pretty well. In fact this is sort of the reverse of the typical, fighter guards the wizard while he casts uber spell scenario.



This is what I'm talking about when I mention player buy-in. In the scenario you lay out, the caster has a number of choices. One is to use his spells to support the non-caster and make him more efficient at dealing with the problem as you suggest. In this option, the player is going along with what the DM intended. 

An alternate option is for the player to be "selfish" with his resources and use them to attempt to affect the challenge directly.  For example, instead of buffing the Fighter, the Wizard summons a monster and buffs the monster to the point where it's as good as or better than the Fighter at dealing with the challenge. Another example would be the Wizard buffing himself with magic and engaging in melee combat. In these cases the player is bypassing the intent of the DM.

I'm sure in your games the players generally chose option 1 and that's why your methods work. In general, I think option 1 is probably more common because it's both "nice" and it requires less system mastery to use effectively. I have had plenty of experience, however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).




Bingo.  That's why I'd rather have a game system that minimizes the problem rather then pleading with a player to not play his PC to the best of his ability.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It is outside of combat. If you feel scrolls are unbalancing your game because wizards are making too many, get more strict. They need a full day for every 1000 gp base cost. Just because they have "down time" from adventure that doesn't mean they have free time to scribe scrolls. It is very easy say the wizard doesn't have the time to scribe 20 scrolls in 40 days.




It's not a good idea to tell a player of a wizard that they can't use a class ability--even if they devote their time to it and pay the correct costs--due to DM fiat. When a player says that his character makes time for crafting items and you say that he can't, because you say that his character can't accomplish free time under any set of circumstances... well, if you need to be that heavy-handed, perhaps the problem is in the system that designed the feat in the first place?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> It's not a good idea to tell a player of a wizard that they can't use a class ability--even if they devote their time to it and pay the correct costs--due to DM fiat. When a player says that his character makes time for crafting items and you say that he can't, because you say that his character can't accomplish free time under any set of circumstances... well, if you need to be that heavy-handed, perhaps the problem is in the system that designed the feat in the first place?






Keep in mind, I am not saying he can't use the class ability. I am saying that the time factor is there to balance. And if you don't place reasonable constraints on his time, then the time factor is meaningless. He is free to sit down and make some scrolls. But in most settings, it is a little unrealistic for him to have enough free time to manufacture them. That is what I was trying to address.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> This is what I'm talking about when I mention player buy-in. In the scenario you lay out, the caster has a number of choices. One is to use his spells to support the non-caster and make him more efficient at dealing with the problem as you suggest. In this option, the player is going along with what the DM intended.
> 
> An alternate option is for the player to be "selfish" with his resources and use them to attempt to affect the challenge directly. For example, instead of buffing the Fighter, the Wizard summons a monster and buffs the monster to the point where it's as good as or better than the Fighter at dealing with the challenge. Another example would be the Wizard buffing himself with magic and engaging in melee combat. In these cases the player is bypassing the intent of the DM.




But that isn't confronting the monster diretly, that is using 2 spells in sequence to attack the monster. And anyways, the point here is to make the fighter shine by throwing something at the party that direct magic (such as a fireball) doesn't handle well, but sword and steal does. If the spellcaster wants to help out by summoning something that is fine. We are talking about a specific scnario where the wizard is hindered by a monster with good SR. And his and the clerics best bet is to use spells that get around that, rather than blast it. You just aren't convincing me this doesn't work. Since I have seen it work again and again to my satisfaction. 



> I'm sure in your games the players generally chose option 1 and that's why your methods work. In general, I think option 1 is probably more common because it's both "nice" and it requires less system mastery to use effectively. I have had plenty of experience, however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).




I am sorry, but I haven't experienced this as a problem in my games. Using mix of options 1&2 is most effective and the most fun. If the wizard wants to summon and then buff the summoned creature that is fine. But it is more effective to do it after you buffed up the fighter. And again, as long as the fighter has some cool magic items, they can hold their own in combat. If they happened to get buffed from the cleric, so much the better. 

Now if you have a player being a jerk to other players an ettiquette issue. The same thing happens when you have a thief who refuses to search for traps, or demands payment. He can do these things; and it sucks becuase other people succumb to traps when he does; but it is easily resolved between most players. Wizards, I don't expect to share their spells with the party. Clerics on the other hand, come in with the assumption that at the very least they are going to heal, and hand out a few buffs.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 19, 2009)

I think the easiest way to answer your question Bullgrit is simply do any random Adventure path with the standard 4 person party. Figher- Cleric - Rogue and Wizard. It's what my group actually did once we wanted to come out with house rules.

At low levels, 1-5, I always found that you could replace the wizard with another copy of the other 3 classes and in fact, you actually will probably be more successful. The rogue is also essential in many of these low level adventures as neither the wizard or the cleric can duplicate the capabilities of said rogue as they neither have the money or the slots to waste or even know the spells.

Thus, the "best" party at low levels is 2x rogue (or 1 fighter, 1 rogue) plus ( 1 x cleric and 1 druid or 2 cleric or 2 druids).

Levels 6-11, this is when EVERYONE contributes unless it is a 4 person druid team or a tricked out (splatbook enhanced) Cleric. Even here, while some claim a 4 person druid team can handle anything, I still believe a group would be more successful with one rogue and 3 divine casters.

After level 12, the rogue quickly becomes less essential. Unless you turn the rogue into spellcaster lite via UMD (really, why do people consider a wand wielding character a rogue and not a member of the magic using class?) As others mentioned, enemies quickly start becoming either too big, too tough or just plain immune to a rogue in combat. Out of combat, by this time, a smart player of the magic using classes ESPECIALLY a wizard has the cash and downtime to duplicate any rogue skill but BETTER. In terms of damage, the fighter is STILL useful but it isn't essential since either a cleric or a druid can via the right combination of spells can match the fighter INcombat and totally cominate out of combat. 

Thus at levels 11+, I say Cleric, Druid and Wizard are essential, with Fighters being a 4th choice that can be substituted with a player who knows how to maximize a cleric or a druid. The rogue though...that's a total non-essential member of the team.


----------



## Vurt (Mar 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Thus at levels 11+, I say Cleric, Druid and Wizard are essential, with Fighters being a 4th choice that can be substituted with a player who knows how to maximize a cleric or a druid. The rogue though...that's a total non-essential member of the team.




There's an easy fix for the rogue, though: loosen the restrictions on what they can sneak attack.  Trapfinding may fall by the wayside, but I suspect few rogue players will care all that much if they can still regularly roll a fist full of d6's.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 19, 2009)

Let me ask a question that reverses this question... When faced with opponents with class levels, do your players focus fire on the cleric first? The wizard first? Or the fighter first? 

In every combat I've played, the goal is to get rid of the artillery, air force, and healers, and only then do we prioritize dealing with the infantry (a.k.a. the fighters). Every high level combat consists of stalling the OPP melee guy while we deal with the real threats: the healer, the battlefield changer, the buffer, then the blaster. 

In short, if your players consistently target the death star destroyer rather than the random fighters, shouldn't that be a clue which is really the most important not to have missing at the table?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Let me ask a question that reverses this question... When faced with opponents with class levels, do your players focus fire on the cleric first? The wizard first? Or the fighter first?
> 
> In every combat, I've been in, the goal is to get rid of the artillery, air force, and healers, and only then, do we prioritize dealing with the infantry (a.k.a. the fighters). Every high level combat consists of stalling the OPP melee guy while we deal with the real threats: the healer, tthe battlefield changer, he buffer, then the blaster.
> 
> In short, if your players consistently target the death star destroyer rather than the random fighters, shouldn't that be a clue which is really the most important not to have missing at the table?




Because most spellcaster opponents have all their spells, and the assumption is the only challenge they face that day is the party, so they don't mind unloading all their most powerful abilities in the first few rounds. And just as a tactical matter, it is much easier to handle a melee opponent when you eliminate the guys who fight from a distance. And wizards with their low HP total, are easy targets to drop first.


----------



## Vurt (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Because most spellcaster opponents have all their spells, and the assumption is the only challenge they face that day is the party, so they don't mind unloading all their most powerful abilities in the first few rounds. And just as a tactical matter, it is much easier to handle a melee opponent when you eliminate the guys who fight from a distance. And wizards with their low HP total, are easy targets to drop first.




Plus, "geek the mage first" isn't just good advice, it's a time-honoured tradition!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Vurt said:


> Plus, "geek the mage first" isn't just good advice, it's a time-honoured tradition!




I always like to get rid of the thief first. Don't need him bakcstabbing me when I least expect it.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Wizards aren't good healers, they are not good meat shields. They are not good melee attackers.




Except for....like...when they polymorph into something thats meatshieldy or meleeattackery.

DS


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> Except for....like...when they polymorph into something thats meatshieldy or meleeattackery.
> 
> DS




There are much better uses of polymorph. Why polymorph into a meatshield when you can polymorph into a dragon or giant? The problem with polymorphing into a meatshield is that you just create another fighter on the battefield and lose the spellcaster casting spells against the enemy. Why not just polymorph the fighter or rogue into a dragon, so he can blaze through enemies, while you continue to lob some serious spells at people. And, I have never had a player polymorph his own wizard more than once in a single adventure. And it was mostly outside of combat.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> Bingo.  That's why I'd rather have a game system that minimizes the problem rather then pleading with a player to not play his PC to the best of his ability.



Me too, although I suspect we've chosen different games to reach the same goal.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But that isn't confronting the monster diretly, that is using 2 spells in sequence to attack the monster. And anyways, the point here is to make the fighter shine by throwing something at the party that direct magic (such as a fireball) doesn't handle well, but sword and steal does.



That might be your goal, but that goal doesn't answer the real concern IMO, which is that the Fighter is superfluous. Whether the casters are answering the problem with flashy magic or subtle magic doesn't matter at all to what I consider to be "the point". Yes, there are lots of situations where the Fighter CAN contribute, but there is nothing you can throw at the party that the casters can't handle with magic in the absence of the Fighter.

The reverse is not true. If Bob's Fighter dies the casters can whip up something "Fightery" to replace him. If Ted's Wizard dies, the Fighter can't do jack-squat to replace the Wizard's role in the party.

The title of the thread is "Do Fighters Matter?" and IMO, it's hard to make an argument for the Fighter "mattering" if his contribution to the party can be duplicated by a relatively small expenditure of resources by another character.


----------



## Shazman (Mar 19, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I pretty much agree with Rob's points.
> 
> Certainly, in my 3E games I find myself using house rules and availability of splatbooks to attempt to rein in the spellcasters and help the martial types.
> 
> ...




Scry, buff, seems to be more of a problem with munchkin players than the game itself.  It's something a lot of people whine about, but I've never seen used once.  If it becomes a problem, there are ways to work around even if it's just the players agreeing not to use such anticlimatic tactics.  Everyone also whine about how powerful high level clerics are, they can replace teh fighters, etc. etc.  I just finished playing a high level cleric, and I can tell you it's not feasible to try to replace the fighter all the time.  You don't have enough actions or enough spell slots to pull this off very often.  You often have to choose between healing to keep party members alive or buffing yourself.  Obviously, you end up healing the party.  So those 3 rounds you wanted to spend buffing yourself just got used up to save someone's butt, and your divine power and righteous might had to be converted to cure spells. That's the way it really happens during a nasty encounter.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> That might be your goal, but that goal doesn't answer the real concern IMO, which is that the Fighter is superfluous. Whether the casters are answering the problem with flashy magic or subtle magic doesn't matter at all to what I consider to be "the point". Yes, there are lots of situations where the Fighter CAN contribute, but there is nothing you can throw at the party that the casters can't handle with magic in the absence of the Fighter.
> 
> The reverse is not true. If Bob's Fighter dies the casters can whip up something "Fightery" to replace him. If Ted's Wizard dies, the Fighter can't do jack-squat to replace the Wizard's role in the party.




Wizards without fighters to protect them, are going to have a hard time casting spells in the first place. Something I learned early on in 3e was you must use concentration checks and add the damage to the DC when dealing with wizards. This is a real important balancing factor. And it means there is no certainty for a wizard without a fighter facing a high SR opponent. If he can't get his spell off to summon or polymorph into something bigger, he is in a bad spot. In the end are wizards more important than fighters, yes. I conceded that long ago. But we are talking about making fighters relevent at later levels which they still are. And if you have the fighter with the right magic items, they are equally as effective, and consistently so, as a wizard in combat. And I acknowledge that wizards are more versatile. But their versatility is limited by the number of spells they have. They can't replicate a fighter all day.

We have to agree to disagree at this point. I have made my point and haven't pursuaded you, and it is clear neither of us are going to make any more headway in the conversation. For every fix I offer, you have a rebuttal, and for every rebuttal I have a response, and so on and so on. If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you. For me and my group, it works fine.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 19, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> There are much better uses of polymorph. Why polymorph into a meatshield when you can polymorph into a dragon or giant? The problem with polymorphing into a meatshield is that you just create another fighter on the battefield and lose the spellcaster casting spells against the enemy. Why not just polymorph the fighter or rogue into a dragon, so he can blaze through enemies, while you continue to lob some serious spells at people. And, I have never had a player polymorph his own wizard more than once in a single adventure. And it was mostly outside of combat.




1. Dragon or Giant or such=meatshield.

2. Polymorphing the fighter into a dragon doesn't help the parties overall beefiness like polymorphing the wizard into a dragon.

3. You can still cast spells when polymorphed into a dragon or giant.

4. I didn't personally polymorph anyone when I played a high level caster...but if I had that spell available I would never have been in my normal body.  IIRC as long as you pick some humanoid form you could stay polymorphed for a week or more.

DS


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 19, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> 1. Dragon or Giant or such=meatshield.
> 
> 2. Polymorphing the fighter into a dragon doesn't help the parties overall beefiness like polymorphing the wizard into a dragon.
> 
> ...




1) A dragon or giant is much more than a meat shield, they do a staggering amount of damage. 

2) But you don't want overall beefiness, you still want someone slinging spells in the background. Parties need a balance, a fighter polymorphed into a dragon, is a much better tactical choice than polymophing the wizard. 

3) A dragon is disputable, but even if you could, you wont. What is the point of polymorphing if you are going to cast spells anyways. In which case, just polymorph the other characters so you can focus on spells.

4) So it seems, this hasn't been a problem for either of us then. Yes you can. But that is also pretty silly to do. If your character is going to walk around as a giant for a weak, people are going to react to him like he is a giant.  I had one player who was a problem with shapechanging and he was a druid. And the problem was out of combat, not in it (because he insisted on walking around in wild shape). I just made sure people responded appropriately to his shape.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 20, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 3) A dragon is disputable, but even if you could, you wont. What is the point of polymorphing if you are going to cast spells anyways. In which case, just polymorph the other characters so you can focus on spells.



 What?
Dragon Shapechange (not polymorph with its low Hd limit) makes the Wizard better offensively, defensively, etc.

Less chance an enemy can harm the wizard now. Plus, you get breath weapon to save spells.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 20, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> What?
> Dragon Shapechange (not polymorph with its low Hd limit) makes the Wizard better offensively, defensively, etc.
> 
> Less chance an enemy can harm the wizard now. Plus, you get breath weapon to save spells.




This is a great spell, but it is also 9th level. So it isn't going to happen every combat. But hey, one of the fun things about being a wizard is going spells like shapechange.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 20, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Wizards without fighters to protect them, are going to have a hard time casting spells in the first place. Something I learned early on in 3e was you must use concentration checks and add the damage to the DC when dealing with wizards. This is a real important balancing factor.




1.  Wizards, at this level, don't need fighters to protect them.  Fly, dimension door, summon dire bears, stoneskin and company...

2.  Concentration checks to cast defensively are auto successes (or near enough) by mid levels.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 20, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> 1. Wizards, at this level, don't need fighters to protect them. Fly, dimension door, summon dire bears, stoneskin and company...
> 
> 2. Concentration checks to cast defensively are auto successes (or near enough) by mid levels.




1) They still do. A flying wizard is plenty easy to hit, by a challenging foe. That and dimension door just put the wizard on the run, they gain him time.  Stoneskin is cool (unless the enemies have adamantine) but it isn't a certain thing against high level opponents that can dish out lots of damage, and you waste your round casting it, so the enemy is already in front of you next round if the fighter isn't there. Summoning a dire bear is a round casting time, so the DC is damage + spell level + 10. At that high level, anything that causes a concentration check can easily do enough damage to make the check near impossible. 

2) You can still get hit casting defensively, you just don't provoke an attack of opportunity. Any spell that is a round or more is going to have a difficult concentration check (Damage+10+ spell level). Plus you need to make the initial concentration check for the defensive casting (which is pretty easy).


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 20, 2009)

*Equate*

Clerics need to put in alot of effort to equate to fighters (by equate I mean get close to) and I have yet to see the buffed cleric thats better at fighting than a WELL made warrior and thats not even taking onto account the extra actions/ability to cope with shock troops etc the fighter gets thru not having to prep. (what SUPER genius and ancient EVIL opponent lets you sleep peacefully all the time?  if DMs play the main villans that foolishly suicidal in my experience I can feel no more sense of achievement then if the big bad piled up his treasure and decapitate himself when the group first peeps into the dungeon).

Cleric spells match a fighter at a base level, but what fighter fights at a base level??  Cleric spells don't grant the feats/benefits from specialisation (or rage) up and so the matching is a base matching when in game after feats, items, stat expenditure etc etc they never come close and just waste effort being poor clerics and basic fighters as opposed to being exeptional clerics and channeling some o those buffs to group benefits making themselves more surviveable and making the fighters equally more surviveble and stomping all the foes with little disaster and becoming thusly rich and powerful without death continuity hassles derailing story without player boredom as others accrew dimond dust and debt thus loosingto the group that doesn't have such needless expenses.... I am still bitter about being wupped by an opposing adventuring party that I grudgingly admit had their heads in a better place than our groups back then generic 'silly selfish evil'.

A heroes feast in the morning and a recitation (two things that benefit everyone) is a far better spell use.  And a fighter* and a cleric sticking to role will stomp and cleric/ melle cleric combo.

By fighter I don't necessarily mean the class.. warriors are not chained to a spoon fed path of caster level crumbs thus can immerse more in the DMs creation and like conan or any great hero adventurer be a pirate/soldier/savage/bandit/champion/fronteers man etc etc as they inevitably are over 20 levels.  Level mechanics can show this as opposed to mere blurb selling this that casters need to rely on as they are trapped into a caster level arms race.  Mixing Barbarian/fighter/ranger or anything that takes their fantasy and the DMs and other players further (guiding this to include the ability to use wands is never a crime.. no one in that much damaged alot has no just cause to have a soft spot for the divine).


----------



## Runestar (Mar 20, 2009)

> Wizards without fighters to protect them, are going to have a hard time casting spells in the first place.




Problem is, in 3e, I don't see what fighters can do to help protect the wizard. He has no abilities to make the foe want to attack him over the wizard. He will surely have a higher AC, more hp but lower damage potential than the wizard. Which then makes less sense for the monster to target the fighter over the wizard. In short, he is a glorified doorstop. 

Typically, if my foes do end up attacking the fighter, it is more because the spellcasters have done such a good job of protecting themselves/keeping themselves out of harm that the fighter then becomes a more enticing target by comparison, and less of the fighter doing such a stellar job of tanking.


----------



## Dacileva (Mar 20, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Scry, buff, seems to be more of a problem with munchkin players than the game itself.  It's something a lot of people whine about, but I've never seen used once.  If it becomes a problem, there are ways to work around even if it's just the players agreeing not to use such anticlimatic tactics.



It is not munchkin for characters to realize the effectiveness of and then repeatedly reuse an extremely successful tactic.

The players agreeing not to use such anticlimactic tactics is, in and of itself, proof that the caster dominance *does* exist unless the casters or their players choose not to.

The best solution for many is to balance the game such that the tactic, and casters in general, are no longer so strongly dominant that they have to choose through metagame not to use that dominance.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 20, 2009)

*Strike and Defend*

Our games its often the fighter types that have to limit themselves to not do the charging/powerattacking/leaping/combat brute type 200 hp damage attacks.

Fighters just aren't doorstops or defenders.  In 4th ed terms they were Strikers AND Defenders all rolled into one neat, flexible, gritty package.  A package that granted is harder to play well as your melle types gain a greater boost from a grasp of tactics and strategy as opposed to the resource allocation a high level caster boils down to.

In our campaigns as any warrior worth his world changing heroics up to that point pretty much has a helm of teleport or some such with the cash casters are alocating to the caster level/one stat rat race and so often can teleport more often then said casters who rarely memorise 3 teleports a day.

A fighter with a bunch o cure wands (and a ranger level) of just a helm who uses some of his MANY feats on will save buffs can wander into a dungeon all alone far easier than a caster who needs the DM to be caster friendly and soft on enemy intelegence and their desire to live.

As said tho if in the highly magical dnd world with casters, gods, physics breaking shenanagan monsters and wealth assumptions your DM heavily restricts your gold and items from the srd standards he will no doubt have an issue with casters and they will be ever so special, then he will have to fix that with further limitations on casting to get it back to where it started.

Again if you can scry and buff (if your buffing presumably these are major opponents we speak about) those ~16th level NPCs are being handed to you on a platter by a charitable DM.  Some emo encounters are good but its hardly epic if all your foes are rearing to end themselves.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 20, 2009)

*Amusing*

Once when we were going after a lich and pinking in and out the DM before be teleported in for the final battle choose to try and out wit us .. US (he was dreaming, thats NOT possible) instead of using the blocking spells.  Before we choose where we popped in he marked his map in pen.  Seems he guessed correctly and the area we popped into was walled of with stone and filled with green slime all covered with an illusion... then it got worse... T  P  K



The DM leveled that day.



At least its not 2nd ed where a well placed permanent illusion over a 'block of souls' (a chunk of stone) in a very attractive teleport in area would have the smarty pants scry/teleport wizard choosing to teleport into the cloaked waist level stone and die horribly.  Alas my poor Faustus Malikieth he died without genitals!



Why do monsters hang round in ancient civilisations, crypts, dungeons?

How come there are so many blasphmous depraved sculptures of ancient forgotten gods?

Hallow / Unhallow !!!!                 SRD 4th level

4000 - 5000 gp even if done fresh is a 40ft radius of 1 year (or permanent in richer civilisations) Protection from Fire (predict trolls in that room), Silence (predict a grappler or an enemy caster that rather likes his silent spell feat as he cut out his tounge for laughfs), Dispel Magic (in the entery chamber to the kings room), Dimensional Anchor (predict the big bads chamber), Invisiblity purge (the corridoor leading up to the guards)... anti-flight spell ?  etc

When DMing I recomend having flash cards of each and on whim scatter them in where believeable if your playing a company-made crawl.  The odd fly in the ointment encourages wit and others to shine.

Gods have a vested interest in the dnd world, they exist in vast numbers, the world is not young, 4000 gp is a joke for a kingdom or high level opponent, Clerics are willing to help all sorts of people/creatures for their gods unknowable ends (till your epic and attempting to take the goons down).

Just a sprinkling of wonder and flavour and cause and effect soon has mundane people that don't rely on magic comming good (like high level rogues).


Stuff like that adds flavour as well.  I still remember the lone gnome sorcerer with silent, still and eschew materials that wiped the floor with us in gaseous form when we wandered through the 'unholy fog' that started taking over a town.  It turned out to be a 'guards and wards' srd spell... it became a must have for my casters after that tremendously irritating cthulu type experience.  

Its amusing to lock down places you intend to loot/come back to after a rest that you have not cleaned out.  Irritates npcs (DM) no end and makes them work harder.

I digress


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 20, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 1) They still do. A flying wizard is plenty easy to hit, by a challenging foe. That and dimension door just put the wizard on the run, they gain him time.  Stoneskin is cool (unless the enemies have adamantine) but it isn't a certain thing against high level opponents that can dish out lots of damage, and you waste your round casting it, so the enemy is already in front of you next round if the fighter isn't there. Summoning a dire bear is a round casting time, so the DC is damage + spell level + 10. At that high level, anything that causes a concentration check can easily do enough damage to make the check near impossible.
> 
> 2) You can still get hit casting defensively, you just don't provoke an attack of opportunity. Any spell that is a round or more is going to have a difficult concentration check (Damage+10+ spell level). Plus you need to make the initial concentration check for the defensive casting (which is pretty easy).




Wizards are my favorite class (well, tied with fighters, 3e was mixed emotions for me, wizards rocked, fighters sucked).  I know them quite well and have played wizards extensively throughout the 3e years.  A party and a wizard certainly don't need a fighter.  It's nice to have a hit point soak in between you and the foes you are about to obliterate, but it is absolutely not necessary.  You don't need to cast fly, you have a cloak of flying.  Or boots of levitation at middle levels.  Ranged attacks aren't a huge threat as they are generally much weaker than what brutish, bashing monsters can do.  Dimension door has a range of a few hundred feet.  So do many of my spells.  You don't DD where you are still in range of a charge from the frost giant.   An animal summons lasts for more than one round as well, so if you really need a pool of points to stand in front of a monster, its well worth it.  And you cast it first, not after the monster is eating you.  You do have party members, hopefully they like to keep you in the back and clear to do your thing.  Protection spells are a backup.  Metamagic is your friend.  Your job is to not stand in front of beasties and you have tons of tools with which to do just that.  Your battlefield control can make safe spots for you.  Shut things off with a wall of force then levitate above it, surround enemies with a wall of fire, cloak yourself in fog, throw up some webs, etc.  

Even when you have to make a concentration check, its not difficult at high levels.  You have plenty of skill points and not much to spend them on, so maxed concentration is standard, plus a bit of Con.  Throw in some focus and an item if you need the boost because you are often getting hit a lot (and you really shouldn't be).  If you are making regular concentration checks, defensively or otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

That fighters and other straight melee classes lagged well behind casters (from mid levels on up) is not something that is open for debate.  It is a problem that's long been mathematically established and acknowledged by the game designers.  ToB was an effort to level the playing field a bit, and was quite successful at it, but it came out 7 years into the edition.   (this is more in response to insanogeddon than Pain)


----------



## Ourph (Mar 20, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Typically, if my foes do end up attacking the fighter, it is more because the spellcasters have done such a good job of protecting themselves/keeping themselves out of harm that the fighter then becomes a more enticing target by comparison, and less of the fighter doing such a stellar job of tanking.




That was my experience as well, both as a DM and when playing an arcane caster.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 20, 2009)

Seen the recent OotS? Up to Familicide, I recognize everything V does. Just looks like ordinary high level wizardry.

What would Roy do if he were standing next to V during that sequence? 

PS


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 20, 2009)

Storminator said:


> Seen the recent OotS? Up to Familicide, I recognize everything V does. Just looks like ordinary high level wizardry.
> 
> What would Roy do if he were standing next to V during that sequence?
> 
> PS




Pray that there isn't a black dragon hidden somewhere in his family tree?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2009)

In the last 3.5 campaign I played in, the Wizard was effectively useless for the first two levels.  Starting at third level, although he still needed the rest of us to act as a front-line some of the time, he was able to completely trivialize most encounters (usually using Web or Glitterdust).  

Because we were a group of wandering adventurers, he often had all the time he needed between adventures to scribe scrolls.  As a result, the rest of the party was increasingly marginalized as the game went on.  It wasn't that we were useless per se, but more and more it became the wizard and his traveling band of helpers.  

He was quite optimized, but he also held back unless he thought we needed the help.  I've known the player a long time and he honestly wasn't trying to dominate.  He even offered to retire the character if we felt that he was hogging the spotlight.  But the rest of us like the player and honestly weren't certain we could get by without his character.  He'd generally cast a single spell or two and then sit back and let the rest of us handle the clean-up.

He had an answer to everything.  He solo'd a pair of golems (I forget what kind) using some kind of Deanimating Ray specifically made to tear apart golems (he'd made it a point to carry a few scrolls of that spell in particular since he knows that golems are caster killers) when he realized that the rest of us were ineffective against them.  He had spells that ignored spell resistance for creatures with spell resistance, and an answer to just about everything in general.  

After the campaign died, our DM admitted that he found the Wizard's ability to counter just about everything he could throw at us incredibly frustrating.

In all fairness, the Wizard was probably the most optimized member of the party.  The others were a moderately optimized Paladin and Warlock, and (myself) a suboptimized Druid (I used shifter class power substitutions so I had no Wild Shape or Animal Companion, but I was still a Druid).  It was definitely not an optimal situation, but it was what it was.  We did have some fun times.  Just my most recent experience.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 21, 2009)

A wizard who can cast Magic Jar could singlehandedly destroy an almost unlimited number of giants (or any other poor will save giant beasts) with no danger to himself.

Yet another example of the wizard overshadowing everyone else.

DS


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> The other part of this, which I mentioned briefly earlier in the thread, is that playing a high level fighter in D&D starts to get kind of *boring*.
> 
> Roll attack, roll damage.  Roll attack, roll damage.  Yawn.  There's not much strategy or tactics involved.  If you're using one of the specialized maneuvers like grapple or something then you're probably specialized enough that you try to do it all the time.  Spellcasters get to shuffle their spells and pick which to use, as well as often having a bigger choice of opponents (or allies) to target round-by-round.




That's a fair criticism... of AD&D. A Third Edition fighter is as complex, if not moreso, than a wizard, and that, I firmly believe, is one of two things that cause people to mislabel the fighter as suboptimal (the other is a lack of logistical and quality-of-life spells, which is not an issue unless you have no casters in the group). Point to another character who has can melee, attack at a range, use special combat maneuvers, or interpose themselves bodily against monsters with a good chance of living, all with a credible level of ability. Even clerics, who can generate some of the higher numbers in melee, would have to sacrifice in some area to outshine the fighter, and they could never have a similar selection of feats. A fighter can disarm a lich's wand, wade into nests of giant spiders with little fear of poison, shoot flying imps out of the sky, and fight a medusa blind-folded. 

A well-played fighter is a dominant force. Furthermore, they can instantly fulfill any number of logistical functions with one or two levels of the base rogue or cleric classes, if that's your bag. But whereas they are often mischaracterized as a power class, a beater or meat shield, in fact they are a versatile class. They are the wizard to barbarian's sorcerer.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 21, 2009)

Any thought I would have on the matter is most likely already discussed.  Therefore I'll just post a link over to The Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 21, 2009)

> Point to another character who has can melee, attack at a range, use special combat maneuvers, or interpose themselves bodily against monsters with a good chance of living, all with a credible level of ability.




Last time I checked, "credible" used in this context would suggest that the fighter can achieve them with a fair degree of success. I find that a tad hard to believe. 

Let us first start with the much vaunted combat maneuvers he can perform.

Disarm - many MM monsters don't use weapons, or have natural attacks (which mitigate the drawback of losing their weapon). Not to mention that monsters tend to surpass you in terms of attack rolls (due to sheer amount of racial HD and high str scores) and size. Only use is if you want that balor's vorpal longsword (which is otherwise lost from its death throes). 

Grapple - first problem is figuring out how it works (which is actually a blessing in disguise, grapple checks tend to skewed terribly in favour of your foes, not least because of size limitations). Once the DM figures it out, well...you will wish he hadn't. 

Sunder - same problem with disarm. Many foes flat out don't need weapons to be effective, and you are just destroying your own loot. 

Trip - still fairly decent, once you get past the size limitations, and that monsters again possess an innate advantage due to their typically superior str scores and size. That bab is not used in the equation is actually a feature, not a bug (since their bab will likely surpass yours). 

In addition, these maneuvers tend to more effective when used against the fighter then when used by him (because of the reasons listed above). So the best option open to a fighter is still full-attack/move+attack. 

Melee - there was never any question as to whether the fighter could dish out excellent damage in melee, so you will not find me disputing this. 

Attack at range - this one is a little trickier. A fighter who goes 2-handed weapon fighting will typically pump str/con while dumping dex (since heavy armour has a low max dex bonus anyways), so his ranged attacks will not be as good as a dedicated archer. Nor can you afford to invest in the weapon-spec tree for 2 fighting styles, so ranged combat is for most part an afterthought (in that most fighters who focus on melee will still carry a bow around, and maybe spend 2-3 feats on rapid shot/manyshot).

Interposition - the smart fighters wait until the foes have been neutralized by the casters before falling back on their core competency - a steady, reusable source of direct damage. So staying power is less of an issue than you may think. 

3e was a game that rewarded overwhelming specialization in a narrow field. If you want your fighter to do all of the aforementioned abilities, you will find that he cannot do any of them well. To excel, you need to choose one, trick it and then stick with it all the way.


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 21, 2009)

Edit: Curse you Runestar for ninjaing me on the fighter combat maneuver and doing them better.

The problem I see it stems from what I call "Uncle's Law"
If you have seen Jackie Chan Adventures you know the character Uncle and one of his favorite quotes.
"Jackieeeee, Magic must defeat magic"
and that's the root of the problem. 

Magic is the sole mover and shaker of 3x. If you want to be big and bad you need to be able to cast magic or have the gold to spend on items to duplicate those spells. Ancient dragons aren't scary because they are ancient incarnations of the elements, its because they are 14 level sorcerers with lots of melee attacks. A warlord bent on world domination will get ganked while he is on the can if he doesn't have anti-scrying spells. A 20th level wizard is a power comparable to entire armies. A 20th level fighter, is a guy who makes 6 attacks a round but fortunetely has a lot of gold to spend on magic items to duplicate some of the abilites the wizard has innately. 

A fighter buffed to the gills is truely a power house, but that's because he's buffed to the gills. The same effect could have been achieved by buffing a NPC warrior or the druid's ape. Hell you may be able to do better buffing the ape since they have a natural 10 ft reach (don't need to waste a slot on enlarge person). 

Seriously, if a fighter is shining in an encounter, its due to one of two things.
1. Lots of spells/gold has been poured into him and the ass kicking is the sum result of the spellcastor's efforts. or
2. Everyone else has been handicapped so badly, that they are brought down to the fighters level (anti-magic zone, creature immunties etc)

One more thing
Pawsplay
Fighters are complex because you need to know ahead of time which feats you need to take with the bonus feats before you multi-class/prestige class into an a class that has actual abilites.

what special combat manuevers?
Trip is good. In fact, the spike chained trip spammer is the only fighter build capable of any sort of control. Control that starts failing as soon as the enemies start: flying(with spells, creatures with wings can be tripped), being bigger(unless the fighter gets enlarge person on him which cancels the benefit of being large, but falls behind against huge and up), stronger ( bull's strength can only go so far) or has more legs.

Bull rushing: yeah for giving up damage so a small push effect that hits the same road blocks as trip (bigger, stronger, immunties)

Disarm: Most higher CR monsters dont use weapons unless you are appling class levels to humanoids, which works unless they are a spell castor then they don't care.

Grapple: Once again creatures bigger, stronger than you want to grapple you and unless you jump around getting: feats, perstige classes and magic to boost your grapple modifier you are getting owned. Also freedom of movement counters grapple automatically. Have a +100 to grapple. I don't care, with FOM I walk out automatically.  

Interposing:
huzzah I get to be a speed bump. and if i sacrifice my standard action I can ready an action to move when the bad guy moves, and then they use their reach to punch the wizard in the face any ways.

Clerics need one spell to equal fighters: Divine power. Nets you fighter BAB. the +6 to strength, and temporary hit points are just gravy. That's not even including level one spell divine favor(bonus to hit that stacks with everything else) or righteous fury (its enlarge person on high octane crack)
Sure you have some fewer feats but all you need is power attack to mix it up in melee. And if somehow that's not cutting it in melee. CONGRATS you are still a primary castor so five foot step and blast away. 

One other thing

liches
Wands are just spell batteries. The lich would prefer a disarm than getting PA'ed in the face for 2d6+100 (Lich: man I hope he rolls low). 

Poison
High fort saves can still fail. Neutrailze poison works 100% or delay poison makes poison a none-issue for the fight as least. 
Imps 
Hope he has good aligned arrows. He can't power attack to get through the DR. Maybe he has enough pluses on the bow to counter that though. 

Medusa
I assume you say this because, fighters can pick up blind-fight right? Well anyone can do that as well, its not fighter specific. Just cast spells that dont require attack roles, evard's should work well, or that blocks line of sight. solid fog+stinking/acid cloud. 

In conclusion,
Fighters are a verstile class because you don't lose anything by multiclass/presitge class out of it. You dip in for two levels(maybe 4 for weapon spec) for the feats, then get a class with actual abilites.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 21, 2009)

> A fighter can disarm a lich's wand, wade into nests of giant spiders with little fear of poison, shoot flying imps out of the sky, and fight a medusa blind-folded.




None of which should really matter.

The lich shouldn't be relying on wands, not when he has more spell slots than the combat will require. Whatever spells he needs, just cast them out of his normal slots. 

Poison - the fighter isn't the only one with good fort saves, nor would he have the best (barb would be in a better position, with rage improving his con). Or at lv11, everyone in the party is immune to poison thanks to heroes' feast, regardless of how high or low your fort save is.

Tripping...take a 10th lv fighter. With enlarge person, a str of 22 (base16, +2lv, +2gauntlets, +2size), improved trip and a spiked chain, you would think that tripping is a shoe-in. But no, he still only has a 50-50 chance against a standard fire giant (cr10). And if he fails, he may end up being tripped or disarmed in return (neither of which is a favourable outcome). 

As earlier noted, fighters aren't the only people who can take blindfight or invest in archery-related abilities, though you may have a point in that their bonus feats allow them to do so at a lower opportunity cost compared to other classes, which may be more feat-starved. But the thing here is that the reason why the opportunity cost is so low is exactly because the base ability (a bonus feat every other level) sucks to begin with.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Wizards without fighters to protect them, are going to have a hard time casting spells in the first place.




Not at high levels they don't. In my experience, if the caster was within 90 feet, I could get there. Tumble checks that don't scale with level, flight, overrun, simply accepting 30 HP of damage from a single attack... basically, there was no line of battle once you hit mid teens. Unless you were dealing with narrow tunnels with low ceilings and had no tumble skill, you got there and started attacking the caster. Unless the mage's bodyguard had something sticky or fearsome about his single AoO--grapple, energy drain, disarm, sunder, etc.--then the advantage of attacking the caster vastly outweighed the inconvenient HP loss, especially if the attacker had haste on, and thus could get a full attack off as well as move.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Not at high levels they don't. In my experience, if the caster was within 90 feet, I could get there. Tumble checks that don't scale with level, flight, overrun, simply accepting 30 HP of damage from a single attack... basically, there was no line of battle once you hit mid teens. Unless you were dealing with narrow tunnels with low ceilings and had no tumble skill, you got there and started attacking the caster. Unless the mage's bodyguard had something sticky or fearsome about his single AoO--grapple, energy drain, disarm, sunder, etc.--then the advantage of attacking the caster vastly outweighed the inconvenient HP loss, especially if the attacker had haste on, and thus could get a full attack off as well as move.




In a party v. party sure. But if your party is facing monsters, they are less likely to be able to tumble and evade the fighters. Even in such instances, you never face a party exactly your own level. A party of 17th level characters is better suited to face a party of 13th or 14th  level characters. I agree tumbling was poorly designed for this reason. It should have been an opposed check of some kind so that it had the effect of scaling. By the way, while I dislike the new skill system, which for me is too narrow. 3E was far to broad. Skills should have capped at 10 so that they were manageable and the number of skill points available should have been more constrained. All that said. You are still supposed to move at half movement, and the Haste spell shouldn't be assumed. Remember we are talking about you defending your wizard with a fighter, not you attacking a wizard with your fighter.


----------



## Plissken (Mar 21, 2009)

People who play martial most of the time hate spellcasters. People who play arcane never dislike anyone.

Why all this hate against Wizards becoming too powerful? Flavor wise, it's supposed to work out that way!!!! Start with 4 hp as a weakling and grow, learn, earn to be a powerful wizard. If the creators of D&D have a problem with this why the hell did they put it in the game?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> People who play martial most of the time hate spellcasters. People who play arcane never dislike anyone.




Actually my favorite class in 3E was fighter, and in 4e my least favorite was fighter. I love fighters. I had a blast playing them in 3E. Once in a while I like playing a wizard too. But I thought the overall blend of sword in steel in 3E rocked. But I do agree it needed a few fixes. Just don't think we needed to throw the baby out with bath water. 



> Why all this hate against Wizards becoming too powerful? Flavor wise, it's supposed to work out that way!!!! Start with 4 hp as a weakling and grow, learn, earn to be a powerful wizard. If the creators of D&D have a problem with this why the hell did they put it in the game?




I think this is itself a balancing factor. In previous editions it was (though to be fair it used to take more experience to advance as a wizard in earlier editions). But balance over time is fine with me.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

Here's a question:

You have a typical 12th level adventuring group of 4, would you rather:

a) be put in a fight with a 14th level NPC fighter; or

b) a 14th level NPC mage?

too easy? how about:

a) a 14th level fighter with PC level equipment; or

b) a 14th level mage with no equipment other than a spellbook and spell component case?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> Here's a question:
> 
> You have a typical 12th level adventuring group of 4, would you rather:
> 
> ...




In 3E, the HP really hurt spell casters one against a party. Depending on how initiative goes, the wizard could get pretty creamed. 4 PCs can easily swarm a high 14th level wizard. This all boils down to DM tactics with the wizard. I have seen a lot of wizard villains chopped down by a swarm in a round or two. Honestly both of these fights are going to be easy. But I think the wizard would fall faster. At least this has been my experience any time a GM has tried to throw us against an NPC wizard. We just swarm and kill. Unless he has all his protections in place. Even then, a 12th level party shouldn't have a problem overcoming that.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> People who play martial most of the time hate spellcasters. People who play arcane never dislike anyone.




Isn't that kind of telling? Until Bo9S (and to a lesser extend PHB II) fighters were completely gimped relative to casters. with Bo9S fighters can (mostly)keep up in combat but still can't hold a candle to caster utility.



Plissken said:


> Why all this hate against Wizards becoming too powerful? Flavor wise, it's supposed to work out that way!!!! Start with 4 hp as a weakling and grow, learn, earn to be a powerful wizard. If the creators of D&D have a problem with this why the hell did they put it in the game?




While this makes a fun novel - D&D is a team game. Being more and more marginalised by 1 member of the group isn't that fun for most people.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> In 3E, the HP really hurt spell casters one against a party. Depending on how initiative goes, the wizard could get pretty creamed. 4 PCs can easily swarm a high 14th level wizard. This all boils down to DM tactics with the wizard. I have seen a lot of wizard villains chopped down by a swarm in a round or two. Honestly both of these fights are going to be easy. But I think the wizard would fall faster. At least this has been my experience any time a GM has tried to throw us against an NPC wizard. We just swarm and kill. *Unless he has all his protections in place*. Even then, a 12th level party shouldn't have a problem overcoming that.




I bolded the key phrase there. Any high level wizard that does not have protections/contingencies in place is an idiot and/or not being played properly. By 14th level a wizard has so many protective options (forget the easy ways to retreat that a fighter could only dream of) that other classes are going to have a hard time.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Disarm/Sunder - Obviously, these are dependent on contexts in which opponents use weaponds, wands, and so forth, and in the case of sunder, assumes it is not something you are seeking as treasure. But all that said, when it makes sense to do this, fighters and other high BAB characters can do this, and for the most part, casters can't.

Trip - Not every opponent is a Large magical beast with 20 HD. NPC wizards are unlikely to win against a trip attempt, for instance. Facing a squad of drow monks? Ready an action to trip them when they try to tumble past you. And against a CR 10 giant? Having a fifty-fifty chance of tripping such an obviously unsuitable target for tripping is pretty darned good. 

Ranged attacks - The fighter can spend a feat or two on ranged attacks, whereas most other cannot. A fighter can out-shoot a barbarian, they can likely outshoot a two-weapon master ranger. They can equal a ranged attack ranger, and probably edge out a cleric archer, too. As a secondary focus. Meanwhile, they are still supremely powerful in melee. 



			
				Runestar said:
			
		

> 3e was a game that rewarded overwhelming specialization in a narrow field.



Often asserted, never proven. In my mind, specialized = vulnerable. PCs rarely get to pick all their battles, nor is it possible to plan for every contingency. If you build a character around amazing tripping ability, you have a real problem when you face incorporeal opponents (or enlarged dwarves). If you throw everything you have at using a longbow, you are probably not going to be happy when you face an opponent with entropic shield or wind powers. But the sunny side is, even if you throw all your feats at one task and dump one of your physical ability scores, a fighter still has full BAB and d10 hit dice, so you should be able, with minimal preparation, to fake most of the areas I've mentioned. Does your party's melee capabilities depend on a self-buffing cleric? That's too bad when you encounter a foe who can cast greater dispel magic. Specialization is good, but over-specialization is bad. It's a good idea to be able to do something really well, but there better be a backup plan in place when that something does not go according to plan.



			
				Gunpowder said:
			
		

> A fighter buffed to the gills is truely a power house, but that's because he's buffed to the gills. The same effect could have been achieved by buffing a NPC warrior or the druid's ape. Hell you may be able to do better buffing the ape since they have a natural 10 ft reach (don't need to waste a slot on enlarge person).




First of all, comparing a wizard to a fighter without buffs is like comparing the fighter to a wizard who does not cast spells. Buffs exist, and they tend to work extremely well with fighters. Who cares when you cast enlarge person the wizard? Second, the same effect cannot be achieved by buffing an NPC warrior or the druid's ape, unless you can figure out how to supply them with an extra half dozen feats and a suitable selection of magical weapons, armor, potions, and wondrous items. Third, reach weapon + magic oil = reach whenever you need it. 



			
				Gunpowder said:
			
		

> Interposing:
> huzzah I get to be a speed bump. and if i sacrifice my standard action I can ready an action to move when the bad guy moves, and then they use their reach to punch the wizard in the face any ways.




Coming out of nowhere and taking down a foe is being more than a "speed bump." Call it being a good tackle. There is no reason that they should be able to punch the wizard in the face... if they have reach, ready an action to move directly in front of them as soon as they are fifteen feet away from your wizard. At worst, they'll keep moving and draw an AoO, and if they keep their ten foot distance from the wizard, you'll be able to make a full attack on them the very next turn. 


			
				Gunpowder said:
			
		

> Seriously, if a fighter is shining in an encounter, its due to one of two things.
> 1. Lots of spells/gold has been poured into him and the ass kicking is the sum result of the spellcastor's efforts. or
> 2. Everyone else has been handicapped so badly, that they are brought down to the fighters level (anti-magic zone, creature immunties etc)



On other words, "If the party is in a D&D game." Fighters get buffed, and buffers buff fighters. Creature immunities... guess what? That's a fact of life. No one tactic is going to work on everything. This is not handicapped, any more than flying creatures are somewhere handicapping a fighter who focuses on melee.

Liches with wands - Sometimes you want to smack the lich, sometimes you want him to stop using a magic item _right now_. Also, liches can be grappled. Let's see someone other than a fighter or barbarian try that (liches have a paralyzing touch which targets Fort). While the lich has plenty of spell slots, he does not necessarily have every spell of every level memorized. 

Poison - This is a non-point. Of course it can fail. I don't see a lot of neutralize poison floating around. Fighters can often shruff off poison entirely.

Imps - Of course the fighter has good-aligned arrows... he has magic oil.

Medusas - Anyone can pick up Blind-Fight, but fighters can do it without sacrificing core feats like Improved Initiative or Power Attack. I have never, not once, seen a melee cleric with Blind-Fight. And let's assume the fighter does not have Blind-Fight... he can take his chances. Evard's black tentacles is a good answer to this problem, most other spells are not.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> I bolded the key phrase there. Any high level wizard that does not have protections/contingencies in place is an idiot and/or not being played properly. By 14th level a wizard has so many protective options (forget the easy ways to retreat that a fighter could only dream of) that other classes are going to have a hard time.




If you can force the wizard to escape, allowing the rest of his party to be slaughtered, you are already more than halfway to victory.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> Here's a question:
> 
> You have a typical 12th level adventuring group of 4, would you rather:
> 
> ...




I know that my PC group stomped a level 12 lich, but was nearly annihilated by a level 10 fighter death knight.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> I bolded the key phrase there. Any high level wizard that does not have protections/contingencies in place is an idiot and/or not being played properly. By 14th level a wizard has so many protective options (forget the easy ways to retreat that a fighter could only dream of) that other classes are going to have a hard time.





This depends entirely on the circumstances of the encounter. If he knows the party is coming or if he is suprised. If you want the encounter to be remotely challenging you will make sure he has his protections in place. But then, if you want the fighter to be a challenge, you would make sure he amor and weapons to keep him in the fight (and there are plenty in 3E to work with). But if he does have them in place, a well rounded party at that level will have little trouble getting through the defenses. Really a single wizard is a weak opponent. He needs some meat shields to get off some good spells before he is swarmed. The point is, both of these encoutners are incredibly easy in 3E. The opponent must win initiative or it is basically over.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This depends entirely on the circumstances of the encounter. If he knows the party is coming or if he is suprised. But if he does have them in place, a well rounded party at that level will have little trouble getting through the defenses. Really a single wizard is a weak opponent. He needs some meat shields to get off some good spells before he is swarmed. The point is, both of these encoutners are incredibly easy in 3E. The opponent must win initiative or it is basically over.




Yes, of course it depends heavily on circumstances - though the easy answer is the more time the wizard has the tougher the encounter (not so with the fighter btw). If the wizard has any time at all, the party may not only be facing the wizard but because of summon monster X etc. a much larger force. If you think a single wizard is a weak opponent (especially a high level one) he is not pulling out the right spells.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> Yes, of course it depends heavily on circumstances - though the easy answer is the more time the wizard has the tougher the encounter (not so with the fighter btw). If the wizard has any time at all, the party may not only be facing the wizard but because of summon monster X etc. a much larger force. If you think a single wizard is a weak opponent (especially a high level one) he is not pulling out the right spells.




On the other hand, if he is attacked in his own lair and loses initiative, my money is on the single fighter.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I know that my PC group stomped a level 12 lich, but was nearly annihilated by a level 10 fighter death knight.




What level was your group? Liches are extremely nasty if played properly, the 15 magic and blunt damage reduction can be tough and if you get close to the mage you better have a ridiculous fort save. That said death knights have more going for them then simply being a fighter.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> Yes, of course it depends heavily on circumstances - though the easy answer is the more time the wizard has the tougher the encounter (not so with the fighter btw). If the wizard has any time at all, the party may not only be facing the wizard but because of summon monster X etc. a much larger force. If you think a single wizard is a weak opponent (especially a high level one) he is not pulling out the right spells.




Again, swarming is going to drop the wizard more often than the fighter, before he can do anything effective. But it is moot anyways, since the DM is going to stack things to make the encounter challenging. He has to, because combat likethis against a sigle opponent that is a PC class and Race is going to end fast in 3E. If I am sending the party against a fighter of that level, he will have really cool weapons armor and wonderous items to keep him in play. And the battlefield is going to be laid out so that the battle lasts. If I send the party against a wizard, it will be set up so he at least has three rounds to squeeze off good spells. Summoning is great, but usually the wizard is dead the next round. The important thing for the wizard is make sure he has distance from the party, and his protection spells in place. The fighter needs items that improve his movment around the battlefield and make him really hard to hit. Both can be made into a challenging encounter. But PLaying them straight, they are both dissapointing.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> On the other hand, if he is attacked in his own lair and loses initiative, my money is on the single fighter.




Attack a wizard in his own lair? Seriously, if he doesn't see the group coming and loses there to lower level party, he's one stupid wizard. Too many opportunities for "home field advantage" for the wizard: protection circles, glyphs, guards and wards - and many many more.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> Attack a wizard in his own lair? Seriously, if he doesn't see the group coming and loses there to lower level party, he's one stupid wizard. Too many opportunities for "home field advantage" for the wizard: protection circles, glyphs, guards and wards - and many many more.




I agree attacking a wizard in his own lair isn't going to be easy. But then, he is probably going to have minions in place as well. Don't get me wrong; wizards make great opponents in 3E because magic is so versatile, and the game favors spells at higher level (this is something I don't have a problem with)-- though to be fair, builds with noncasters can get pretty sick at higher levels. One of the advantages of a fighter is the ability to class dip without having to worry about loss of spell progression. Most fighters end up with a couple of other classes under their belt by that level of plat. Magic is powerful in 3E. This is something I dispute. For me it is a feature and not a flaw. I have just noticed in my games, when the party goes up against one guy cold, they swarm and in in a round or two.


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Again, swarming is going to drop the wizard more often than the fighter, before he can do anything effective. But it is moot anyways, since the DM is going to stack things to make the encounter challenging. He has to, because combat likethis against a sigle opponent that is a PC class and Race is going to end fast in 3E. If I am sending the party against a fighter of that level, he will have really cool weapons armor and wonderous items to keep him in play. And the battlefield is going to be laid out so that the battle lasts. If I send the party against a wizard, it will be set up so he at least has three rounds to squeeze off good spells. Summoning is great, but usually the wizard is dead the next round. The important thing for the wizard is make sure he has distance from the party, and his protection spells in place. The fighter needs items that improve his movment around the battlefield and make him really hard to hit. Both can be made into a challenging encounter. But PLaying them straight, they are both dissapointing.




The mage has options to not be alone - the fighter does not and that goes back to the matter in the OP.

The wizard can, with summoning etc. easily pull in help that can replace what the fighter does (damage, movement, meatshield etc.) maybe not 100% as effective but pretty close and he can do it quickly ( a matter of rounds). Even doing this, his effectiveness is still high as he still has many spells to harrass the party (heck if he used scrolls to summon, he's still at 100%).

The fighter has no such options to replace or compensate for the casters absense.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> What level was your group? Liches are extremely nasty if played properly, the 15 magic and blunt damage reduction can be tough and if you get close to the mage you better have a ridiculous fort save. That said death knights have more going for them then simply being a fighter.




8th level, with a 9th level dwarven scout. Honestly, I expected them to all die, as they kind of rushed to fight the lich rather than taking the path I had in mind. But by round three, they figured out how to overcome the DR, and only one character was paralyzed. The scout took a morningstar with magic weapon on it and closed with the lich, each round tumbling around him and readying an an attack to interrupt his spells, while the wizard peppered it with magic missiles. 

In contrast, while fighting the death knight, the cleric's staff of healing was sundered, most of the party ended up unconscious, and the high AC halfling paladin and the scout were left to finish the job.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> The mage has options to not be alone - the fighter does not and that goes back to the matter in the OP.




In the lair example, both would not be alone. They would both have minions or followers. 



> The wizard can, with summoning etc. easily pull in help that can replace what the fighter does (damage, movement, meatshield etc.) maybe not 100% as effective but pretty close and he can do it quickly ( a matter of rounds). Even doing this, his effectiveness is still high as he still has many spells to harrass the party (heck if he used scrolls to summon, he's still at 100%).




But he only gets one cast each round. The point is, both a single fighter and a single wizard in the isolated case are going to fall quick. Even if he squeezes off the summon, he will fall the next round. He would be better off unloading his most powerful spell in the first round, or trying to escape through a teleport. 



> The fighter has no such options to replace or compensate for the casters absense.




He has magic items. 

Again, I fully acknowledge that 3E favors magic at higher levels in a strict everyone advances to max level in a single class campaign. But this is the exception, most non-casters use incredibly powerful builds, and it can be easily managed by a good DM. Now if the example presented were not an isolated encoutner but a well planned one. I would go with the single wizard in his lair. One of the advantages of a fully powered wizard having an edge is they make great villains. But they need to be at full power. Even then, all wizards are limited by the spells they know, and have memorized. You just can't assume they know every spell in the book and will be able to use it. 

But let me be clear 3E has issues. The skill system was too broad. Rankings went way too high. It would have been better to lower the max rank to ten. Magic is really powerful. But I have no problem with power balancing over time, and I still enjoy playing fighters at higher level. Either way, a decent DM can manage this. Most game systems break down in certain places, because game design is built around trade offs for balance, flavor and realism--4E is fully balanced, but for me, it trades off a lot of flavor, options and coolness in the process. I don't expect others to agree with me, but this is my experience of the two editions-- 3E favors magic at higher levels. But the trade off is it really creates cool settings and adventures. With proper DMing it isn't much of a problem to keep fighters in the game (they need the right magic items, DMs must plan encoutners carefully and all the rules of magic have to be enforced).


----------



## Mort (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I agree attacking a wizard in his own lair isn't going to be easy. But then, he is probably going to have minions in place as well. Don't get me wrong; wizards make great opponents in 3E because magic is so versatile, and the game favors spells at higher level (this is something I don't have a problem with)--




Well yes, if there's no problem there's no need for argument 



ProfessorPain said:


> though to be fair, builds with noncasters can get pretty sick at higher levels. One of the advantages of a fighter is the ability to class dip without having to worry about loss of spell progression. Most fighters end up with a couple
> of other classes under their belt by that level of plat.




Thus you have the "boring" problem brought up by others earlier. Magic is versatile and a mages player can do several things well - which for most people is fun. For a fighter to dominate they usually have to specialize (the tripping specialist, the charging specialist etc.) and while very effecive it gets old quick.



ProfessorPain said:


> Magic is powerful in 3E. This is something I dispute. For me it is a feature and not a flaw. I have just noticed in my games, when the party goes up against one guy cold, they swarm and in in a round or two.




This is the economy of actions problem. No matter how ubber the single monster is, chances are he acts once to the PC's 4 actions. This means, as you say, he's going to go get swarmed and go down. This is why druids and summoners are so nasty in 3.5; they get to exploit the economy of actions with minimal effort.  When you fight a Druid it's not just a spellcasting druid, It's a Druid, his dire bear companion, the dire wolvorine he summoned a round ago and his new friend the dire crockadile.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 21, 2009)

No love for the rogue I see. Even if you get rid of some of the restrictions on Sneak Attack (query: how many people realize a rogue can't sneak attack a humanoid creature two sizes larger than themselves by RAW?) there's still the issue of the interaction between the skill system and the spell system.

Is there any dissenting opinion that by 11th level, any decently played wizard makes a rogue superfluous outside of combat?


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> First of all, comparing a wizard to a fighter without buffs is like comparing the fighter to a wizard who does not cast spells. Buffs exist, and they tend to work extremely well with fighters. Who cares when you cast enlarge person the wizard? Second, the same effect cannot be achieved by buffing an NPC warrior or the druid's ape, unless you can figure out how to supply them with an extra half dozen feats and a suitable selection of magical weapons, armor, potions, and wondrous items. Third, reach weapon + magic oil = reach whenever you need it.
> 
> 
> On other words, "If the party is in a D&D game." Fighters get buffed, and buffers buff fighters. Creature immunities... guess what? That's a fact of life. No one tactic is going to work on everything. This is not handicapped, any more than flying creatures are somewhere handicapping a fighter who focuses on melee.
> ...






On Fighters and buffs/magic
I think this boils down to personal preference. 3e fighters don't bring anything to the table outside of being the target of buff spells. If your big advantage over an NPC class is that you have more money to spend on magical gear, that's a problem. Classes from tome of battle and 4e meleeists actually have unique abilities that they bring to the table. Do they still need magic items to be better? Yes. Still need the wizards to buff/debuff? Of course. But at the end of the fight, Wizards say "Thanks for bringing something that I could not easily replicate with a spell or two (marking, different abilities from ToB). While in 3e its "Thanks for being the target for my buff spells because otherwise you would have been dead weight." 

Like I said eariler, magic is the sole power in 3e. As a high level fighter, I want to be feared because of my peerless martial prowess, not because I am wearing more magic items than the enemy. 

Quote
8th level, with a 9th level dwarven scout. Honestly, I expected them to all die, as they kind of rushed to fight the lich rather than taking the path I had in mind. But by round three, they figured out how to overcome the DR, and only one character was paralyzed. The scout took a morningstar with magic weapon on it and closed with the lich, each round tumbling around him and readying an an attack to interrupt his spells, while the wizard peppered it with magic missiles. 
 end quote

I am still unclear how ready actions is this effective. 
 I ready an action to attack if the lich casts anything. 
 The lich 5 foot steps then casts, your readied action fails to go off. Unless you are wielding a spiked chain since that is the only weapon with reach that allows you to threaten adjacent squares. 
 or 
 I ready an action to five foot step after the lich.
The lich 5 ft steps you move with him, and then the lich casts defensively. Congrats you just sacrificed your turn in hopes the lich rolls a 2 on his concentration check. (unless you have the mage slayer feat, but that's in a splat)

Also, in both your example fights, the casters made or broke the encounters. The cleric got around the DR with a spell and the party suffered terriblely once their healing got knocked down.  It's the magic arms race or "Magic must defeat magic". To get around certain spells you need the counter spells. You can't beat invisiblity with a spot check you need see invisibilty. No amount of damage will ever break a wall of force. You need disintigrate. Arcane lock can only be opened by knock, it doesn't care if your open lock skill is +100. If it is not magic, no one cares.


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 21, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> No love for the rogue I see. Even if you get rid of some of the restrictions on Sneak Attack (query: how many people realize a rogue can't sneak attack a humanoid creature two sizes larger than themselves by RAW?) there's still the issue of the interaction between the skill system and the spell system.
> 
> Is there any dissenting opinion that by 11th level, any decently played wizard makes a rogue superfluous outside of combat?




Fortunately, rogues have use magic device. So they get to be useful outside of combat by casting spells out of the wands and scrolls the wizard made for him. 

Also, what's this about sneak attack immune huge creatures? I know that a human assassin hiding in a bedroom at night to kill the mayor will need to turn on a light before he can sneak attack, since if there's enough concealment to hide in, there's enough concealment to make the mayor sneak attack immune. But I was unaware of the size difference. Does it have something to do about unable to reach "vulnerable parts"?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 21, 2009)

insanogeddon said:


> Clerics need to put in alot of effort to equate to fighters (by equate I mean get close to) and I have yet to see the buffed cleric thats better at fighting than a WELL made warrior and thats not even taking onto account the extra actions/ability to cope with shock troops etc the fighter gets thru not having to prep.




The problem is that all fighters do is fight. They're essentially worthless from class abilities in situations where you dont roll initiative. Unless they're just so grotesquely overpowered in combat to make up for their lack of combat utility (they're not), if anyone comes close to doing their schtick, its a system failure, since that character likely has non-combat utility.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Mort said:


> This is the economy of actions problem. No matter how ubber the single monster is, chances are he acts once to the PC's 4 actions. This means, as you say, he's going to go get swarmed and go down. This is why druids and summoners are so nasty in 3.5; they get to exploit the economy of actions with minimal effort. When you fight a Druid it's not just a spellcasting druid, It's a Druid, his dire bear companion, the dire wolvorine he summoned a round ago and his new friend the dire crockadile.





But this is at least an area where fighters have something of an advantage. Where a wizard can only cast one spell, the fighter can attack multiple times as a full move. 

True. But the point is, the summoner needs to summon before combat, or pull of the summons really fast and not have his spell interupted. It could go either way with them in this scenario, if they don't have their meat shields up.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> On the other hand, if he is attacked in his own lair and loses initiative, my money is on the single fighter.



True enough, although a smart wizard would simply flee when caught by surprise and strike back when he has the advantage.  The single fighter simply dies (unless he has a magic escape route himself).



pawsplay said:


> I know that my PC group stomped a level 12 lich, but was nearly annihilated by a level 10 fighter death knight.



That's because death knights actually get combat abilities that are useful for them.   The lich template, as far as combat goes, is kind of a wash - sure you get some extra defenses, but you're also undead and have no Fort save.  You're also effectively immortal, which I suppose is the point, but a living wizard of the same CR is a more powerful opponent in most cases.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> 8th level, with a 9th level dwarven scout. Honestly, I expected them to all die, as they kind of rushed to fight the lich rather than taking the path I had in mind. But by round three, they figured out how to overcome the DR, and only one character was paralyzed. The scout took a morningstar with magic weapon on it and closed with the lich, each round tumbling around him and readying an an attack to interrupt his spells, while the wizard peppered it with magic missiles.




The lich couldnt figure out how to avoid a readied action? A simple 5 foot step would have foiled that...


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> Why all this hate against Wizards becoming too powerful? Flavor wise, it's supposed to work out that way!!!!




Chocolate tastes pretty damn good with cake and ice cream.  That does not mean I want to put some on my steak.

Dropping the metaphor, there are instances where the narrative trope of all powerful spell casters who bend time and space to their will are pretty damn awesome.  However, what works reliably in fantasy fiction does not always work out so well in a pen and paper RPG game.  If I am playing as a wizard in a game where that is the kind of story the DM is basing his game in, than I am going to have a good time.  But if I am trying to play Thog the brutal barbarian, I am not going to enjoy the game as much.

Perhaps your familiar with the 'Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video clip?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]

It is not about the wizard being too powerful.  It is about having a character classes that have absolutely no way to maintain parity over the long run with other character classes.  A well designed RPG game will do its best to avoid providing choices that end up being obviously sub-par over the long run while promoting both choices as being equally viable.  This applies not only to character classes, but also to feats, and spell selection.  There is a reason why Haste and Harm got nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Lord Zardoz said:


> It is not about the wizard being too powerful. It is about having a character classes that have absolutely no way to maintain parity over the long run with other character classes. A well designed RPG game will do its best to avoid providing choices that end up being obviously sub-par over the long run while promoting both choices as being equally viable. This applies not only to character classes, but also to feats, and spell selection. There is a reason why Haste and Harm got nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5.
> 
> END COMMUNICATION




I disagree. This is a valid approach to RPG design. It is the one 4E took and succesfully achieved. But it isn't the only consideration when designing an RPG. Many gamers prefer the possibility of sub optimal choices, because they want their character creation choices to matter and have an impact on the power level in the game. This isn't for everyone. But it doesn't mean the presence of sub optimal choices in a game, mean its a design flaw. Different games take different approaches, and have different levels of balance. That doesn't mean 3E is a bad game, because wizards can become very powerful. And for many, the ability of wizards to bend space and time, is very important to having a fun adventure. Even for those of us that prefer fighters. We want the spellcraft that surrounds us, both at the player and NPC level, to have this kind of power.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I disagree. This is a valid approach to RPG design. It is the one 4E took and successfully achieved. But it isn't the only consideration when designing an RPG. Many gamers prefer the possibility of sub optimal choices, because they want their character creation choices to matter and have an impact on the power level in the game. This isn't for everyone. But it doesn't mean the presence of sub optimal choices in a game, mean its a design flaw. Different games take different approaches, and have different levels of balance. That doesn't mean 3E is a bad game, because wizards can become very powerful. And for many, the ability of wizards to bend space and time, is very important to having a fun adventure. Even for those of us that prefer fighters. We want the spellcraft that surrounds us, both at the player and NPC level, to have this kind of power.




Effectively then, the game becomes about one class then. 

In Revised d20 Star Wars (pre Saga), there were 9 classes; 6 non-Force using classes (soldier, scoundrel, scout, noble, fringer, tech-specialist*) and three Force-using classes (Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, Force Adept). In theory, each class had a niche in the Universe be it combat, skills, social ability, survival skills, crafting, or Force use.

In reality, there was really two classes: Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular. (Force Adept pulls a distant 3rd, the other six don't even register, though solider was the best of the last six). A Jedi (either one, actually) could out-fight a fighter (lightsabers deal a ridiculous amount of damage, ignore armor, and deflect lazer-beams. Plus, they were three-feats from the best AC in the game), consulars had every diplomatic trick a noble could pull (save for cash) and with a few spread ranks, a Jedi could pilot, camp in the wilderness, build a weapon, and do anything the other classes could.

Oh yeah, and he had The Force. He was the only class to Heal, Buff, Move at great speed, Read Minds, See the Future, Talk Long Distances without Tech, Move Objects, and (if darkly inclined) attack for stupid amounts of damage at range, followed by igniting his lightsaber. 

Smart players (meaning, anyone who played for more than 5 sessions with a Jedi PC) knew the Jedi WAS the game. As PCs died and or were early retired (both common in Revised SW) Jedi replaced them. In fact, barring a few corner-cases, there was NO reason NOT to be a Jedi, since you stood head-and-shoulders over non-Force uses to the point a non-Force User was simply a liability or often treated like a sidekick (making them almost PC cohorts). 

Canonically, this fits the SW universe. Luke was as good a pilot as Han, a strong a warrior as Chewie, and as competent a diplomat as Leia (ask Jabba about Luke's negotiation skills) AND could stand toe-to-toe with Vader, something Han, Leia and Chewie all failed at (together!) Jedi ARE supposed to be better than normal people in the SW universe, that's why they're held in awe and suspicion.

But that makes for lousy party dynamics, esp if your the guy whose playing Han, Leia or Chewie. (For the record, Han & co. only shine when Luke is off at Dagobah or on DS2 in Empire and Jedi, when he multiclasses from mundane to Jedi).

Saga fixes the problem (somewhat) by giving those non-Force classes something interesting to do. A solider now matches a Jedi in damage output, a scoundrel has many more skills than a Jedi could hope for. A noble is the only class capable of buffing. Jedi have weaker skills, less combat prowess, but still the Force to balance it out. They are still stronger than a non Force, but No longer the Black Hole of Awesome that sucks away the spotlight from anyone less awesome then them (which was, of course, eveyone else). 

Is it as true to the tone of Star Wars as Revised was? Who cares! Jedi needed a power-crippling and the non-Force classes needed a boost to make the game fun. 

Its always ok to blow off "balance" when your not the class being drowned out of the light.

* I never, ever saw a Tech-Spec in play. They were the true "sub-optimal choice" of the game. Weak HD, poor attack and saves, not even proficient in a pistol, but they could craft masterwork gear! Woo Hoo! Why was this a PC class when you couldn't contribute anything of value outside your garage?


----------



## Gimby (Mar 21, 2009)

True, some players like having much lower powered characters than the rest of the party, and some players/groups like having the powerful wizard trope. 

Thing is, these are both possible in a balanced game, you can even do it in 4e.  All you have to do is make the less powerful character lower level and the more powerful one higher level.  And this can be done without making characters relatively obsolete in the default game.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Gimby said:


> True, some players like having much lower powered characters than the rest of the party, and some players/groups like having the powerful wizard trope.




Actually I am not talking about players who gimp for role play reasons. I am talking about people who come to the table with a more competitve spirit. Or who simply want to be rewarded for creating good builds. I am not saying this is for everyone. But my point is, a perfectly balanced game isn't the only correct goal in game design. It is a good goal for many types of players. Not all. 

Then there is the flavor factor, which I care about. And the star wars example is a key point. If I am playing star wars, I am sorry but jedis are the stars. I would rather have over powered Jedis, that fit the star wars concept, and have the DM be the balancing factor. In games like this I always use the following rule of thumb. Players that take an optimal class like Jedi, are balanced out by how they can behave out of combat and the first to be targeted in most combat encounters. And this is in keeping with the genre. The advantage of playing someone like han solo, isn't what he can do in combat, it is what he can do outside of it. I am not denying the value of streamlined balanced mechanics like you have in 4E, but since its release, everyone seems to think that is the only valid kind of game. There is nothing wrong with people who like a little imbalance in their game, getting it. And just because combat mechanics favor one class, or character path, that doesn't mean it can't be balanced out in other ways. 



> Thing is, these are both possible in a balanced game, you can even do it in 4e. All you have to do is make the less powerful character lower level and the more powerful one higher level. And this can be done without making characters relatively obsolete in the default game.




Not really. You aren't rewarding character choice. You are just dictating that this character is higher level than that character--which is just as possible in a game like 3E. Sure this might work for somethings. But it doesn't restore the versatility of spells, their ability to bend reality. And it doesn't reward good character design.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 21, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Effectively then, the game becomes about one class then.




No. 3E is about builds and multiclassing. Players are rewarded for mastery of the system and clever use of resources. Some abilities are objectively better than others in certain sistuations for this reason. My point is, this is one approach and for some of us, it is fun. 

Are wizards better at higher levels than a straight fighter or rogue, sure. But the game isn't effectively about the wizard. Wizards get rewarded in the long haul, but pay a price in the short term. For the last few levels of a campaign, they tend to shine. Though if the non-casters made good builds, they can shine as well. 



> In Revised d20 Star Wars (pre Saga), there were 9 classes; 6 non-Force using classes (soldier, scoundrel, scout, noble, fringer, tech-specialist*) and three Force-using classes (Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, Force Adept). In theory, each class had a niche in the Universe be it combat, skills, social ability, survival skills, crafting, or Force use.
> 
> In reality, there was really two classes: Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular. (Force Adept pulls a distant 3rd, the other six don't even register, though solider was the best of the last six). A Jedi (either one, actually) could out-fight a fighter (lightsabers deal a ridiculous amount of damage, ignore armor, and deflect lazer-beams. Plus, they were three-feats from the best AC in the game), consulars had every diplomatic trick a noble could pull (save for cash) and with a few spread ranks, a Jedi could pilot, camp in the wilderness, build a weapon, and do anything the other classes could.




And in Star Wars this is how Jedis are. If I am playing the game, I want Jedi to outperform the other characters. I remember in pre-saga days, everyone knew the Jedi was the best class, but if you were going to play a jedi you had to bring your A game. The DM expected a good story around your character, and he expected you to do some heavy lifting. And we were all fine with this, because we played Han Solo, with the understanding that we were playing han solo and not luke skywalker. 




> Smart players (meaning, anyone who played for more than 5 sessions with a Jedi PC) knew the Jedi WAS the game. As PCs died and or were early retired (both common in Revised SW) Jedi replaced them. In fact, barring a few corner-cases, there was NO reason NOT to be a Jedi, since you stood head-and-shoulders over non-Force uses to the point a non-Force User was simply a liability or often treated like a sidekick (making them almost PC cohorts).




The answer here is simply to expect more from the players who select Jedi. I played a ton of this game, and we never had a problem with everyone wanting to be a Jedi. At most we had two Jedi in a group. But mostly just one. And no one had a problem with their power level. 

That said, you could take the 4E approach and go more for balance. There is nothing wrong with that either. But there is a trade off with it. Me, I would rather have the full flavor of star wars. And if a game comes out that blatantly favors Jedi, I am fine with that design approach. 



> Canonically, this fits the SW universe. Luke was as good a pilot as Han, a strong a warrior as Chewie, and as competent a diplomat as Leia (ask Jabba about Luke's negotiation skills) AND could stand toe-to-toe with Vader, something Han, Leia and Chewie all failed at (together!) Jedi ARE supposed to be better than normal people in the SW universe, that's why they're held in awe and suspicion.




And this is the balancing factor. Non Jedi characters have an easier time moving through the plot outside of combat. And for us, that was a good junk of the game. Again, you can do it either way. And it is a trade off. 



> But that makes for lousy party dynamics, esp if your the guy whose playing Han, Leia or Chewie. (For the record, Han & co. only shine when Luke is off at Dagobah or on DS2 in Empire and Jedi, when he multiclasses from mundane to Jedi).




I was never that worried about party dynamics. So the Jedi is a Jedi, and do some impressive stuff like he is supposed to do. I never got bored with a han solo like character. And I expected the Jedi to shine a bit. 



> Saga fixes the problem (somewhat) by giving those non-Force classes something interesting to do. A solider now matches a Jedi in damage output, a scoundrel has many more skills than a Jedi could hope for. A noble is the only class capable of buffing. Jedi have weaker skills, less combat prowess, but still the Force to balance it out. They are still stronger than a non Force, but No longer the Black Hole of Awesome that sucks away the spotlight from anyone less awesome then them (which owas, of course, eveyone else).




But I don't like saga. And this is my point. Game design is about making games people want to play. You and I want to play different kinds of games. So there is nothing wrong with having one game design approach geared toward you, and another geared toward me. And neither of us is playing the game wrong, or being bad roleplayers. We just prefer different things be focused on in our systems. 



> Is it as true to the tone of Star Wars as Revised was? Who cares! Jedi needed a power-crippling and the non-Force classes needed a boost to make the game fun.




For you. Not for me. That is my point. What is fun for you, isn't fun for everybody. For me this is frankly a little boring. I am not saying you are playing a bad game. It is just not the game I want to play. 



> Its always ok to blow off "balance" when your not the class being drowned out of the light.




But you can play any class you want. If you hate being the weaker class don't play. I actually don't mind having the mundane classes be a little more mundane, and playing them. I love being han solo in star wars, or the fighter in 3E. And I love having a wizard in my party that isn't toned down. I love having a Jedi that is just like in the movies. For me this is fun. If you don't like it, there are plenty of games designed for your taste. But don't tell me my taste is wrong, or the design behind them is flawed, if me and my group is having a blast. Play the game you like by all means. Its all good.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2009)

Re readied actions - in 3.5 you can ready to 5' step & attack, *if you didn't move *on your turn.  In 3.0 you could ready a partial charge (move & attack)! - according to _Forge of Fury_, anyway.

It's certainly possible to ready "I hit him if he starts to cast, 5' stepping if necessary", although I've never actually seen this done.  Since it doesn't require an AoO it will work vs combat casting, and require a concentration roll if the target is hit.

Of course a competent spellcaster won't stick around long enough for this tactic to be used, or will have spells to prevent getting hit for damage.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 21, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> No. 3E is about builds and multiclassing. Players are rewarded for mastery of the system and clever use of resources. Some abilities are objectively better than others in certain situations for this reason. My point is, this is one approach and for some of us, it is fun.




Of course, every group is different and everyone has a different level of tolerance for BS, but 3e being about "builds & multiclassing" and "rewarded mastery" are anathema to what I want out of an RPG. And as a life-long favored player of the sneaky-types, I rue any system (be it D&D or Star Wars, or anything else) where the "cool" option (wizard, Jedi, etc) is vastly superior to other options. Unless you don't mind being a second-fiddle character (and I don't, I want my moments to shine and my moments I'm not so great in so someone else can shine). There is a big difference between "Rogue, you're the only one of us who can do this." and "Well, we COULD blow magic on solving the problem, but hey, you played the rogue, we'll give this one to you so you have something to do. If you fail, we'll blow the spell anyway. Nothing to lose, right?"

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. Unless I'm playing the Jedi and you're the Scoundrel, kay?


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 22, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Then there is the flavor factor, which I care about. And the star wars example is a key point. If I am playing star wars, I am sorry but jedis are the stars. I would rather have over powered Jedis, that fit the star wars concept, and have the DM be the balancing factor.




This is an absolutely valid view point, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a game under these circumstances.  However, there are also very valid reasons for disagreeing with it.

 - Not all DM's want to be saddled with the responsibility of balancing out a power disparity to keep their players fully engaged.

 - Not all players will agree that Wizards ought to be the stars of D&D.  Some players may have been drawn to this genre wanting to play Conan based archetypes.

Anyway, I think this thread has drifted pretty far from Bullgrits original question regarding specific examples of fighters not mattering beyond 11th level.  We may want to consider returning to the original topic or forking the thread to a topic regarding the pros and cons of trading game balance for flavor.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 22, 2009)

Lord Zardoz said:


> - Not all DM's want to be saddled with the responsibility of balancing out a power disparity to keep their players fully engaged.
> 
> - Not all players will agree that Wizards ought to be the stars of D&D. Some players may have been drawn to this genre wanting to play Conan based archetypes.
> 
> ...




these are totally understandable concerns. And one of the reasons why I think the desire of the gaming group is paramount, and the needs of the genre style equally important. 3E doesn't work well with low magic without serious modifications. A toned down system that has weaker magic would work much better for a Conan style campaign. Don't get me wrong. I like 3E. But I also love savage worlds, and independant game systems. I would much rather cycle through a bunch of campaigns with different systems, with about 3 month length for each, than stick to a single game system for a prolonged period.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 22, 2009)

> fighters and other high BAB characters can do this, and for the most part, casters can't.




I am fairly certain that casters can aim ranged touch spells (such as disintegrate, not that I have a reason to) at items to sunder them. Or simply grease them. 



> Trip - Not every opponent is a Large magical beast with 20 HD. NPC wizards are unlikely to win against a trip attempt, for instance. Facing a squad of drow monks? Ready an action to trip them when they try to tumble past you. And against a CR 10 giant? Having a fifty-fifty chance of tripping such an obviously unsuitable target for tripping is pretty darned good.




I would say that most of the foes actually worth tripping are (not that they are magical beasts, but that the odds tend to be stacked in their favour). In a pinch, they can still full-attack while prone (at a penalty). But tripping is great for preventing them from getting to the wizard. When it succeeds. 

Spellcasters shouldn't really care if they have been tripped, since they can still cast spells (defensively) at no penalty while prone. It is a mixed bag - the fighter gets a to-hit bonus against him, but ranged attacks take a penalty. 

50/50 against the giant would seem good, but it still seems a tad low to me considering all the resources I have sunk into boosting my trip check. This means that if you don't go enlarge person or improved trip, success becomes even more unlikely.

I admit to rarely ever using classed npcs in my campaign (exception being monsters with a few class lvs), so you have me there on the drow monk squad. Though I would likely just use swordsages and shadow blink to the other side.



> Often asserted, never proven. In my mind, specialized = vulnerable. PCs rarely get to pick all their battles, nor is it possible to plan for every contingency.




Issue is, if you don't specialize, I don't think it is likely your fighter will get anywhere, or be any good at his chosen fields as he has spread himself too thin. Tripping is more than just taking expertise and improved trip (else, you will probably fail against most of the foes you encounter). Assuming your DM does not go out of his way to skew encounters against you, I think it might be better to just rock in 80% of those fights, and be resigned to being sup-par in 20% of the rest (or hoping that buffs can help mitigate it somewhat).


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> In reality, there was really two classes: Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular. (Force Adept pulls a distant 3rd, the other six don't even register, though solider was the best of the last six). A Jedi (either one, actually) could out-fight a fighter (lightsabers deal a ridiculous amount of damage, ignore armor, and deflect lazer-beams. Plus, they were three-feats from the best AC in the game), consulars had every diplomatic trick a noble could pull (save for cash) and with a few spread ranks, a Jedi could pilot, camp in the wilderness, build a weapon, and do anything the other classes could.




I ran an extended d20 revised game. The Soldier was clearly more powerful in combat than a Jedi.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

Spatula said:


> True enough, although a smart wizard would simply flee when caught by surprise and strike back when he has the advantage.  The single fighter simply dies (unless he has a magic escape route himself).
> 
> That's because death knights actually get combat abilities that are useful for them.   The lich template, as far as combat goes, is kind of a wash - sure you get some extra defenses, but you're also undead and have no Fort save.  You're also effectively immortal, which I suppose is the point, but a living wizard of the same CR is a more powerful opponent in most cases.




Actually, all a Death Knight gets, basically, is flamestrike 1/day, a good DR score, a passable SR score, and some bonuses. Liches get paralyzing touch, at least, and their DR is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That fighters and other straight melee classes lagged well behind casters (from mid levels on up) is not something that is open for debate.  It is a problem that's long been mathematically established and acknowledged by the game designers.  ToB was an effort to level the playing field a bit, and was quite successful at it, but it came out 7 years into the edition.   (this is more in response to insanogeddon than Pain)




Bo9S added some options in terms of special abilities, but as far as actual power curve, fighters still have an edge in melee.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I ran an extended d20 revised game. The Soldier was clearly more powerful in combat than a Jedi.




I guess it would depend on the build involved, but my dual-wielding ataru (form IV) with jedi guardian did stupid amounts of damage.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

ehren37 said:


> The lich couldnt figure out how to avoid a readied action? A simple 5 foot step would have foiled that...




Terrain.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I guess it would depend on the build involved, but my dual-wielding ataru (form IV) with jedi guardian did stupid amounts of damage.




Oh, they're good all right. It's just I will remember forever when I decided to herd the PCs along by sending thirty stormtroopers after them. The soldier said, "Don't worry, I'll hold them off." I said, "Wuh?" 

The soldier then proceeded to kill thirty stormtroopers, alone, using a pair of blasters. If the Rebellion had him on their side, they could have won the battle of Hoth. And this was at, like, 6th level or something. It was absolutely sick.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 22, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I would say that most of the foes actually worth tripping are (not that they are magical beasts, but that the odds tend to be stacked in their favour). In a pinch, they can still full-attack while prone (at a penalty). But tripping is great for preventing them from getting to the wizard. When it succeeds.
> 
> 50/50 against the giant would seem good, but it still seems a tad low to me considering all the resources I have sunk into boosting my trip check. This means that if you don't go enlarge person or improved trip, success becomes even more unlikely.




How come Runestar: you didn't mention spellcasters are better trippers since level 1?
Grease...anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

Grease makes you tripped (prone) if fail save + lose dex to AC unless have 5 ranks in balance check.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 22, 2009)

Gunpowder said:


> Fortunately, rogues have use magic device. So they get to be useful outside of combat by casting spells out of the wands and scrolls the wizard made for him.




You know, I see people consider this a point in the rogue's favour and I wonder why? To me, this is an acknowledgement that the only way for a rogue to compete is to be wizard-lite.


Gunpowder said:


> Also, what's this about sneak attack immune huge creatures? I know that a human assassin hiding in a bedroom at night to kill the mayor will need to turn on a light before he can sneak attack, since if there's enough concealment to hide in, there's enough concealment to make the mayor sneak attack immune. But I was unaware of the size difference. Does it have something to do about unable to reach "vulnerable parts"?




Exactly. The SRD explicitly mentions that you can't sneak attack "EXTREMITIES (arms and legs) so how exactly does a halfling sneak attack say a Cloud Giant when he can't even reach the giant's ankle bone? I've found that most people do't even realize this rule exists

I also personally have a problem with the undead immunity since one of WOTC's popular setting IS Ravenloft.


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 22, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You know, I see people consider this a point in the rogue's favour and I wonder why? To me, this is an acknowledgement that the only way for a rogue to compete is to be wizard-lite.




Oops, I failed to convene my sarcasm in that post. I do not consider that in favor of the rogue. I think of it as another example of "non-magic users don't get nice things" syndrome.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 22, 2009)

> Exactly. The SRD explicitly mentions that you can't sneak attack "EXTREMITIES (arms and legs) so how exactly does a halfling sneak attack say a Cloud Giant when he can't even reach the giant's ankle bone? I've found that most people do't even realize this rule exists




I feel it is not so much that we are unaware of its existence, but more that we are unsure of how literally we should interpret (much less enforce) this rule. Nothing in the rules specifically spells out that we are unable to sneak attack another foe which is XX size categories smaller or larger than ourselves. That particular excerpt seems more of an afterthought, as the designers evidently failed to address just how this should be implemented in game terms. Usually, I just assume the players in question will find some way of reaching those vitals (for example, since combat is assumed to be happening simultaneously on all fronts despite the turn-based sequence, the rogue could have sidestepped the giant's slam, while at the same time dealing a counterattack to its wrist). 

Since sneak attack essentially means that you are aiming at a foe's vitals (pretty much the same concept as scoring a critical), if a halfling fighter can crit a tarrasque with a melee attack, there is no reason why a halfling rogue cannot sneak attack that same tarrasque. Worse comes to worst, you can say that he was aiming at its sole or something (I believe there should be some vital arteries at the bottom of its feet somewhere). 

Also consider that a colossal greatsword is probably even bigger than a small PC (akin to trying to swap a cockroach with a rolled up newspaper), yet the colossal foe wielding it can apparently still aim accurately for the halfling's vitals (in game terms, there is nothing stopping a colossal npc from dealing sneak attack to a halfling, so long as the requirements are met).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I ran an extended d20 revised game. The Soldier was clearly more powerful in combat than a Jedi.




Just out of curiosity Pawsplay, whenever an example is made on these boards, do you EVER fall in line with it?  Every example in this thread, you've stated how this never happens in your games.  How do you and your group manage to be so unique every single time?

Example:  Fighters get left behind.
Pawsplay:  Never in my games, the fighters were always the best.

Example:  Jedi were head and shoulders better than every other class in d20 Star Wars.
Pawsplay:  Nope, you could have soldiers equal to Jedi.

On and on.  One wonders how you manage it.  How you manage to have a pretty much diametrically opposed experience to just about every example given on a point you disagree with.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiosity Pawsplay, whenever an example is made on these boards, do you EVER fall in line with it?  Every example in this thread, you've stated how this never happens in your games.  How do you and your group manage to be so unique every single time?
> 
> Example:  Fighters get left behind.
> Pawsplay:  Never in my games, the fighters were always the best.
> ...




Naturally, I disagree with your observation.  Obviously, I would have less to say, and you would have even less reason to remember, the times when I have stated simple agreement with others. I think what is memorable to you is my willingness to continue to discuss something until either opinions change or the discussion becomes logically exhausted. You could claim I was being contrary, but I would simply reply that for whatever reason, my experiences are what they are, and I have happily supplied examples.

Perhaps it is that many people are inclined to believe their positions are both natural and obvious, and consequently overstate their case, which then causes others, such as myself, to offer our differing opinions. If what I had to say was diametrically opposed to the vast majority of people, it seems plausible that more people would gradually join the argument in order to argue against my point. But in fact, it is usually the same people who continue to argue the original point. My conclusion is that it is likely a substantial minority of people agree with me much of the time.


----------



## dnddays (Mar 22, 2009)

*Round 1 -- Fight!*

It's true that fighters didn't really matter after 11th level, certainly by 18th.  And depending on the edition, rogues (thieves) didn't either.

There was the classic 1st edition combat start: _harm _+ _magic missile_.  Or, the occasional change of pace: _maze _+ _blade barrier_ + _prismatic wall_ + _bigby's crushing hand _+ _mordenkainen's sword_ or _Power Word: Kill_/_Holy Word_/_Creeping Doom_.

That didn't change much in 2nd edition, but in 3rd edition it became all about _polymorph self_ and _righteous might_ and whatnot.  By mid-level, having a wizard start the battle with _polymorph self_ into a 10HD Hyrda (10 attacks per turn at 1d10 damage) or something and easily outpace the damage output of our melee guys was really annoying.  And look out when players gain access to _quickened empowered maximized twin sonic-substitution fireballs_ or epic level nonsense (_crown of vermin_ anyone?).

Having been a frequent reader and contibuter to the Wizard's Character Optimization Board and witnessing the horrors of builds like 'Pun Pun', I don't see how anyone can argue that fighters or other non-spell casters weren't all but worthless beyond a certain point.  Sure, as a DM, I can constantly put your party in magic dead areas or have you fight an inordinate amount of magic-immune or magic-resistant creatures.  But at what point does it become akin to a 4-H Participation Ribbon?  At what point does trying to 'include' the melee guys became patronizing?  As DM, I shouldn't have to rearrange my adventure's premise and story to correct an inherent and critical flaw in the D&D game.

_A man walks into a doctors office and says: "Doc, it hurts when I do this?"  The doctor responds: "Then don't do that."_

I shouldn't have to rob Peter of his abilities to make things fun for Paul.  Not to say I didn't do that back in the day.  I did.  But it's not my job as the DM to repair the game's foundation, it's the job of the game designers.  Which is why I think 4e is a vast improvement over the old design.  It may not be perfect, but no one has cast a _quickened maximized fireball_ followed by a _polymorph self_ into a Hydra for ten attacks yet.


----------



## dnddays (Mar 22, 2009)

To pawsplay:

The first magic item any wizard made in my game was a _minor cloak of displacement_.  The _major cloak of displacement_ would soon follow.  That will neutralize 20% or 50% of your fighter's attacks.  That doesn't take into account the 2nd-level _mirror image _which might follow the command for the magic item.  Followed by the trusty _polymorph self_ into a either a hydra or an ooze or a mind flayer to extract your brain killing you instantly should the wizard stun you long enough.  My money is always on the wizard unless you can drop him in round one before his turn, and even in most optimized builds your fighter probably can't -- although a rogue might.  An optimized spiked chain rogue is the proverbial nuts.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 22, 2009)

dnddays said:


> Having been a frequent reader and contibuter to the Wizard's Character Optimization Board and witnessing the horrors of builds like 'Pun Pun', I don't see how anyone can argue that fighters or other non-spell casters weren't all but worthless beyond a certain point.




I wouldn't compare Pun-Pun with anything. Or are you also going to argue that kobolds make other characters worthless?


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 22, 2009)

dnddays said:


> To pawsplay:
> 
> The first magic item any wizard made in my game was a _minor cloak of displacement_. The _major cloak of displacement_ would soon follow. That will neutralize 20% or 50% of your fighter's attacks. That doesn't take into account the 2nd-level _mirror image _which might follow the command for the magic item. Followed by the trusty _polymorph self_ into a either a hydra or an ooze or a mind flayer to extract your brain killing you instantly should the wizard stun you long enough. My money is always on the wizard unless you can drop him in round one before his turn, and even in most optimized builds your fighter probably can't -- although a rogue might. An optimized spiked chain rogue is the proverbial nuts.




I understand the minor cloak. It is a passive always on cloak.

But the major one is like boots of speed: only so many rounds (not needed to be one after each other).


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 23, 2009)

In older versions, Wizards were openly touted as among the most powerful types in the game. Whether that means fighters "don't matter" depends on how one plays the game.

MUs really start to cramp fighters' style when they go from serving as the "artillery" to taking over the main battle-line role. Even then, a central factor in the equation is how important that is in the whole scheme of a campaign. To judge from posts in this thread, it has become overwhelmingly the central concern in 3E.

In an old-style game, MUs tend to die like flies -- due in no small part to the machinations of rival MUs. Power draws power in opposition; "Pot that MU!" is a familiar cry from PCs and monsters alike. It's obviously easier to get high-level characters when one has less frequent need to start over by rolling up low-level ones. If one has multiple PCs in a campaign, that difference can be magnified: two Lords and their hosts may be able to beat one Wizard and his minions.

That strategic aspect of play makes a difference! Fighters and Clerics get a leg up in recruiting men at arms. (The Cleric _really_ gets an "assist" in establishing a stronghold, but at that point the Fighter is overtaking him in other ways.) "You and what army?" is a different kind of question when it has an answer, and not having an army of one's own can be inconvenient.

(High-level fighters in older editions excel at cutting swathes through armies of normal men. MU spells harming multiple subjects tend to be "overkill" in that department, generally to a degree depending on depth of formation. They have a limited number of uses, taking considerable time to recover in AD&D. The combat power of fighters is more of an always-on, at-will effect. _Shape Change_ is pretty awesome, but it does nothing to help an MU's hit points.)

Availability of magic items is another factor changed in 3E, and along with others it seems to me to favor spell-casters. This may not be widely representative, but in my experience non-spell-casters as 3E PCs are extremely rare. A character might start as a fighting type, and remain that primarily, but nearly always would add some levels in a magical class along the way.

That it's a _role-playing_ game is something not to overlook. If the standard is raw power, then lower-level characters of any type "don't matter" when there are characters of 12th or higher level in the campaign. Non-humans and Thieves originated as clearly less powerful types in the long run, yet they appealed to many players. Likewise, the role of a fighting man is qualitatively different from that of a magician. The development of _character_ and accumulation of biography over time are key elements of the game's appeal, and of the desire to play one persona over another.

When one is stuck always playing a character in "THE Party," it's easy to get overshadowed. Referring to that video clip, the BMX Bandit's problem is that he's joined at the hip to the Angel Summoner. Conan the Cimmerian might not be so exciting either, if he were always tagging along with Pelias the sorcerer.

The game in its larger shape changed, and more particular rules did not change quite in accordance (although the designers clearly devoted considerable thought to the new view of "balance").


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 23, 2009)

*HoHum*

Couple things make little sense to me...

I cannot understand how people claim that fighters are unthreatening dunces only good as meat shields YET also hold they have little ability at damaging/changing outcomes.  

As its pretty easy to get to casters (fly/teleport/run/tumble or 20 othe ways and items).  I actually love both casters and warriors but one never is so much better as oft claimed but never proven in front of a fair DM.


Surely either they:
ARE good at changing out comes and thus are targeted fulfilling their apparently sponge/meat shield only role.
Or (as people claim) they 
Aren’t good at changing out comes and thus are never targeted and ignored making them horrible sponge/meat shields better replaced by a bard with a blowgun.

Or the DM is being v.v.v nice and playing self-loathing enemies.

If the infantry are mere slow/unmanuverable/poor damage etc etc they serve NO protection for artillery, it’s a no brainer.

So if your experiences are that fighters are sluggish, un-manuverable, combat unchanging nobodies.. yet their still attacked over the ‘mega power casters’ that surely indicates favouritism and your in a pretty easy/caster friendly/biased world. 

A system fixing this with handcuffs like 4ed. does not indicate a system problem so much as a way its played problem.  Each have their perks.  Personally I am utterly against innately balanced systems where wit/strategy/cause and effect are not required.  If I wanted to play such a balanced game I would get 2 dice, a cup (to balance), a friend and sit in a 5x5 room rolling, highest roll wins.  Not really what I look for in a hobby really, I have better ways to waste time.  Tho seriously even dice if you have to YELL out what happens it can be entertaining e.g: roll a 8 and yell I use my super meggazord defenestrating strike, friend rolls a 10 YELLS I use my sonic beta blocker and channel your power into my emancipating strike decombobulating your jubbilys etc  add the brews and I recon you have yourself a game more balanced, fun and role playing conducive than most.

ROLE playing isn’t about rolling, nor balance, supprisingly to some it isn’t about ROLES either.  That’s why 3.5 is still kicking despite its vile horrendous mistakes.

Warriors (including rogues) always could flex within their role to other areas when casters are linear tracked trains relying on spells to flex, when casters are making all those scrolls, and fonts, and items warriors can spend that time among the people helping, making friends unless the DM jibs them.  Warriors can dip or get enogh feats that you can cover all avanues (I always like having a 14 wis and ‘zen shot’ to cover the low dex on str builds and the will save with ‘iron will’ or now with PH 2, endurance and ‘steadfast determination’ for con to will saves. Granted a wizard COULD, just like a lawyer COULD spend 3 weeks in a bar and be mates with everyone and get perks but they have better things to do, and a focus they have to stick to to win their little race that warriors often upset with actual wit and inventive suprise head clubbings.  Just cause a cleric ‘could’ take blind fighting is moot unless he takes its irrelevant.  Also there is no substitute to political power for TIME spent being activising... rogues and warriors have this time.  High level while 30 days are spent adding to spell books and making scrolls that’s 30 days more political power a fighter can get.  I don’t care if your chr is 10 and you have diplomacy +1 as we all know once you have friends these things don’t matter.. and that is the core of support and strength non-casters can build far better than casters.  Ignore the extra time and you may as well ignore the ability of casters to make scrolls.

Further because warriors solutions to problems aren’t as linear as ‘I cast a1 for a, b1 for b, c1 for c’ etc they get to use their mind, experiment, struggle, outwit, grow, invent solutions and that is often what real fun in games comes down to, little moments of being a smarty pants, and spell a1 for problem a is just a illusory version of REALLY dealing with a problem with quick wit and earning the victory, building value and not being easily replaced by a simplistic computer program that can play a wizard better than most players could hope.

If you ignore that you can ready to 5ft step and attack or think that some delayed fireballs bothers a no doubt fire resistant 2-300 HP warrior, or summoned monsters can be made to grapple against all instinct despite the rules etc then yes casters rule at high level.  But that’s the same as having a caster with no components in a silent antimagic zone in a tornado balanced on his head!

I have never played the newest star wars edition.  The old one I have many a time.  Jedi attract trouble.  It’s a story oriented game.  If your want tho and are poxed by unfeeling jedi they go down.  If your playing a unimaginative, uncreative game fighting on a baseball diamond martial arts and grappling builds still mow them down, the 2 gun munchkins can as well.  If your playing a story base: politicians can pay to get things done (including said grappling kneck crackers) never mind the techies with wit (all the force nuking powers in the world won’t save the lille jedi whos ship says it has oxygen and doesn’t, whose engines blow, whose seals erode, whose warp jump gets them cannoned into a gravity well etc etc   Even by cannon few really went the jedi straight on, just like freedom fighters/terrorists don’t take the military head on.  Why would one play any different unless your suicidal and in that case having a stomach full of explosives never hurts for when the jedi cuts you down.)  

As with wonderful fantasy stories (like v in oots) realistically a lot of the amazing magic co-inky-dinks ain’t happening and if it does the narrator/dm etc etc is cutting you some SERIOUS breaks (I am against giving comic examples of my point but to follow suit: in oots belkars little effort as the “sexy shoeless god of war” no.610 to 611. could have easily had a dragon added to the mix to be ganked, and he had no level bumping/know all spells/buoyed by 3 planes of evil shenanigans going.  Even in 617 celia a mere air sprite looks to be epicly able if the story fits).  Same goes for the pun/pun mention... SERIOUS CHEESE, look on the boards and the real danger is the chargers/master throwers/hulking hurlers as they don’t rely on unusual books/accepted settings and could be slipped past a DM.... 

What further baffles me is its often the same people saying “fighters are worthless and needless” that also argue in other areas “Book of 9 swords” classes are balanced and NOT severe power creep......

Dubious at best to hold views that conflict.  Which one is it?

Its like those that believe in feng shu/chi/ki/shakras/spirit/auras/spirit guides/energy flow etc etc (not that I am judging those beliefs in the slightest).  My bafflement and amusement comes form when those that hold said beliefs tend to have a whole bunch of traditional tattoos and a bucket load of piercings as if shoving foreign OR/and man made stuff thru your body or under your skin wouldn’t throw of the ‘natural balanced holistic energies’ something cronic, never mind I doubt spirits would be cool with stealing their traditional family markings tied to their souls/ancestors/gods and popping ink under the skin so the plagiarised designs appear... they would probably view it as heresy/abomination to be punished.

I have always got the no tatt/piercing spiritual types and the pierced/tatted/abomination nihilistic no spirit types but the combo....  bemusing!



PS:  As for ‘magic jar’ it “You do need line of effect from the jar to the creatures.”  To go to and from the jar once your in... often overlooked and nasty with walls/dispel etc etc as my Ecclectic Learning (and choose necro spells PH2) War Mage/Pale Master found out.


----------



## dnddays (Mar 23, 2009)

insanogeddon said:


> Couple things make little sense to me...
> 
> I cannot understand how people claim that fighters are unthreatening dunces only good as meat shields YET also hold they have little ability at damaging/changing outcomes.
> 
> ...




What?


----------



## Gimby (Mar 23, 2009)

insanogeddon said:


> Couple things make little sense to me...
> 
> I cannot understand how people claim that fighters are unthreatening dunces only good as meat shields YET also hold they have little ability at damaging/changing outcomes




This confusion seems to be a theme here, but it seems pretty clear that the position people are holding is that they are unthreatening dunces only good as meat sheilds *because* they have little ability at changing outcomes.  *And* that they aren't actually very good at this role.  I can't see how this is inconsistent.



insanogeddon said:


> As its pretty easy to get to casters (fly/teleport/run/tumble or 20 othe ways and items).  I actually love both casters and warriors but one never is so much better as oft claimed but never proven in front of a fair DM.




Never? Strong word.  I've played under some very fair DMs and consistently seen this issue.  In addition to that - fly? Caster dependant.  Teleport? Caster dependant.  From items? Who made those items? Casters.



insanogeddon said:


> Surely either they:
> ARE good at changing out comes and thus are targeted fulfilling their apparently sponge/meat shield only role.
> Or (as people claim) they
> Aren’t good at changing out comes and thus are never targeted and ignored making them horrible sponge/meat shields better replaced by a bard with a blowgun.




Or are simply not as good at their role as another class could be.  They can make reasonable meat shields/damage sources - I don't think anyone is arguing against this.  The issue is that they are less effective at this than other classes (or class features, in degenerate cases) are and at sufficiently high level the whole "meat shield" role becomes irrelevant.



insanogeddon said:


> Or the DM is being v.v.v nice and playing self-loathing enemies.
> 
> If the infantry are mere slow/unmanuverable/poor damage etc etc they serve NO protection for artillery, it’s a no brainer.
> 
> So if your experiences are that fighters are sluggish, un-manuverable, combat unchanging nobodies.. yet their still attacked over the ‘mega power casters’ that surely indicates favouritism and your in a pretty easy/caster friendly/biased world.




Or that the fighters are doing their best to act as tank and failing, or the DM is allowing the fighter to shine by focussing on what strengths they do have.  Note what you are describing is a *fighter* friendly world (from the players point of view) - its easy enough to build opponents that can ignore the fighter pretty much entirely.



insanogeddon said:


> A system fixing this with handcuffs like 4ed. does not indicate a system problem so much as a way its played problem.  Each have their perks.  Personally I am utterly against innately balanced systems where wit/strategy/cause and effect are not required.




Then you have failed to understand what a balanced system consists of.  Ideally, it means that you are forced to use wits and strategy to defeat your opponents rather than just pressing your "I Win" button over and over again.  




insanogeddon said:


> If I wanted to play such a balanced game I would get 2 dice, a cup (to balance), a friend and sit in a 5x5 room rolling, highest roll wins.  Not really what I look for in a hobby really, I have better ways to waste time.  Tho seriously even dice if you have to YELL out what happens it can be entertaining e.g: roll a 8 and yell I use my super meggazord defenestrating strike, friend rolls a 10 YELLS I use my sonic beta blocker and channel your power into my emancipating strike decombobulating your jubbilys etc  add the brews and I recon you have yourself a game more balanced, fun and role playing conducive than most.




I really have no idea what you are getting at here?  That balance somehow inhibits roleplay? Go google WUSHU.  Thats a (by definition) perfectly balanced system.  



insanogeddon said:


> ROLE playing isn’t about rolling, nor balance, supprisingly to some it isn’t about ROLES either.  That’s why 3.5 is still kicking despite its vile horrendous mistakes.




Indeed, its a fine game.  



insanogeddon said:


> Warriors (including rogues) always could flex within their role to other areas when casters are linear tracked trains relying on spells to flex, when casters are making all those scrolls, and fonts, and items warriors can spend that time among the people helping, making friends unless the DM jibs them.  Warriors can dip or get enogh feats that you can cover all avanues (I always like having a 14 wis and ‘zen shot’ to cover the low dex on str builds and the will save with ‘iron will’ or now with PH 2, endurance and ‘steadfast determination’ for con to will saves. Granted a wizard COULD, just like a lawyer COULD spend 3 weeks in a bar and be mates with everyone and get perks but they have better things to do, and a focus they have to stick to to win their little race that warriors often upset with actual wit and inventive suprise head clubbings.  Just cause a cleric ‘could’ take blind fighting is moot unless he takes its irrelevant.  Also there is no substitute to political power for TIME spent being activising... rogues and warriors have this time.  High level while 30 days are spent adding to spell books and making scrolls that’s 30 days more political power a fighter can get.  I don’t care if your chr is 10 and you have diplomacy +1 as we all know once you have friends these things don’t matter.. and that is the core of support and strength non-casters can build far better than casters.  Ignore the extra time and you may as well ignore the ability of casters to make scrolls.




Uh, no.  Thats all a) massively campaign dependant and b) not somthing that rogues or fighters are particularly good at.  Making friends? Gathering information? Meet Charm Person and Scry.  And Augury.  And everything along those lines.  What you are talking about can be done by *any* characters - just the casters can be better at it.  Oh, and they have the *option* of making items instead if they feel like it.  Like if you are in the wilderness and have no-one to talk to.  



insanogeddon said:


> Further because warriors solutions to problems aren’t as linear as ‘I cast a1 for a, b1 for b, c1 for c’ etc they get to use their mind, experiment, struggle, outwit, grow, invent solutions and that is often what real fun in games comes down to, little moments of being a smarty pants, and spell a1 for problem a is just a illusory version of REALLY dealing with a problem with quick wit and earning the victory, building value and not being easily replaced by a simplistic computer program that can play a wizard better than most players could hope.




So, having spells makes you unable to solve problems in an inventive manner? Being a wizard (the archetypical high Int class) makes you less creative than than a fighter (the archtypical low Int class)?  I mean, sure - for some problems you just throw a spell at it and brute force the issue, but you are capable of just as much player cleverness as any class.  Plus if you have more options on your sheet (and casters do) then you have more tools in your bag for these creative solutions.



insanogeddon said:


> If you ignore that you can ready to 5ft step and attack or think that some delayed fireballs bothers a no doubt fire resistant 2-300 HP warrior, or summoned monsters can be made to grapple against all instinct despite the rules etc then yes casters rule at high level.  But that’s the same as having a caster with no components in a silent antimagic zone in a tornado balanced on his head!




Or you can summon monsters who want to grapple.  Or you can ensure that you are never within 5ft of the fighter.  Or you can use save-or-lose against the fighter rather than damage.  Oh, and where's he getting that fire resist from? A caster, maybe?




insanogeddon said:


> As with wonderful fantasy stories (like v in oots) realistically a lot of the amazing magic co-inky-dinks ain’t happening and if it does the narrator/dm etc etc is cutting you some SERIOUS breaks (I am against giving comic examples of my point but to follow suit: in oots belkars little effort as the “sexy shoeless god of war” no.610 to 611. could have easily had a dragon added to the mix to be ganked, and he had no level bumping/know all spells/buoyed by 3 planes of evil shenanigans going.  Even in 617 celia a mere air sprite looks to be epicly able if the story fits).  Same goes for the pun/pun mention... SERIOUS CHEESE, look on the boards and the real danger is the chargers/master throwers/hulking hurlers as they don’t rely on unusual books/accepted settings and could be slipped past a DM....




Thing is, with divinations, powerful transport spells and so on you can arrange the conincidences to your liking.  This is really the true power of casters - with the appropriate prep you can assure that the combat will almost always take place under situtations which favour you.  Scry/Buff/Teleport is the most degenerate of these approaches but really getting good intel and being able to completely change the combat options you have at your disposal with eight hours notice does the trick too.  You don't need the DM to give you a break because you can make your own luck.  Something that fighters really can't do, at least not in a way thats available to all other characters. 



insanogeddon said:


> What further baffles me is its often the same people saying “fighters are worthless and needless” that also argue in other areas “Book of 9 swords” classes are balanced and NOT severe power creep......




The arguement goes something like this - fighters are weak (and more damningly, rather boring) compared to full casters.  The Bo9s classes are closer in power (and more importantly, in interest) to the casters, and are hence balanced with the casters, *not* the original fighter.  Its not power creep because if you wanted to be more powerful you played a caster - its just expanding the number of options within the power range already established.  Clearer?


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 23, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiosity Pawsplay, whenever an example is made on these boards, do you EVER fall in line with it?  Every example in this thread, you've stated how this never happens in your games.  How do you and your group manage to be so unique every single time?
> 
> Example:  Fighters get left behind.
> Pawsplay:  Never in my games, the fighters were always the best.




I know what you mean.  The melee-caster power gap is not an opinion or some myth.  It's been a well established problem with 3e for years.  It's been analyzed to death on the WotC forums, the designers have acknowledged it several times and they tried to patch it several times (PHB2, Tome of Battle).  That anyone would still be arguing this issue is pretty baffling to me.

That there is a gap does not make fighters unplayable or a complete non factor in the party.  But in 3e all fighters got was their combat abilities.  They had no skills, no non combat schtick, and by mid levels they were reduced to a damage soak.  Fighter, one of the oldest and noblest of classes, was reduced to a 2 or 4 level dip for feats and prestige class access.  Yes, PHB2 finally added some decent options for higher level fighters but ToB basically retired the fighter class.  Those were dark days for the stalwart Fighting Man.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 23, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Terrain.




So your 24 int lich which had home field advantage put himself in a position where he couldn't 5' step? Or what? 

Either way, why was he even using his touch attack? Going into melee is probably the last thing a lich should do.

I am sorry, but I ain't buying. If a 8th level party stomped a 12th level lich (especially one at home and who should have seen them coming a mile away), they did it for one of two reasons. He was poorly played or they surprised him. Although reason number 2 really equals reason number 1.

EDIT: Just to add my personal experiences to the OP's question. We also found that casters, whether wizards, clerics or druids (oh the horror) dominated play at higher levels. It started around 11th, maybe a bit before, but then just became more and more pronounced as the players rose in level.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 23, 2009)

> The arguement goes something like this - fighters are weak (and more damningly, rather boring) compared to full casters. The Bo9s classes are closer in power (and more importantly, in interest) to the casters, and are hence balanced with the casters, *not* the original fighter. Its not power creep because if you wanted to be more powerful you played a caster - its just expanding the number of options within the power range already established. Clearer?




Martial adepts are still much inferior compared to full casters. In fact, they actually lag a little behind fighters and barbarians in terms of damage output. What they do offer are more meaningful options, which adds more variety to combat beyond "move+attack" and "5-ft step and full attack". They are more well-rounded in that sense, and thus offer a better experience overall.

Imagine if classes were being graded according to a number of criteria. The fighter would likely do very well in terms of damage output, but suck in all the other categories. The warblade would fare worse in damage, but do much better in all other aspects.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 23, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I disagree. This is a valid approach to RPG design. It is the one 4E took and succesfully achieved. But it isn't the only consideration when designing an RPG. Many gamers prefer the possibility of sub optimal choices, because they want their character creation choices to matter and have an impact on the power level in the game.




And those gamers can shoose not to level up, to spend their feats on skill focus: basket weaving, and fight in light armor with a 10 dex. There's plenty of ways to make a fighter suck without requiring all fighters be mediocre. 

Ars Magica was designed around the non magic users being crappy, but everyone had a magi, and everone had some grogs. BUt that's not enough for some. What many wizard supremacists really want in D&D is for someone else to play the grog ALL THE TIME. The second class character to their badass mage. Otherwise they wouldnt object to the powering up of the non casters. Its not about THEIR character, its about someone else's.


----------



## Henry (Mar 23, 2009)

One more personal anecdote: My Crusader just died in an altercation with another PC. I figured it was as good a time as any to change to something more useful to the group. In comes a 20th level elf cleric archer who has only been with the group for a session, and hasn't even brought his awesome combat abilities to bear, but already has contributed more than my Crusader has in two sessions. The Crusader is not ineffectual, not by a long shot, and neither are fighters; but compared to clerics and wizards, who CAN do double duty with both their offensive and utility magics, the non spellcasters' roles are much more limited. I just can't wait for the first time my DM tries to dispel any of my effects...


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 23, 2009)

insanogeddon said:


> PS:  As for ‘magic jar’ it “  You do need line of effect from the jar to the creatures.”  To go to and from the jar once your in... often overlooked and nasty with walls/dispel etc etc as my Ecclectic Learning (and choose necro spells PH2) War Mage/Pale Master found out.




In that particular battle an army of giants was passing through a mountain pass that our party was trying to hold.  There were dead bodies lying everywhere in the pass.

My caster lay lifeless and out of the way while taking over a random giant.  I would proceed to pound on other giants until the giants body that I controlled died...then would take over another giant.  I could have singlehandedly (and with little danger to myself) destroyed ridiculous amounts of giants (10 hours or so duration for the spell @ 1 giant every few rounds) had we not wink-wink-nudge-nudged the battle along its normal path.

Alternately the army of giants would have fled the pass due to the wierd sorcery going on.

Either way...my wizard did it all by himself....

DS


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 23, 2009)

I played AT LEAST 1 campaign from 1st level to ridiculous levels in D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E/3.5E and have played a little D&D at each of the tiers in 4E. 

There was a definite power shift towards spellcasters at higher levels in the older editions, and you could very easily replace a fighter or rogue with spellcasting (summons, dominations, etc...) 

However, the weapon users were definitely still effective in each of the editions. They were a source of consistent damage on major enemies, while the spellcasters turned into 'hit or miss' batteries - often waiting for an enemy to fail a saving throw before they were in any way effective.

In 4E, the weapon classes are definitely closer in balance to the other classes, but I think that all of the classes had to sacrifice a lot of individuality to reach that parity. I'd much rather have seen the fighters move to a power system like we now have and seen some of the other classes stay closer to their roots. I beleive that a traditional Vancian spellcasting system could have worked in conjunction with a 4E power system if the Vancian system had been tooled to coordinate with 4E. I think they went too far to cut back the utility of spellcasting wizards (I think teleporting should be something that PCs can do freely at early epic levels, and that flight should be freely available at those levels too... bring back the third dimension of combat!).

Regardless, although 4E is a fine system, I consider it to be more of a new game than an extension of 3.5.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 24, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> So your 24 int lich which had home field advantage put himself in a position where he couldn't 5' step? Or what?
> 
> Either way, why was he even using his touch attack? Going into melee is probably the last thing a lich should do.
> 
> I am sorry, but I ain't buying. If a 8th level party stomped a 12th level lich (especially one at home and who should have seen them coming a mile away), they did it for one of two reasons. He was poorly played or they surprised him. Although reason number 2 really equals reason number 1.




Actually, the PCs entered his lair expecting to ambush him, but he ambushed them, along with a couple of earth elementals, and shadows hiding in the walls. The difficult terrain was actually rubble that occured as a result of the battle. Finally, he did not go into melee by choice, he was out-fought... and you should not be too critical of the tactic, he took out one PC in one round, which is more than he was able to do with spells. 

So, yeah, liches, pretty tough. Casters, definitely not invincible.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That there is a gap does not make fighters unplayable or a complete non factor in the party.  But in 3e all fighters got was their combat abilities.  They had no skills, no non combat schtick, and by mid levels they were reduced to a damage soak.  Fighter, one of the oldest and noblest of classes, was reduced to a 2 or 4 level dip for feats and prestige class access.  Yes, PHB2 finally added some decent options for higher level fighters but ToB basically retired the fighter class.  Those were dark days for the stalwart Fighting Man.




You are conflating two things:
1. Fighters have no skills and no out-of-combat schtick
2. Fighters, in comabt, are reduced to a damage soak

I agree with the first. I entirely disagree with the second.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 24, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, the PCs entered his lair expecting to ambush him, but he ambushed them, along with a couple of earth elementals, and shadows hiding in the walls. The difficult terrain was actually rubble that occured as a result of the battle. Finally, he did not go into melee by choice, he was out-fought... and you should not be too critical of the tactic, he took out one PC in one round, which is more than he was able to do with spells.
> 
> So, yeah, liches, pretty tough. Casters, definitely not invincible.




This seems strange to me as I recall a rather brutal fight in which our party was ambushed by a solo lich (this was 3.5, so all I mean by solo is that he didn't have any allies to help).  Since it was an ambush (we had apparently tripped an alarm spell earlier in the lair) he was prebuffed with several defensive spells including Invisibility and Fly.  

When we showed up, he began summoning things (summoning doesn't break invisibility).  Despite his casting, our melee couldn't make their Listen checks to pinpoint his position, so they each picked a square and prayed (which was quite ineffective since the lich was flying at the time).  Fortunately, I (the cleric) had memorized See Invisibility, which I promptly cast on the Fighter.  The lich (who made his spellcraft check) countered by centering a Stinking Cloud (or one of those spells, I always get them mixed up- it was the one that nauseates) on _himself_ (since liches are undead, the cloud didn't effect him).  This made our melee effectively useless for 90% of the remaining battle.  We did manage to finally beat him when either I or the wizard hit him with some kind of undead nerfing spell (it might have been Hold Undead but I think it was somethng out of the Spell Compendium) and the lich fumbled it's save.  A dispel took care of the summoned minions and we managed to nickle and dime the lich down before the nerf broke, but before that failed save we were certain that we were headed for a TPK.  He never once used his paralyzing touch, though his immunities and DR were certainly an issue.

Maybe our DM was just feeling cruel, but in my experience, every time we faced a lich in 3.5 (and this is across several different DMs) we got our butts kicked (forced to retreat, TPK, or lucky victory).


----------



## Ydars (Mar 24, 2009)

I have to agree but would extend this to say, anytime we encountered a buffed wiz/sorc of high level, we got smashed unless we were incredibly careful.

Ghoul Glyph covered by Nystul's magic aura is BRUTAL. You can't detect it and if you go within 5 feet then you are paralysed for 1d6+2 rounds with NO save, and you might exude a stench that sickens anyone nearby. And these spells are 2nd and 1st level (crazy)!

Trapping a corridor with these buggers is child's play, as they are permanent until triggered, though the aura needs renewing everyday.

There are so many other examples of things like this that is not funny if you are a melee character.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 24, 2009)

Ydars said:


> I have to agree but would extend this to say, anytime we encountered a buffed wiz/sorc of high level, we got smashed unless we were incredibly careful.




Agreed.

Oddly, I can't recall my group ever encountering a non-lich caster solo (unless you count things like dragons).  The non-liches always seemed to be paired with others, particularly Shield Guardians (I can think of very few nastier pairings that we ever encountered).  It actually got to be a running joke whenever we encountered a caster + Shield Guardian that whoever was running the game was getting tired of the campaign (usually followed by a desperate retreat).


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 25, 2009)

Henry said:


> One more personal anecdote: My Crusader just died in an altercation with another PC. I figured it was as good a time as any to change to something more useful to the group. In comes a 20th level elf cleric archer who has only been with the group for a session, and hasn't even brought his awesome combat abilities to bear, but already has contributed more than my Crusader has in two sessions. The Crusader is not ineffectual, not by a long shot, and neither are fighters; but compared to clerics and wizards, who CAN do double duty with both their offensive and utility magics, the non spellcasters' roles are much more limited. I just can't wait for the first time my DM tries to dispel any of my effects...



20th level. 1x dispel.  Probably be a whole bunch and ready for Disjunction.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 25, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, the PCs entered his lair expecting to ambush him, but he ambushed them, along with a couple of earth elementals, and shadows hiding in the walls. The difficult terrain was actually rubble that occured as a result of the battle. Finally, he did not go into melee by choice, he was out-fought... and you should not be too critical of the tactic, he took out one PC in one round, which is more than he was able to do with spells.
> 
> So, yeah, liches, pretty tough. Casters, definitely not invincible.




Obviously, I wasn't there, so it's hard to understand and argue about. Also, I realize that sometimes, players just play smart and squash the opposition (I saw that just last night, when my 15th level solo dracolich was down to 30 hit points before it got a round where it could deal any damage).

I guess my experiences with running casters against players in prior edition is different. It was never a walk in the park for the players, especially when those casters are liches.

Cheers


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 25, 2009)

Cool story.
It is contingent on there being alot of bodies, you being in the open for line of effect, not being targeted by giants who should be getting rolls to wise up, no opposing casters in said army, said army of giants despite being an army and thus presumably a trained grtoup with a sense of fellowship deciding to hack down a giant obviously warped by fell magics instead of say grappling of overbearing the guy.. 3 giants out of the army should do to hold one down easily.  Not a caster power thing, a generosity thing.


----------



## insanogeddon (Mar 25, 2009)

My appologies for the set up.. I am a noob, the differing font is mine.



Gimby said:


> This confusion seems to be a theme here, but it seems pretty clear that the position people are holding is that they are unthreatening dunces only good as meat sheilds *because* they have little ability at changing outcomes. *And* that they aren't actually very good at this role. I can't see how this is inconsistent.
> 
> If they are no good at meat shields in your game world yet are attacked ever the DM is cutting the casters breaks.
> 
> ...




Isn't that the definition of power creep? If its MORE desirable, has MORE options, and is closer to equaling something apparently more powerful, gaining abilities outside the others range, and is more popular .. trying to then state its not more powerful is surely getting into politicians circular twaddle.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 25, 2009)

> Isn't that the definition of power creep? If its MORE desirable, has MORE options, and is closer to equaling something apparently more powerful, gaining abilities outside the others range, and is more popular .. trying to then state its not more powerful is surely getting into politicians circular twaddle.




Only if the original was balanced to begin with. If it started out so weak that any new feature released has to make it better in some way...then we call it a fix.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 25, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Fortunately, I (the cleric) had memorized See Invisibility, which I promptly cast on the Fighter.



How did the cleric share a Personal spell? Kast I checked See Invisibility was Personal.
That is whaty my PHB says.

See that was a mistake I think.



> Maybe our DM was just feeling cruel, but in my experience, every time we faced a lich in 3.5 (and this is across several different DMs) we got our butts kicked (forced to retreat, TPK, or lucky victory).




He even let you break the rules...wow and you still had trouble.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 25, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> How did the cleric share a Personal spell? Kast I checked See Invisibility was Personal.
> That is whaty my PHB says.
> 
> See that was a mistake I think.
> ...




Wow, not sure how we missed that, but you're right!  Not sure how it happened, but we treated See Invis as a touch spell all throughout 3.x.  I'm pretty sure even our DM believed that that was how the spell worked.

Also, apparently it's a Bard/Wizard only spell, which leads me to think that I could have been playing a Bard.  It's probable though that I was playing a Cleric with the custom domain of one the the campaign-specific gods.  

It was a fairly memorable battle, because it was the first time I'd seen a lich stand inside a Stinking Cloud spell for protection and it struck me as an insidiously clever tactic.  Nonetheless, it happened quite some time ago, so some of the details might be off (the Wizard might have been a Sorcerer, or the Fighter could have been a Barbarian).


----------



## Tectuktitlay (Mar 25, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Well, going back through this thread, I find:
> 
> Yes, it is a problem: 19
> 
> ...




Add me to the "Yes, it is a problem."

A big problem.  An extremely big problem, and in groups of full-blown optimizers TRYING to ACTIVELY abuse every class as best they can.  The Clerics/Druids/Wizards could do everything all the other classes could do, and then some, usually combined.

I don't see much here about the enormously busted nature of magic item creation in 3E.  Who _memorizes_ Invisibility or Knock or Silence or whatever other utility or buff spell you need to (better-than) duplicate other classes at-will, when you can make a wand or a _bunch_ of scrolls and have far more copies of those spells on tap than you will ever realistically need?


----------



## Mort (Mar 26, 2009)

Tectuktitlay said:


> Add me to the "Yes, it is a problem."
> 
> A big problem.  An extremely big problem, and in groups of full-blown optimizers TRYING to ACTIVELY abuse every class as best they can.  The Clerics/Druids/Wizards could do everything all the other classes could do, and then some, usually combined.
> 
> I don't see much here about the enormously busted nature of magic item creation in 3E.  Who _memorizes_ Invisibility or Knock or Silence or whatever other utility or buff spell you need to (better-than) duplicate other classes at-will, when you can make a wand or a _bunch_ of scrolls and have far more copies of those spells on tap than you will ever realistically need?




THIS.

Because scroll and wand creation is so ridiculously cheap and easy for a wizard, he rarely has to memorize spells such as, comprehend languages, knock, invisibility, scry, silence etc. etc. Wizards are free to memorize the spells they want and still have full access to spells that make other roles near meaningless.

Yes these scrolls cost gold and x.p. but not a lot. In the last campaign where I was a player I scribed tons and tons of utility scrolls and I never lagged a level behind. As a matter of fact 3.5 "fixed" this anyway as anyone lagging behind got more experience and caught up quickly.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2009)

Strangely, my group pretty consistently does not make scrolls or wands. I don't know why. They even have a wizard.  What really puzzled me was when they repeatedly tried to take on an out-level dragon, and kept not scribing scrolls of prot energy or energy immunity.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Strangely, my group pretty consistently does not make scrolls or wands. I don't know why. They even have a wizard.  What really puzzled me was when they repeatedly tried to take on an out-level dragon, and kept not scribing scrolls of prot energy or energy immunity.




That's honestly kind of weird pawsplay....

One of my main arguments behind my belief that the 3.x wizard is much more powerful than the earlier version IS due to the availability of cheap magic items like scrolls and wands....

Anyone remember the rigamarole one had to do to create even a potion in 1e/2e? We just didn't create magic items and thus all those scrolls and wands you found were hoarded as you couldn't afford to waste them....

Now?  A wand of knock is so cheap that I cry for the rogues...


----------



## Mort (Mar 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Strangely, my group pretty consistently does not make scrolls or wands. I don't know why. They even have a wizard.  What really puzzled me was when they repeatedly tried to take on an out-level dragon, and kept not scribing scrolls of prot energy or energy immunity.




Realize that by not scribing scrolls (a feat the wizard gets absolutely free) or making wands (this at least has some opportunity cost) your wizard is essentially playing his class with one hand tied behind his back. 

Yet without using one of the best features of the wizard class, I bet he still manages to easily pull his weight and keep up with the rest of the group. That alone should say something.


----------

