Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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