Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Gimby]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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]

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...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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]

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]

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]

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.