Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Henry]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.