Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Cadfan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.