Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Ourph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

If the challenge is tougher for the caster, it will be then be harder for the melee guy as well. If the challenge is harder for the melee guy, it will be harder for the caster. What makes it balanced, is using the rules that make magic not always work. For example, concentration. Throw stuff at the casters that force concentration rolls. SR, as I pointed out. Anti-magic fields. Other spellcasters,etc.

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.

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. It was just one example. Not the holy grail. Trust me, if you think about your party and plan the encounters well, it isn't hard to 1) allow the noncasters to shine 2) force casters to manage their spells carefully. Again, i still concede they are more powerful than noncasters at higher levels. Thats fine. For me the trade off over time is balance enough. But you can still make fighters relevent using the techniques I desribe. I have used them for years and they work. There are still spells to cast in these situation. But something that succumbs to a fighters sword, while ignoring a mages fireball, lets the fighter shine. The point is, you need to create battles around the characters. SR fights let fighters shine. Enemies that favor stealth let the theif shine. etc.

 

[pawsplay]

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]

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]

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!