Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[jasin]

Further to equate to a fighter the cleric needs to be designed in a way that make him inferior to most other clerics.

Isn't this an admission that figters are inferior to clerics?

The group with a high caster level cleric: fighter buffing, group healling, greater dispelling cleric will take down the group with melle clerics quick smart.

Have you compared a spellcasting cleric + fighter vs. spellcasting cleric + self-buff melee cleric?

 

[ExploderWizard]

At my table (or rather, in my group since it happen with other GM's too) this isn't much of an issue since defensive casting comes up semi-regularly. A tendency to focus on urban and interior environments may have something to do with this, I'm not sure.

In our games the good old 5' step back prior to casting helped with a lot of defensive casting issues. There were exceptions of course.

As for 'punishing' casters, isn't that kind of the point? I have not done numbers but how would a high level wizard getting smacked for a pile of damage and failing the concentration roll be any different then a 2e wizard getting smacked and not being able to cast at all that round? Admittedly, it's been more then a decade since I opened my 2e PHB, so I may be misremembering the rule there.

Actually, not quite the point. You are correct in that the spell will be spoiled in either example. The problem I saw with your implementation had more to do with the math rather than the intent.

Damage and HP scale faster and higher than anything else. Adding damage taken to the DC of a concentration check will rapidly make such checks very hard to make, eventually preventing the caster from being able to cast hardly at all.

The old initiative system starts every round on an even basis. There is a chance of getting the spell cast with no opportunity for interruption, and there is a chance of coming under fire and having the spell ruined.

Another thing to consider with your proposal is that enemies will know that merely hitting the caster isn't enough. More damage = less casting=the wizard getting turned into a target dummy. The old system only required a single hit to spoil the spell so other enemies might attack other threats once the danger of the spell was eliminated.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Mid to high level casters are going to be doing casting each round anyway, because they have the resources to do so. Throwing encounters at the party that can only be affected by magic isn't going to deplete the casters any faster because they are still limited to one action per round. Yes, the combats may last a little longer in this case because the non-casters are sitting around twiddling their thumbs (another problem with this scenario), but the main thing you'll be depleting in this scenario isn't offensive magic, it's the HPs of the casters and healing spells. If the casters are the only ones hurting the foes to any extent, then it makes sense for the foes to focus their attacks on the squishy Wizard and perhaps also the Cleric. Again, you've just made the encounter harder for the melee guys because their options are to 1) throw their bodies in front of the casters in an attempt to protect them, despite being unable to really harm the foes; or 2) stand back and hope the casters finish the bad guys before healing runs out, because if the casters go down, the encounter is going to be a TPK.

I'm still not seeing a scenario here where it's possible to deplete the casters of spell resources without hosing the melee guys in the process unless the players cooperate to make it happen.

Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out. They are doing serious damage on their own. Yes, this means the players must cooperate to make it happen; but that is the name of the game. A group with loose tactics always does worse in D&D. A tight, well organized party that helps one another shine always does better. This is even a concession of 4E, where performing your Role in combat is essential to winning.

I don't think any example I provide will convince you then, because even if the wizard is expending his spells every round, and combat lasts a long time; you are not satisfied. If you don't like 3E, you don't like it and I can't convince you it is managable at high levels. In my games it doesn't take long for wizards to become wary of the spells they use. They are'nt going to run out of spells, but they are going to try reserve their best spells for the "final encounter". If this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Anyways this is a minor point in a larger argument about casters; which is it isn't AS broken as people make it out to be, if the DM does his job, follows all the rules in the book, and sculpts encounters to the composition of his party. Does 4E handle this better? Yes. I have said again and again, 4E is more balanced when it comes to magic. For me, the trade off there is a loss of wonder in the magic. Not eeyone feels this way, but that is my reaction to the new system. If you find you can't manage a game of 3E at higher levels, then you are probably better off with 4E. Again, I am not trying to get into an edition war here. In my opinion both systems set out to do very different things. And if you place a premium on balance, then 4E is the better bet. If you like a potent casting system that bends reality, then you are probably better off with 3E.

 

[Panzeh]

Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out. They are doing serious damage on their own. Yes, this means the players must cooperate to make it happen; but that is the name of the game. A group with loose tactics always does worse in D&D. A tight, well organized party that helps one another shine always does better. This is even a concession of 4E, where performing your Role in combat is essential to winning.

I don't think any example I provide will convince you then, because even if the wizard is expending his spells every round, and combat lasts a long time; you are not satisfied. In my games it doesn't take long for wizards to become wary of the spells they use. They are'nt going to run out of spells, but they are going to try reserve their best spells for the "final encounter". If this doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Anyways this is a minor point in a larger argument about casters; which is it isn't AS broken as people make it out to be, if the DM does his job, follows all the rules in the book, and sculpts encounters to the composition of his party. Does 4E handle this better? Yes. I have said again and again, 4E is more balanced when it comes to magic. For me, the trade off there is a loss of wonder in the magic. Not eeyone feels this way, but that is my reaction to the new system. If you find you can't manage a game of 3E at higher levels, then you are probably better off with 4E.

Why does everyone else have to have a specified job except the full caster, who can do every job?

 

[ProfessorPain]

There was a really awesome phrase used earlier in this thread. "A lot of effort in pursuit of a dubious goal". That's what I think of every time I read one of your posts.

The DM can manage all of this, sure. The DM can drive the game reality so that there's a lot of baddies and the PCs can't pause to rest (while making sure all these baddies aren't bunched in one place and just straight-out kill the unrested party). THe DM can make it harder to pull buffs off. The DM can work the game so that non-caster can shine.

Really though this just boils down to planning encounters, being aware of the rules and enforcing them.

But you know what? A lot of DMs don't have the time or inclination to think about this stuff. And frankly, I'd prefer that my DM be able to spend his limited planning time on stuff like the unique culture of the fantasy kingdom, the internal politics of the organization the PCs belong to, and fluff stuff like that. I'd rather not have them putting in a lot of effort in pursuit of the dubious goal of making sure that magic feels 'special', yet non-casters still have interesting things to do.

It isn't dubious. I consistenty achieve this in my 3E games. And it doesn't take that much time. But 3E is a different beast than 4E. Magic aside, the game requires system mastery to DM. Magic is actually the easiest thing in my view to reign in in 3E. The greater danger is the many non-caster/quasi caster builds out there that break the system. Or the prestige classes and feats that to ungodly things when paired with the right magic item. The system isn't as contained as 4E (though if you just stick to core and avoid splat, this is less of a problem). I learned the hard way with 3E that the DM has to know all the rules, or he won't know what is broken and what isn't.

Also there is a much easier fix to this whole problem if you still want to play 3E, but don't want the headache I presented. Mournblade mentioned spell interuption. Bring that back into the game. Don't allow concentration checks when a wizard is hit mid spell. This is a minor change that can balance things out some more, if you find the concentration checks are too easy to pass.

4E starts out with the premise that everybody should have interesting things to do and builds the entire system around that. Making magic feel special is regulated to the secondary goal rather than a primary precept. If a DM puts the same effort into making magic feel special that he did into making sure that magic didn't overpower encounters in 3E, it ought to feel pretty darn special.

I didn't use the word special for magic, I used the word wonderous. And wizard powers in 4E, don't achieve the wonder I am after in my games. 4E does do what it sets out to though. Everyone can always do something interesting, and that is a great achievement in design. It just doesn't produce the game I want to play (mostly because I am not into the powers, and the magic thing). But if you like it, go nuts. Play it and have a ball. Just doesn't appeal to me; as 3E doesn't appeal to you.

It goes back into something said in the article. Third edition was/is such an awesome system that many players and DMs accepted the more troublesome parts of it as "just the way things are'. Magic gets to break the rules of the game system because that's just the way things are because magic is special, and we use the excellent tools that third edition provides to get around that problem. But why should we have to?

You don't have to. If you don't like magic that way, play another game. Some people actually like using the tools 3E offers. Its a toolbox system. I like the magic in 3E. It is cool, it is a great plot device for GMs, and it adds a sense of wonder and suprise that really makes me enjoy the game. Sure wizards are more powerful at higher levels. I accept that. If that creates problems, though, there are ways to manage it.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Why does everyone else have to have a specified job except the full caster, who can do every job?

Wizards aren't good healers, they are not good meat shields. They are not good melee attackers. They are good a duplicating some of the other classes roles on occassion, but through the temporary use of a spell. At high levels they can create some spectacular events and displays, and that is what makes them cool in 3E. Again, if you don't like the way it works in 3E, you may want to play another system.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

The most important guy in the band is the guy with the van.

Yeah, you can play local gigs without him, and you COULD get bus tickets, but nothing beats freedom of movement. That way you can ditch the gig if you get there and don't like the venue, even if you did just travel 120 miles to get there.

So, yeah. The casters get to be a bit more important once they can cast teleport or astral caravan. They give you more places to play.

It is a playstyle issue though. Some groups only want to be "Local" and don't get into the plane hopping scene.

 

[Henry]

Fighters aren't just meat sheilds in this scenario. They still get a bunch of attacks, should have some uber cool magic items at this point to help them out, and will really dish out damage if they have been buffed (which is almost always the case in the games I run). So they aren't sitting back waiting for the wizard to take things out.

In our groups, it's not a problem about the fighters being able to dish out damage in their respective spheres. Give a fighter an adjacent monster, and he can do his thing (with proper buffs of items and spells). Problem is - what if the wizard or cleric misses the session? Are you screwed? Can a fighter without any spellcaster in a group even tackle half of the threats?

I play a crusader, which is basically a melee only fighter in that level 19 game. He can do very well within melee range, but even with the proper feats and a +3 Mighty STR bow, he can only do about 2d8+16 damage with his attacks at range, because the high-level opponents we face with 37 AC and up means I miss with the bottom half of my attacks consistently. I can fly, IF I'm packing a potion. I can be immune to energy attacks, IF I'm packing the right potion or item. I can be stricken blind, exhausted, stunned, etc. by many of the opponents we face that have save DCs in the mid-20's to low 30's.

If I miss, the Truenamer can buff up a rogue or druid (and the druid can buff himself) and take up the slack. If the truenamer misses:

--We can't fly.
--We can't heal well. (Druid can do some, but he's not a full druid caster).
--We can't limit enemies' movements with spell effects.

I'm still effective, but in the encounter with a 20 HD or so Black Dragon, he just flew and strafed us with his breath until we hid. In an encounter with horned devils they flew, hit and run, poisoned us with poisons that we couldn't cure, and almost killed us. In encounters where he was there, against an invisible lich, the truenamer found the lich, made it detectible, and restricted its movement. Against a magical insect swarm, he made us all fly, and we bypassed them completely.

I do make plenty of contribution to the group, but I recognize that in any high-level 3E or AD&D game without the casters, we are going to have drastically difficult time of it, but not so much without the fighter types.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I'm still effective, but in the encounter with a 20 HD or so Black Dragon, he just flew and strafed us with his breath until we hid. In an encounter with horned devils they flew, hit and run, poisoned us with poisons that we couldn't cure, and almost killed us. In encounters where he was there, against an invisible lich, the truenamer found the lich, made it detectible, and restricted its movement. Against a magical insect swarm, he made us all fly, and we bypassed them completely.

I do make plenty of contribution to the group, but I recognize that in any high-level 3E or AD&D game without the casters, we are going to have drastically difficult time of it, but not so much without the fighter types.

This is definitely an issue. If the spellcasters aren't there, fighters are much less effective. But I would be hesitant to play without fighters if I was playing a caster, because they do provide a needed level of protection (especially if the DM is strict about concentration. There are certainly some encounters that magic is the much needed ace for. Though a fair DM won't force a group to face anything they lack the resources to defeat. I try to design some encounters that require spell casters, and others that require non-casters so that everyone contributes. But your point is taken.

 

[Krensky]

In our games the good old 5' step back prior to casting helped with a lot of defensive casting issues. There were exceptions of course.

It sounds like it's a mix of close quarters and Pressing Attack being a common choice on both sides of screen contributing then. Fiddling with the DC in my game would have an effect, your millage may vary.

Actually, not quite the point. You are correct in that the spell will be spoiled in either example. The problem I saw with your implementation had more to do with the math rather than the intent.

Damage and HP scale faster and higher than anything else. Adding damage taken to the DC of a concentration check will rapidly make such checks very hard to make, eventually preventing the caster from being able to cast hardly at all.

The old initiative system starts every round on an even basis. There is a chance of getting the spell cast with no opportunity for interruption, and there is a chance of coming under fire and having the spell ruined.

Another thing to consider with your proposal is that enemies will know that merely hitting the caster isn't enough. More damage = less casting=the wizard getting turned into a target dummy. The old system only required a single hit to spoil the spell so other enemies might attack other threats once the danger of the spell was eliminated.

Hmm... I wonder if just changing it to an check based on the highest single damage taken during that round (from count infinity or whatever) would work. Anyway, not on topic.