Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Wolfwood2]

That's funny, I find playing high level spell-casters starts to get kind of boring.

I can spend hours trying to optimize my spell selection so that any encounter I face can easily be defeated with one spell. I can spend hours scrying locations waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike. I can spend hours optimizing my magic items and making sure my party is buffed and ready to go. Or, I can just say "to hell with it" and have fun and make do with Fireball.

All of what you describe is a problem I call, "playing the game outside the game". Basically the stuff most significant to the group's success or failure come from things that are far removed from roleplaying, much less the tactical battlefield. Optimizing spells and magic items and buffs is stuff you can do at home, alone, with a set of rulebooks. (Or at the very most by emails between you and the DM asking about the results of your divinations.)

That's a terrible gaming experience when it happens. The most important part of a group's success or failure should not be happening away from the gaming table.

 

[The Ghost]

All of what you describe is a problem I call, "playing the game outside the game". Basically the stuff most significant to the group's success or failure come from things that are far removed from roleplaying, much less the tactical battlefield. Optimizing spells and magic items and buffs is stuff you can do at home, alone, with a set of rulebooks. (Or at the very most by emails between you and the DM asking about the results of your divinations.)

That's a terrible gaming experience when it happens. The most important part of a group's success or failure should not be happening away from the gaming table.

I think you missed the point I am trying to make. I used your reference that a fighter is boring to suggest that so is a wizard, from a certain point of view.

As to the larger point about this "problem" - I am not challenging whether a "problem" can exist with respect to fighters/rogues versus clerics/druids/wizards. I have already stated earlier in this thread where a cleric/druid/wizard can, through the use of magic, emulate the abilities of a fighter/rogue. That much is provable fact. What I challenge is this notion that just because a cleric/druid/wizard can emulate those abilities, does not mean that they should.

 

[Ourph]

This just hasn't been the case in my game. In practice, these have worked fine for me. The casters may not be able to effectively fight the creature directly, but if they use their spells to assist the combat classes, things balance out pretty well. In fact this is sort of the reverse of the typical, fighter guards the wizard while he casts uber spell scenario.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention player buy-in. In the scenario you lay out, the caster has a number of choices. One is to use his spells to support the non-caster and make him more efficient at dealing with the problem as you suggest. In this option, the player is going along with what the DM intended.

An alternate option is for the player to be "selfish" with his resources and use them to attempt to affect the challenge directly. For example, instead of buffing the Fighter, the Wizard summons a monster and buffs the monster to the point where it's as good as or better than the Fighter at dealing with the challenge. Another example would be the Wizard buffing himself with magic and engaging in melee combat. In these cases the player is bypassing the intent of the DM.

I'm sure in your games the players generally chose option 1 and that's why your methods work. In general, I think option 1 is probably more common because it's both "nice" and it requires less system mastery to use effectively. I have had plenty of experience, however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).

 

[Kask]

however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).

Bingo. That's why I'd rather have a game system that minimizes the problem rather then pleading with a player to not play his PC to the best of his ability.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

It's not a good idea to tell a player of a wizard that they can't use a class ability--even if they devote their time to it and pay the correct costs--due to DM fiat. When a player says that his character makes time for crafting items and you say that he can't, because you say that his character can't accomplish free time under any set of circumstances... well, if you need to be that heavy-handed, perhaps the problem is in the system that designed the feat in the first place?

 

[ProfessorPain]

It's not a good idea to tell a player of a wizard that they can't use a class ability--even if they devote their time to it and pay the correct costs--due to DM fiat. When a player says that his character makes time for crafting items and you say that he can't, because you say that his character can't accomplish free time under any set of circumstances... well, if you need to be that heavy-handed, perhaps the problem is in the system that designed the feat in the first place?

Keep in mind, I am not saying he can't use the class ability. I am saying that the time factor is there to balance. And if you don't place reasonable constraints on his time, then the time factor is meaningless. He is free to sit down and make some scrolls. But in most settings, it is a little unrealistic for him to have enough free time to manufacture them. That is what I was trying to address.

 

[ProfessorPain]

This is what I'm talking about when I mention player buy-in. In the scenario you lay out, the caster has a number of choices. One is to use his spells to support the non-caster and make him more efficient at dealing with the problem as you suggest. In this option, the player is going along with what the DM intended.

An alternate option is for the player to be "selfish" with his resources and use them to attempt to affect the challenge directly. For example, instead of buffing the Fighter, the Wizard summons a monster and buffs the monster to the point where it's as good as or better than the Fighter at dealing with the challenge. Another example would be the Wizard buffing himself with magic and engaging in melee combat. In these cases the player is bypassing the intent of the DM.

But that isn't confronting the monster diretly, that is using 2 spells in sequence to attack the monster. And anyways, the point here is to make the fighter shine by throwing something at the party that direct magic (such as a fireball) doesn't handle well, but sword and steal does. If the spellcaster wants to help out by summoning something that is fine. We are talking about a specific scnario where the wizard is hindered by a monster with good SR. And his and the clerics best bet is to use spells that get around that, rather than blast it. You just aren't convincing me this doesn't work. Since I have seen it work again and again to my satisfaction.

I'm sure in your games the players generally chose option 1 and that's why your methods work. In general, I think option 1 is probably more common because it's both "nice" and it requires less system mastery to use effectively. I have had plenty of experience, however, with players who have a lot of system mastery and choose option 2 simply because they know they can have fun and be effective doing it (and they don't know or don't care that doing so steps on the Fighter's toes).

I am sorry, but I haven't experienced this as a problem in my games. Using mix of options 1&2 is most effective and the most fun. If the wizard wants to summon and then buff the summoned creature that is fine. But it is more effective to do it after you buffed up the fighter. And again, as long as the fighter has some cool magic items, they can hold their own in combat. If they happened to get buffed from the cleric, so much the better.

Now if you have a player being a jerk to other players an ettiquette issue. The same thing happens when you have a thief who refuses to search for traps, or demands payment. He can do these things; and it sucks becuase other people succumb to traps when he does; but it is easily resolved between most players. Wizards, I don't expect to share their spells with the party. Clerics on the other hand, come in with the assumption that at the very least they are going to heal, and hand out a few buffs.

 

[AllisterH]

I think the easiest way to answer your question Bullgrit is simply do any random Adventure path with the standard 4 person party. Figher- Cleric - Rogue and Wizard. It's what my group actually did once we wanted to come out with house rules.

At low levels, 1-5, I always found that you could replace the wizard with another copy of the other 3 classes and in fact, you actually will probably be more successful. The rogue is also essential in many of these low level adventures as neither the wizard or the cleric can duplicate the capabilities of said rogue as they neither have the money or the slots to waste or even know the spells.

Thus, the "best" party at low levels is 2x rogue (or 1 fighter, 1 rogue) plus ( 1 x cleric and 1 druid or 2 cleric or 2 druids).

Levels 6-11, this is when EVERYONE contributes unless it is a 4 person druid team or a tricked out (splatbook enhanced) Cleric. Even here, while some claim a 4 person druid team can handle anything, I still believe a group would be more successful with one rogue and 3 divine casters.

After level 12, the rogue quickly becomes less essential. Unless you turn the rogue into spellcaster lite via UMD (really, why do people consider a wand wielding character a rogue and not a member of the magic using class?) As others mentioned, enemies quickly start becoming either too big, too tough or just plain immune to a rogue in combat. Out of combat, by this time, a smart player of the magic using classes ESPECIALLY a wizard has the cash and downtime to duplicate any rogue skill but BETTER. In terms of damage, the fighter is STILL useful but it isn't essential since either a cleric or a druid can via the right combination of spells can match the fighter INcombat and totally cominate out of combat.

Thus at levels 11+, I say Cleric, Druid and Wizard are essential, with Fighters being a 4th choice that can be substituted with a player who knows how to maximize a cleric or a druid. The rogue though...that's a total non-essential member of the team.

 

[Vurt]

Thus at levels 11+, I say Cleric, Druid and Wizard are essential, with Fighters being a 4th choice that can be substituted with a player who knows how to maximize a cleric or a druid. The rogue though...that's a total non-essential member of the team.

There's an easy fix for the rogue, though: loosen the restrictions on what they can sneak attack. Trapfinding may fall by the wayside, but I suspect few rogue players will care all that much if they can still regularly roll a fist full of d6's.

 

[roguerouge]

Let me ask a question that reverses this question... When faced with opponents with class levels, do your players focus fire on the cleric first? The wizard first? Or the fighter first?

In every combat I've played, the goal is to get rid of the artillery, air force, and healers, and only then do we prioritize dealing with the infantry (a.k.a. the fighters). Every high level combat consists of stalling the OPP melee guy while we deal with the real threats: the healer, the battlefield changer, the buffer, then the blaster.

In short, if your players consistently target the death star destroyer rather than the random fighters, shouldn't that be a clue which is really the most important not to have missing at the table?