Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[ProfessorPain]

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 been in, 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, tthe battlefield changer, he 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?

Because most spellcaster opponents have all their spells, and the assumption is the only challenge they face that day is the party, so they don't mind unloading all their most powerful abilities in the first few rounds. And just as a tactical matter, it is much easier to handle a melee opponent when you eliminate the guys who fight from a distance. And wizards with their low HP total, are easy targets to drop first.

 

[Vurt]

Because most spellcaster opponents have all their spells, and the assumption is the only challenge they face that day is the party, so they don't mind unloading all their most powerful abilities in the first few rounds. And just as a tactical matter, it is much easier to handle a melee opponent when you eliminate the guys who fight from a distance. And wizards with their low HP total, are easy targets to drop first.

Plus, "geek the mage first" isn't just good advice, it's a time-honoured tradition!

 

[ProfessorPain]

Plus, "geek the mage first" isn't just good advice, it's a time-honoured tradition!

I always like to get rid of the thief first. Don't need him bakcstabbing me when I least expect it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Wizards aren't good healers, they are not good meat shields. They are not good melee attackers.

Except for....like...when they polymorph into something thats meatshieldy or meleeattackery.

DS

 

[ProfessorPain]

Except for....like...when they polymorph into something thats meatshieldy or meleeattackery.

DS

There are much better uses of polymorph. Why polymorph into a meatshield when you can polymorph into a dragon or giant? The problem with polymorphing into a meatshield is that you just create another fighter on the battefield and lose the spellcaster casting spells against the enemy. Why not just polymorph the fighter or rogue into a dragon, so he can blaze through enemies, while you continue to lob some serious spells at people. And, I have never had a player polymorph his own wizard more than once in a single adventure. And it was mostly outside of combat.

 

[Ourph]

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.

Me too, although I suspect we've chosen different games to reach the same goal.

 

[Ourph]

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.

That might be your goal, but that goal doesn't answer the real concern IMO, which is that the Fighter is superfluous. Whether the casters are answering the problem with flashy magic or subtle magic doesn't matter at all to what I consider to be "the point". Yes, there are lots of situations where the Fighter CAN contribute, but there is nothing you can throw at the party that the casters can't handle with magic in the absence of the Fighter.

The reverse is not true. If Bob's Fighter dies the casters can whip up something "Fightery" to replace him. If Ted's Wizard dies, the Fighter can't do jack-squat to replace the Wizard's role in the party.

The title of the thread is "Do Fighters Matter?" and IMO, it's hard to make an argument for the Fighter "mattering" if his contribution to the party can be duplicated by a relatively small expenditure of resources by another character.

 

[Shazman]

I pretty much agree with Rob's points.

Certainly, in my 3E games I find myself using house rules and availability of splatbooks to attempt to rein in the spellcasters and help the martial types.

I think one big problem is saving throws, specifically the will save. In my opinion, it was a mistake to tie the will save to a mental stat. It seems to me that part of the high level fighter's schtick should be that he has an indominatable soul -- if his will save was significantly better than the other classes it would go a long way to making him more relevant at higher levels.

With regards to scry/buff/teleport, well this is another area where 3E failed. The PCs should not be able to scry their opponents and wait until they have to go to the toilet to 'drop in'. It's extremely unheroic and unfun. I am glad that 4E fixed this , as I have work to make sure it doesn't become a problem in my 3E games.

And yeah, clerics do sortof overshadow fighters at high levels when they're tricked out as melee machines. There's a sortof social contract in 3E regarding the cleric: 'you get to have the most powerful class, but you have to spend your rounds healing the others'. When the PC doesn't folllow the social contract and instead becomes a fighter, the guy playing the fighter pretty much gets screwed. This is yet another thing 4E fixed, although I have to say I'm really unhappy with the way clerics throw around radiant damage in 4E.

Ken

Scry, buff, seems to be more of a problem with munchkin players than the game itself. It's something a lot of people whine about, but I've never seen used once. If it becomes a problem, there are ways to work around even if it's just the players agreeing not to use such anticlimatic tactics. Everyone also whine about how powerful high level clerics are, they can replace teh fighters, etc. etc. I just finished playing a high level cleric, and I can tell you it's not feasible to try to replace the fighter all the time. You don't have enough actions or enough spell slots to pull this off very often. You often have to choose between healing to keep party members alive or buffing yourself. Obviously, you end up healing the party. So those 3 rounds you wanted to spend buffing yourself just got used up to save someone's butt, and your divine power and righteous might had to be converted to cure spells. That's the way it really happens during a nasty encounter.

 

[ProfessorPain]

That might be your goal, but that goal doesn't answer the real concern IMO, which is that the Fighter is superfluous. Whether the casters are answering the problem with flashy magic or subtle magic doesn't matter at all to what I consider to be "the point". Yes, there are lots of situations where the Fighter CAN contribute, but there is nothing you can throw at the party that the casters can't handle with magic in the absence of the Fighter.

The reverse is not true. If Bob's Fighter dies the casters can whip up something "Fightery" to replace him. If Ted's Wizard dies, the Fighter can't do jack-squat to replace the Wizard's role in the party.

Wizards without fighters to protect them, are going to have a hard time casting spells in the first place. Something I learned early on in 3e was you must use concentration checks and add the damage to the DC when dealing with wizards. This is a real important balancing factor. And it means there is no certainty for a wizard without a fighter facing a high SR opponent. If he can't get his spell off to summon or polymorph into something bigger, he is in a bad spot. In the end are wizards more important than fighters, yes. I conceded that long ago. But we are talking about making fighters relevent at later levels which they still are. And if you have the fighter with the right magic items, they are equally as effective, and consistently so, as a wizard in combat. And I acknowledge that wizards are more versatile. But their versatility is limited by the number of spells they have. They can't replicate a fighter all day.

We have to agree to disagree at this point. I have made my point and haven't pursuaded you, and it is clear neither of us are going to make any more headway in the conversation. For every fix I offer, you have a rebuttal, and for every rebuttal I have a response, and so on and so on. If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you. For me and my group, it works fine.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

There are much better uses of polymorph. Why polymorph into a meatshield when you can polymorph into a dragon or giant? The problem with polymorphing into a meatshield is that you just create another fighter on the battefield and lose the spellcaster casting spells against the enemy. Why not just polymorph the fighter or rogue into a dragon, so he can blaze through enemies, while you continue to lob some serious spells at people. And, I have never had a player polymorph his own wizard more than once in a single adventure. And it was mostly outside of combat.

1. Dragon or Giant or such=meatshield.

2. Polymorphing the fighter into a dragon doesn't help the parties overall beefiness like polymorphing the wizard into a dragon.

3. You can still cast spells when polymorphed into a dragon or giant.

4. I didn't personally polymorph anyone when I played a high level caster...but if I had that spell available I would never have been in my normal body. IIRC as long as you pick some humanoid form you could stay polymorphed for a week or more.

DS