Stats scaling past 18/19

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION]
Wind Wall deflects all arrows.
Archery builds are notoriously low damage, reducing the chance you'll mess up a cast at all. Assuming all arrows hit, 4d8+20 isn't exactly going to be disrupting high level casters.
It is very difficult to interrupt casting in 3.5 because of the new casting mechanics (compared to previous editions).
A +4 bow and a +5 arrow does not stack - you're left with a total of +5.
-----

You're comparing a guy who can swing a sword and shoot a bow well to the guy who can call Balors, turn into a dragon, stop time, and alter reality.
When comparing Fighters to anything, you really need to focus on low level play where they have footing (and sometimes an advantage).

I've played leap attack/shock trooper/greater power attack fighters, archers, and a grappler to around level 18 each (from level 1). Without assistance from the party casters, they don't contribute much after about level 6-8.

 

[kitcik]

kitcik, I wanted to weigh in with my thoughts here, I hope you don't mind.

I don't mind at all, but it's frustrating that you so easily conclude that you are right when you are so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

This is why we repeatedly have said "show the build" "name the encounter."

You've clearly never played with anyone who ran a competent full caster, particulalrly not one who tried to fulfill a melee role. Also, clearly you've never solo'd a high level fighter against a variety of CR appropriate challenges with a competent DM (neither have I).

It's not about optimization, it's about versatility. The high level caster has the versatility to handle any CR appropriate challenge and to fulfill any party role, the fighter does not.

The answer of "I have a magic item for that" is, in fact, a cop out because the full caster has the same WBL as you and so has the same amount of magic item "answers" - more, in fact, because they don't need an upfront investment in weapons and armor. In ADDITION, they have spells, and all they lose is BAB, HP and feats.

So, 10 points of BAB, a bunch of HP and 6 extra feats (11 fighter bonus feats - 4 wizard bonus feats - summon familiar) vs:
4 zero level spells
4 1st level spells
4 2nd level spells
4 3rd level spells
4 4th level spells
4 5th level spells
4 6th level spells
4 7th level spells
4 8th level spells
4 9th level spells

Just think about it. Shapechange. Wish. Gate. The list goes on and on.

Or consider a melee druid wild-shaped into a dire polar bear with a tyranosaurus animal companion summoning elder elementals.

Or a cleric...

There's just no comparison.

And I like melee characters. They are fun. But I am not so naive as to not notice that I am only surviving due to support from my casters.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't mind at all, but it's frustrating that you so easily conclude that you are right when you are so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

The undeniable fact is that you are the one who is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

This is why we repeatedly have said "show the build" "name the encounter."

Any sort of showcased build or encounter is always going to fail the "three strikes" rule of theory-crafting:

1) The build always assumes that the character is at full power. This tends to only be true for the first encounter of the day (which, even if you stick to the whole "four encounters per day" paradigm, is only 25% of the time). So the vast majority of the time your character will already be down on hit points, consumable materials, spells, etc.

2) The build assumes meta-game knowledge of the encounter before meeting it. Simply put, this presumes that the characters already know what they'll be facing, and have arranged their spells, feats, magic items, etc. so as to be perfectly optimized to defeat it. This is another area that's divorced from how things are in the game world.

3) The build assumes that everything revolves around this encounter. This is really an extension of the second one, but shows how such builds are the product of tunnel-vision. Yes it's useless to have a helm of underwater action if you're showcasing how your character can one-shot a balor, but there's a reason why a character that's used in a game will have one, whether from what they were doing before, or (think they) will be doing later.

So you see, requests for "show me the build/encounter" are not only a waste of time, but are asking the wrong questions from the very beginning.

You've clearly never played with anyone who ran a competent full caster, particulalrly not one who tried to fulfill a melee role. Also, clearly you've never solo'd a high level fighter against a variety of CR appropriate challenges with a competent DM (neither have I).

You admitting that you've never done these things completely undercuts the legitimacy of asking them to begin with. I've had full casters in my games who were "competent" in that they helped win the fights they were in - apparently, taking damage-dealing spells makes them "incompetent" despite the fact that they were contributors to the encounter.

It's not about optimization, it's about versatility. The high level caster has the versatility to handle any CR appropriate challenge and to fulfill any party role, the fighter does not.

See above. This idea that wizards can handle anything fails the three strikes rule.

The answer of "I have a magic item for that" is, in fact, a cop out because the full caster has the same WBL as you and so has the same amount of magic item "answers" - more, in fact, because they don't need an upfront investment in weapons and armor. In ADDITION, they have spells, and all they lose is BAB, HP and feats.

First, saying that "all they lose is BAB, HP, and feats" showcases the tunnel-vision I've been talking about this entire time. Secondly, I've already explained why it's not a cop-out, please re-read the above post. Third, having magic spells in addition to items is only useful if those are the right spells, and they can successfully cast them - in this regard, they might have slightly greater potential, but that's meaningless if they can't actualize it.

So, 10 points of BAB, a bunch of HP and 6 extra feats (11 fighter bonus feats - 4 wizard bonus feats - summon familiar) vs:
4 zero level spells
4 1st level spells
4 2nd level spells
4 3rd level spells
4 4th level spells
4 5th level spells
4 6th level spells
4 7th level spells
4 8th level spells
4 9th level spells

Just think about it. Shapechange. Wish. Gate. The list goes on and on.

See? You're already falling into the trap of assuming the build is the most important part.

Or consider a melee druid wild-shaped into a dire polar bear with a tyranosaurus animal companion summoning elder elementals.

Or a cleric...

There's just no comparison.

And I like melee characters. They are fun. But I am not so naive as to not notice that I am only surviving due to support from my casters.

With any luck, I've helped to dispel some of the naivete you had regarding this. Spellcasters can theoretically be powerful in a given challenge, but that's the thing about theories, they don't always mesh with reality.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] That's just wrong on the face of it. I'm quite convinced you're just trolling at this point.

RE: Resources
A caster is more able to adapt to reduced resources.
Fighters have fewer resources available.

Without support, a Fighter who loses resources will regain them upon; A) Walking back to town and spending his gold, or; B) Resting for weeks.
Without support, a Wizard who loses resources will regain them upon; A) Resting for one day.

RE: Metagame Knowledge
A Fighter is unable to prepare for what is ahead, so must prepare a wide variety of strategies.
A caster can prepare for what is ahead through divination - no metagame knowledge necessary.

RE: Single scenario
Remaining within the only scenario in which Fighters have the potential to hold their weight: Combat.
Fighters can attack four times per round.
Casters (depending on the specific caster) can summon creatures that attack four times per round at higher bonuses and with more HP.

Fighters can walk, run, climb, jump, swim and ride.
Casters can fly and burrow in addition to the above.

Fighters have reduced effectiveness at range.
Casters are as effective at all ranges.

Fighters can run to reduce the range to his enemy.
Casters can teleport.

Fighters can Sunder, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip to reduce his enemy's combat efficiency.
Casters can do all of that, plus reduce ability scores, levels, and dispel buffs.

Fighters are ineffective without gear.
Casters are effective with or without gear.

The list goes on and on, and it is clear that only in very narrow and contained scenarios are Fighters going to ever be able to compete. Given the often chaotic nature of what is thrown at the party on a given day, being the most versatile, most able to adapt, and having access to divination is what is going to give a character the advantage.

Fighters are very much like traps in a dungeon. They can be deadly, they can be tricky, and they can be effective; but they can all be disarmed or circumvented with a little thought.
Casters are more like Batman.

 

[Alzrius]

[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] That's just wrong on the face of it. I'm quite convinced you're just trolling at this point.

You do realize that it's just poor for a troll to accuse someone else of trolling?

RE: Resources
A caster is more able to adapt to reduced resources.
Fighters have fewer resources available.

This isn't the case when the majority of a spellcaster's spells are expended.

Without support, a Fighter who loses resources will regain them upon; A) Walking back to town and spending his gold, or; B) Resting for weeks.
Without support, a Wizard who loses resources will regain them upon; A) Resting for one day.

I'm not sure why you think that a wizard can regain all of their hit points by just resting for a day, but a wizard who loses all of their resources is going to need a new spellbook, which takes more than a day of rest.

RE: Metagame Knowledge
A Fighter is unable to prepare for what is ahead, so must prepare a wide variety of strategies.
A caster can prepare for what is ahead through divination - no metagame knowledge necessary.

Again, provably false. Leaving aside issues of having the right spells, having them work (e.g. successful save), counter-measures, etc. that doesn't mean that you'll know an NPC's game stats.

RE: Single scenario
Remaining within the only scenario in which Fighters have the potential to hold their weight: Combat.
Fighters can attack four times per round.
Casters (depending on the specific caster) can summon creatures that attack four times per round at higher bonuses and with more HP.

You keep going on about summons, despite their short durations, vulnerability to being dispelled or dismissed, defeated by protection spells, etc. That's assuming the wizard has any at all.

Fighters can walk, run, climb, jump, swim and ride.
Casters can fly and burrow in addition to the above.

So can fighters, re: magic items.

Fighters have reduced effectiveness at range.
Casters are as effective at all ranges.

How effective is a spellcaster that can't cast any spells (using them all, antimagic field, silence, etc.)?

Fighters can run to reduce the range to his enemy.
Casters can teleport.

If you need to teleport to close the gap to your enemy, then this is hardly the sort of combat that's likely to happen all of the time, and so serves as a poor example.

Fighters can Sunder, Disarm, Grapple, and Trip to reduce his enemy's combat efficiency.
Casters can do all of that, plus reduce ability scores, levels, and dispel buffs.

Spellcasters can't do those things without expending more spell resources, which are limited and (as I've said before) leave them more and more vulnerable the more they use.

Fighters are ineffective without gear.
Casters are effective with or without gear.

See above. A wizard with no gear is useful only until they've used their spells. A fighter with no gear is useful as soon as they make a disarm check.

The list goes on and on, and it is clear that only in very narrow and contained scenarios are Fighters going to ever be able to compete. Given the often chaotic nature of what is thrown at the party on a given day, being the most versatile, most able to adapt, and having access to divination is what is going to give a character the advantage.

Actually, my responses above prove that only in a very narrow and contained set of circumstances will fighters ever not be able to compete. Given that there's going to be an unknown number of relatively unpredictable scenarios happening in a given day, the spellcaster's need to diversify actually works against him, since he doesn't know what to prepare to meet the challenges ahead. Plus, as he uses those spells that are useful, he grows less and less competent.

Fighters are very much like traps in a dungeon. They can be deadly, they can be tricky, and they can be effective; but they can all be disarmed or circumvented with a little thought.
Casters are more like Batman.

Batman is never out of spells for the day.

It's more correct to say that he's a fighter/rogue with a lot of skill points.

 

[Dandu]

Any sort of showcased build or encounter is always going to fail the "three strikes" rule of theory-crafting:

1) The build always assumes that the character is at full power. This tends to only be true for the first encounter of the day (which, even if you stick to the whole "four encounters per day" paradigm, is only 25% of the time). So the vast majority of the time your character will already be down on hit points, consumable materials, spells, etc.

2) The build assumes meta-game knowledge of the encounter before meeting it. Simply put, this presumes that the characters already know what they'll be facing, and have arranged their spells, feats, magic items, etc. so as to be perfectly optimized to defeat it. This is another area that's divorced from how things are in the game world.

3) The build assumes that everything revolves around this encounter. This is really an extension of the second one, but shows how such builds are the product of tunnel-vision. Yes it's useless to have a helm of underwater action if you're showcasing how your character can one-shot a balor, but there's a reason why a character that's used in a game will have one, whether from what they were doing before, or (think they) will be doing later.
)

Why don't you propose a series of encounters for characters I have designed?

We avoid #1 by not letting the characters rest, #2 by me not knowing what challenges you intent on throwing out, and #3 by having all of this set in more than one encounter.

 

[Alzrius]

Why don't you propose a series of encounters for characters I have designed?

We avoid [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] by not letting the characters rest, [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] by me not knowing what challenges you intent on throwing out, and [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] by having all of this set in more than one encounter.

Because then we'd essentially be playing D&D, and I already have a group I do that with.

More seriously though, that's more work than I want to put in to prove a self-evident point. Even if we did though, that's still not going to prove anything, no matter how it goes, because at best it's anecdotal. Even leaving aside the issue of the dice happening to fall a different way the next time, there's still issues of what rules/monsters are or are not used, the input from other players that wouldn't be present here (since all of the characters would be run by you), time taken to consult rules and make decisions (usually it's a few minutes at most around the game table; for play-by-post it can be a lot longer, allowing for more deliberation that can change actions), etc.

This is why I keep making the point about context being a key factor, and not something that can be taken into account ahead of time (nor, for that matter, is it something that can be managed in any single framework) - it will always be different enough to make any single example as far from definitive as can be.

 

[Sekhmet]

When the majority of spells are expended, a caster Rope Tricks or Teleports home to rest for a day.
Resting for a day allows a caster to summon an angel/unicorn/whathaveyou to heal them - one spell for full hit points.
Spell books are not consumables.
You can usually ascertain creature weaknesses by looking at them or examining their lore - both of which are possible with divination.
You're very stuck on "casters run out of spells". How many combats does it take to use 36 spells, when one or two end an encounter?
Saving throws are almost never an issue - always target weak saves or use no-save spells. Memorize versatile spells instead of singular use spells.
When Silenced (which is an easy save to make), the caster can pull his metamagic wand out or walk 10 ft. in any direction (and still cast that turn). Unlike Grease, Silence doesn't hinder movement or require saves to be able to move at all.
While you may be right about rarely needing to teleport into a combat, the fact that wizards have the option of teleporting away and bombarding the area with Range: Long spells is superior to the Fighter needing to be in melee.
Spending 36 spells doesn't happen in one day. With same CR encounters, that's 9 spells per encounter. With a variety of CR encounters (before using consumables), you can safely throw 3 spells per encounter.
A Fighter with no gear and a weapon is still more or less as useless as without a weapon (in fact, probably more so). He runs into combat and gets killed with no defenses.

RE: Diversity
Scenarios are predictable with divination - casters prepare generally useful spells - Wizards (with the fewest total spell slots) have 36 spells per day (Sorcs have 54, Clerics have 50, Druids have 41), many of which are single-spell encounter enders - summons last for 20 rounds (or longer).

Fighters hit things. As they run out of resources, they hit things. As he loses hit points, he hits things. When he's out of hit points, he dies. His versatility is having a variety of weapons (crafted by casters) and potions/items (crafted by casters) to help him overcome any monster after CR6.

RE: Batman
Given a day, Batman is omniscient and omnipotent.
Given a day, Fighters are probably drunk.

All of your posts have been cop-outs, deflections, and unsubstantial drivel. I'm very done putting any effort into talking to you

Spoiler

(because you're either a person who can't rectify preconceived rhetoric or a troll. )

 

[Dandu]

Because then we'd essentially be playing D&D, and I already have a group I do that with.

More seriously though, that's more work than I want to put in to prove a self-evident point. Even if we did though, that's still not going to prove anything, no matter how it goes, because at best it's anecdotal. Even leaving aside the issue of the dice happening to fall a different way the next time, there's still issues of what rules/monsters are or are not used, the input from other players that wouldn't be present here (since all of the characters would be run by you), time taken to consult rules and make decisions (usually it's a few minutes at most around the game table; for play-by-post it can be a lot longer, allowing for more deliberation that can change actions), etc.

This is why I keep making the point about context being a key factor, and not something that can be taken into account ahead of time (nor, for that matter, is it something that can be managed in any single framework) - it will always be different enough to make any single example as far from definitive as can be.

In that case, let me ask a few questions, as the self-evident point you have been expounding on is not self-evident to me - quite the opposite in fact. Forgive me if this has been covered before.

1) Does a spellcaster get access to more versatile abilities based off of his class features?

2) What is a spellcaster doing with his magic items while a Fighter is using his to overcome his weaknesses such as lack of significant natural healing, lack of extraordinary movement modes, and etc?

3) Incidentally, does the Figther's budget allow him enough magical items to do so?

4) If it was possible to have a Commoner who used magic items to become a great and powerful adventurer, does that mean the Commoner class is useful?

 

[Alzrius]

In that case, let me ask a few questions, as the self-evident point you have been expounding on is not self-evident to me - quite the opposite in fact. Forgive me if this has been covered before.

1) Does a spellcaster get access to more versatile abilities based off of his class features?

The best answer for this is "it depends." It depends on the amount of spells that are actually available, as opposed to those that are theoretically available, as limited by both in-game and out-of-game factors (the big one being using all of their spells for the day, but there are others).

2) What is a spellcaster doing with his magic items while a Fighter is using his to overcome his weaknesses such as lack of significant natural healing, lack of extraordinary movement modes, and etc?

There's no standard answer to this question; as it is, it presumes that that's what the fighter's magic items will be doing. What magic items characters of any stripe have will vary widely.

3) Incidentally, does the Figther's budget allow him enough magical items to do so?

See above.

4) If it was possible to have a Commoner who used magic items to become a great and powerful adventurer, does that mean the Commoner class is useful?

Again, assessing class "usefulness" is a flawed way of going about it. If someone playing such a character is able to take a class that the theory-crafters would likely label as "useless" and become a "great and powerful adventurer," then it seems to prove the point I'm trying to make.