Flying Fighters and Other Stories of Dependence, Independence and Interdependence

[Elf Witch]

Sorry, Elf Witch, I don't think I was quite clear in what I meant.

Sure, you have to tailor your game to the group. Of course. But, my point is, the degree of tailoring changes significantly when dealing with casters or non-casters.

If I want to challenge a group that has no casters in it, I can easily do so with any number of environmental, combat, non-combat, exploration, or whatever scenarios. After all, the PC's only have a very limited range of capablities to deal with whatever they are facing.

For example, you example of lots of undead doesn't really matter to the non-caster party. They deal with masses of undead the same way they deal with any mass of baddies. Unless, of course, the undead are all flying and incorporeal, but, then, cleric or no cleric, they're likely boned either way.

To a mundane party, how does a mass of zombies differ from a mass of orcs or anything else?

The problem is, with casters, several scenarios that would be normally challenging become trivial. Crossing the mountains is an interesting scenario with a mundane party, but, takes a day or two with teleport. As an example, in the Savage Tide Adventure Path, the group takes about six months to travel from their home base to the Isle of Dread. It's a major undertaking with all sorts of fun stuff on the way.

Three levels later, it's two teleport spells to get home.

This is where the problem of dependence becomes dominance. What's the point of having our tricked out ship, spending all those ranks on sailing the ship, etc, when the wizard makes our ship obsolete?

Now, you can continue to contrive scenarios where the group needs the ship (which is what the STAP does), but, again, we're running into a situation where it's not tailoring the game to the group, but tailoring the game to one or two characters within the group.

In order to truly challenge the casters, you have to narrow down so much on what you can do as a DM. Every adventure has to be written to specifically counter the capabilities of the casters or the casters run amok.

I don't want the wizard to "allow the team" to do anything. I want the wizard to help and be helped by the team.

There is a huge difference depending on what kind of undead you are dealing with deal with the ones that can paralyze and without a cleric you could be just hosed.

Most modules when using undead add in quite a few based on the cleric being able to turn some of them. The encounter was not designed to be handles solely by bashing on them.

I don't know what to say I don't have any issue making challenging encounters and the games I play the wizard does not make everyone his lackey.

So I don't really know what to say except that when we played 4E no one wanted to play a wizard because we felt it had become the boring class. Which is how most of us felt about the 3E fighter.

I never ever heard this until near the end of 3E it suddenly became a major topic of conversation along with the 15 minute day issue. A lot of times I read well the wizard can do this and this which they can on paper but I have never actually seen it in play that way at the table.

In actual game play things don't go as smoothly with random dice rolls and other people involved.

Take the issue with teleport we very rarely use it in game because part of the game fun to us is exploring and the trip is as much fun. Teleport is used for emergencies and when the DM says you need to be here there now.

So part of me wonders if the players are using teleport to get around encounters maybe this is not a rule issue but a table issue and the DM is not providing interesting things to make the journey itself fun.

Then there is the issue of saying that the rest of the characters don't have any narrative control yes on paper that is also true but in game play I have never seen this. We all talk and decide the best course of action and if that means it is the wizard casting a spell to make it happen then we are okay with that.

We don't spend a lot of time worrying that this PC is more powerful or in this combat that PC did more damage.

I think some of these issues are more intellectual exercise and topics to debate.

I understand some people don't like vancian magic and that is fine but not liking something does not mean it is broken and that is where I think the major issues come in on making a game that appeals to a large group of people.

Which is why I think giving options is the best way instead of a hard fast rule .like 4E did. Vanican magic an issue have options that can help the DM run a game without it hate the idea of 24 hour resets then give the DM options on changing it to something more suitable for their game.

Of course if this happens you have to wonder what will we find to talk about.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'm of the mind that limiting spell lists is a good thing. Either keep the lists focused, so that what the wizard does isn't what the cleric does, or limited what an individual PC gets access to.

For example: bring back "spells known". You can know (10 - spell level) spells total, maximum, per level (assuming 9 spell levels here). That way as you go up in power, the power of spells increases, but your range of spells decreases, making it harder for the caster to both "do everything" (replicate other class roles) and "beat everything" (win with one spell). Apply that to all classes -- no more clerics with infinitely-expanding spell lists.

I believe that the approach outlined above may help retain "interdependence" between classes at higher levels.

The only problem with the "spells known" thing is that every wizard will start looking the same. It's the Big 6 Magic Items problem all over again. If you only have 10 spells of a given level, there are so many spells that no one in their right mind will ever put in their books, simply because they are too situational. And certain spells will almost always get put in because they are so broadly useful.

I'm not saying it can't work, just that it might be a problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only problem with the "spells known" thing is that every wizard will start looking the same. If you only have 10 spells of a given level, there are so many spells that no one in their right mind will ever put in their books, simply because they are too situational. And certain spells will almost always get put in because they are so broadly useful.

I'm not saying it can't work, just that it might be a problem.

It'd be a matter of successfully balancing the spells. If you can know a number of really broken spells, even if they're only broken situationally, you can load up on whichever ones you think will be most advantageous in the coming adventuring day, and you will look a lot like the next wizard working on the same information. If spells are less situational and better-balanced, you'd see less of that. If you can't prep the same spell more than once, even less.

 

[Hussar]

I don't like the idea of not being able to prep a spell more than once. There's no real reason for it other than a purely game balance thing. I mean, if we posit the idea that you are "locking in" a certain formula, why can't I do it twice?

As far as balance goes, I'm not sure if that's an avoidable issue. Some spells, just by their very nature, are going to be more broadly applicable than others. Water Breathing, for example, is a pretty specific spell. I suppose you could change it to "Environmental Comfort" and allow water breathing, movement rates and the like to allow you to survive in hostile environments, though.

It's not an insurmountable problem, but, it is a very sticky one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't like the idea of not being able to prep a spell more than once. There's no real reason for it other than a purely game balance thing.

Well, one of the things about magic is that it has no particular basis in reality, so what mystic restrictions it may have are pretty open. The real reason my be game balance, but the excuse could be as simple as "it's magic." Just as there's no limit on what magic might do, there's also no limit on how restricted it might be in doing it.

I mean, if we posit the idea that you are "locking in" a certain formula, why can't I do it twice?

They cause an aetheric interference loop that fries your brain? They both go off at once when you evoke one of them, releasing more power than you can channel and causing you to fulminate? They cause a duplicate key field error and crash your magic base? The stars are not right? Mystara finds it boring?

As far as balance goes, I'm not sure if that's an avoidable issue. Some spells, just by their very nature, are going to be more broadly applicable than others. Water Breathing, for example, is a pretty specific spell. I suppose you could change it to "Environmental Comfort" and allow water breathing, movement rates and the like to allow you to survive in hostile environments, though.

Sure, there are issues you can avoid, and those you can only ever minimize, and how situational something may turn out to be is one of the latter.

 

[pemerton]

the wizard may be versatile but is squishy, and can easily die if no fighters are engaging opponents at the forefront.

But the fighter is also very squishy when confronted by a flying dragon. Depending on terrain, it may be impossible for the fighter to take adequate cover before being fried to death! Whereas the D&D wizard typically has solid ranged attacks that can take down a dragon - Charm Monster, Hold Monster, Polymorph Other, Disintegrate etc - plus a range of solid escape options (Teleport foremost among them).

Interesting. Is that true for 3E or 2E or 4E, and at what levels? I'm not sure what scope various people are talking about. I haven't been in one like that, as there were always players who wanted to be fighters and rogues and (to a lesser extent) paladins, bards, etc.

I think you have to be careful about correlating the desire to play classes with their power. Some people like the colour/tropes associated with being a fighter, paladin etc, and therefore prefer to play those characters. That doesn't per se show that those characters are mechanically competitive with spellcasters.

In my own experience GMing 1st ed AD&D (many years ago now), wizards outshine fighters by around 5th to 7th level. Fighters do a lot of damage (especially with UA weapon specialisation) but precious little else; and wizards aren't slouches in the damage department either. At 13th level a fighter with longsword double specialisation can attack two-and-a-half times per round for (let's say) 1d8+13 points of damage (+4 weapon, gauntlets of ogre power). Assuming every attack hits (fairly likely at that level), that's 2.5*17.5 = 43.75 hp of damage.

A 12th level wizard (who needs fewer XP than a 13th level fighter) has access to 6th level spells. And a fireball or lightning bolt from that wizard does 12d6 (no level cap in 1st ed) or 42 hp of damage before saving throws, to multiple targets.

In my AD&D days, my players ended up preferring (multi-class) thieves, not beause they are particularly powerful but because they have a range of abilities to drive the game forward outside of combat.

 

[Underman]

But the fighter is also very squishy when confronted by a flying dragon. Depending on terrain, it may be impossible for the fighter to take adequate cover before being fried to death!

In what percentage of games do fighters confront flying dragons with no adequate cover such that you can state that: fighter = very squishy = wizards = very squishy?

I think you have to be careful about correlating the desire to play classes with their power. Some people like the colour/tropes associated with being a fighter, paladin etc, and therefore prefer to play those characters. That doesn't per se show that those characters are mechanically competitive with spellcasters.

I don't believe I made that correlation the way you implied

Why is the general course of this thread (and many other threads) seem fixated on wizards are better than fighters in previous editions to the point IMO of beating a dead horse (yes we know, we get it, move on), vs the actual topic of this thread which is how can wizards and fighters need each other?

 

[pemerton]

In what percentage of games do fighters confront flying dragons with no adequate cover

Dunno. I was just responding to your OP:

Fast forward to a brush with a flying dragon raining fire from the skies.​

To me, that sounded like a situation that makes for a squishy fighter. I mean, it's the notorious way to squish a fighter - ranged damage from a target that the fighter can't (or can't easily) attack.

Why is the general course of this thread (and many other threads) seem fixated on wizards are better than fighters in previous editions to the point IMO of beating a dead horse (yes we know, we get it, move on), vs the actual topic of this thread which is how can wizards and fighters need each other?

I think the answer to that lies in the play experiences of posters. It is extremely easy, in a fantasy game, for magic to get out of hand.

An answer to your abstract question would be: if the wizard had no offensive abilities, but was needed to fly the fighter; and the fighter has no superhuman movement abilities, but was needed to kill the dragon; then we would have interdependence of the sort that you are talking about.

But I think, in threads like this, people bring to bear their familiarity with D&D, which tells them (i) that wizards in D&D have always had pretty good offensive abilities, and (ii) that the only edition of D&D to really try, in a mathematical sense, to put wizards and fighters on a par as far as effectiveness is concerned, is being wound back.

Hence they wonder: if the wizard can fly, why will s/he be flying the fighter? Why not just fly herself (perhaps while invisible) and then blast the dragon with the appropriate spell attacks?

To come at it another way: the method that 4e used to make wizards and fighters interdependent was to give the parallel and complementary roles in combat: the wizard exercises battlefield control at range, but is squishy close up; the fighter exercises battlefield control close up, but has difficutly projecting any power at range. On an assumption that battlefields will be moderately large, with moderately mobile enemies, the wizard and fighter therefore become complementary. Interdependent, even: the wizard can only exercise control at range if the fighter is, at the same time, exercising control close up against those enemies trying to close with and shut down the wizard.

Whereas a model that makes the interdepence not parallel but sequential - first the wizard flies the fighter, then the fighter fights the dragon - breaks down as soon as the wizard can fill the next step in the sequence just as well as the fighter can. And given that the next step is generally "Do X", for some value or other of X, and given that, historically in D&D, wizards have been able to do X for nearly any value of X, this risk of breakdown in sequential interdependence seems more than merely hypothetical.

So anyway, there's a roundabout response to your OP: effective interdepedence between characters, in a context in which magic has few or no functional limits, needs to be parallel, not sequential. And achieving that probably requires both taking from the classic wizard, and giving to the classic figther.

 

[Li Shenron]

Just a thought...

If I just try to see a Fighter as a perfectly normal human being, and imagine how many skills and abilities he can develop in a lifetime, there is only so far he can get; while on the other hand a Wizard has "magic" and there is no limit to what powers it can lead to, in my imagination. Hence it is inevitable that with these concepts at some point the Wizard must outshine the Fighter in its ability to be dependendent.

Unless one of the following for example is true:

- there is in fact a fairly low limit on how much powerful magic the Wizard can learn (never been really the case in D&D, since the game would need to get rid of many signature spells that are otherwise essential to many fantasy story or character archetypes)

- magic is dangerous or has a cost, the more you use it the worse for you

- magic is very limited in how many times or circumstances you can use it reliably (again never been the case in practice after enough levels in D&D)

- the Fighter at some point inevitably becomes magical or supernatural (not to everyone's tastes)

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Just a thought...

If I just try to see a Fighter as a perfectly normal human being, and imagine how many skills and abilities he can develop in a lifetime, there is only so far he can get; while on the other hand a Wizard has "magic" and there is no limit to what powers it can lead to, in my imagination. Hence it is inevitable that with these concepts at some point the Wizard must outshine the Fighter in its ability to be dependendent.

Unless one of the following for example is true:

- there is in fact a fairly low limit on how much powerful magic the Wizard can learn (never been really the case in D&D, since the game would need to get rid of many signature spells that are otherwise essential to many fantasy story or character archetypes)

- magic is dangerous or has a cost, the more you use it the worse for you

- magic is very limited in how many times or circumstances you can use it reliably (again never been the case in practice after enough levels in D&D)

- the Fighter at some point inevitably becomes magical or supernatural (not to everyone's tastes)

Makes sense. But I would assume that no normal human being regardless of class should be able to be crushed by a dragon and stand up and be able to fight him. Maybe ordinary humans should have a maximum of 1-3 HD - so that everything remains "realistic" otherwise those HD above 1-3 seem rather unnatural or one could argue supernatural.
Those abstract HD/Hitpoints are kinda abstract. Maybe the human was not really crushed but had some luck i.e. he has HP left after the crush.

The point I want to make is we accept a whole lot of supernatural things in our worlds we play in but the breaking of real world physics by non magical (all other non-natural) means seems to be a taboo the size of a colossal+ dragon.

The wuxia genre provides heroes that surpass the limits of ordinary humans. Sometimes by possessing supernatural powers sometimes it's just ninja (saumurai/etc.) training.

I don't understand why the figher and similar classes have to be more like a medieval european knight/soldier (b/c that is western culture?) instead of being more like a wuxia samurai (b/c that is not our/western but eastern culture?). Or just b/c that the "traditional" D&D way?

2E "Skills and Powers" gave fighters the option to gain SR. 3E "Epic Levels Handbook" had skill uses that defied realword physics. WotC already overstepped that boundry. You can argue that all of that was optional and that is true.
But they handed out "supernatural" options twice why not a third time in an optional module. Or even overstepping real world physics in the core for a bit and a wuxia module on top.


At the end of the day what matters for me is that the fighter can contribute in a meaningful way to a party that has one or more vancian casters and that includes a niche where he can't be outshone by them regardless how retarded powerful magic seems to be. And that should be true for every other class that adventures alongside vancian casters.

If the fighter can pull some wuxia stunts even better - cake with chocolate topping incoming.