Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

What if they're villages and towns of the evil enemy country?

Then as Dandu says, they are heroes, so why would you stop them?

 

[Wicht]

Then as Dandu says, they are heroes, so why would you stop them?

Earthquake is also pretty destructive, but its intentionally so, so I am not sure what the concern is?

 

[Dandu]

Perhaps the fact that their druid just decimated a city, killing indiscriminately; young and old, men and women, guilty and innocent?

 

[Wicht]

Perhaps the fact that their druid just decimated a city, killing indiscriminately; young and old, men and women, guilty and innocent?

Depends on context? Are we talking about war, or whimsy?

 

[TwoSix]

Then as Dandu says, they are heroes, so why would you stop them?

I don't know. I thught Ahnehnois, at least, was concerned about the integrity of his campaign world, and providing challenges to the players. I guess I'd find it annoying if I set up an enemy camp for the players and then they blew it down with one spell from a quarter-mile away.

But again, I don't know. Your high level games might not have situations where things like towns or cities matter.

 

[Wicht]

I don't know. I thught Ahnehnois, at least, was concerned about the integrity of his campaign world, and providing challenges to the players. I guess I'd find it annoying if I set up an enemy camp for the players and then they blew it down with one spell from a quarter-mile away.

But again, I don't know. Your high level games might not have situations where things like towns or cities matter.

Well of course they matter. And wanton destruction of that magnitude is going to have consequences, one way or another. But what is the context of the action?

Is the problem that high level characters, characters that are among the mightiest wizards, priests, and warriors of their age can do rather larger scale things? If it is, then play E6, or some other system geared for low level ideals. Obviously, most mighty wizards are not blowing up towns in the average campaign world in much the same manner that Presidents tend not to nuke other countries just because they could.

 

[TwoSix]

Well of course they matter. And wanton destruction of that magnitude is going to have consequences, one way or another. But what is the context of the action?

Is the problem that high level characters, characters that are among the mightiest wizards, priests, and warriors of their age can do rather larger scale things? If it is, then play E6, or some other system geared for low level ideals. Obviously, most mighty wizards are not blowing up towns in the average campaign world in much the same manner that Presidents tend not to nuke other countries just because they could.

The context is that, as a mid-high level caster, I can wage war on entire countries any day I get bored. The warriors cannot. So in a mid-high level game, why would I want to play a warrior? I can be a caster and play the whole game, or be a warrior and just play a part of it.

 

[Manbearcat]

From traveling to multiple king's foyers, to dungeons, to raging sandstorms, this guy is pretty much Carmen Sandiego.

The King's chamberlain doesn't always single-handedly stem the tide of high level, eager, king-audience seeking adventurers...but when he does...

YOU...SHALL NOT...PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASS!

 

[TwoSix]

The King's chamberlain doesn't always single-handedly stem the tide of high level, eager, king-audience seeking adventurers...but when he does...

YOU...SHALL NOT...PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASS!

Good to have you back, Chamberlain the White.

 

[Wicht]

The context is that, as a mid-high level caster, I can wage war on entire countries any day I get bored. The warriors cannot. So in a mid-high level game, why would I want to play a warrior? I can be a caster and play the whole game, or be a warrior and just play a part of it.

Why can't the warrior wage war? At 10th level or so, a fighter is going to be able to kill whole towns singlehandedly.

And if you are playing a caster, you are not playing a warrior, so you are missing that part of the game. There is a certain satisfaction in playing a fighter. Its in my top two classes, next to rogues, for personal satisfaction.

But we are back to the original arguments, which I thought the thread had moved past, but sure the caster can kill a lot of people. The warrior can kill a lot of people. One does so with magic, one takes a little longer and does it more personally, but the end effect is the same. And, once the caster has wiped out his town, he has to go for a lie down, but the warrior can move on to the next town thanks to his ring of sustenance.

Seems like a rather strange sort of contest to be having. Though it does remind me of one of the setups I put in Coliseum Morpheuon where the high level PCs were up against the Tarrasque, not to see if they could beat the monster, but whether they or it were better at wiping out an enemy army.

Also, the warriors technique is going to be a lot better for taking prisoners, or securing a necessary site. The "bombing" option is a bit indiscriminate.