Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[ImperatorK]

If you are happy then what are you complaining about?

I'm complaining about just one out of the many elements of the game. I would be more happy if that element wasn't flawed.

 

[TwoSix]

Not every time, or even most times. Sometimes, I suppose.

To be clear, I'm talking about the fact that a druid, cleric, wizard, wizard party will be more successful than a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard party at pretty much everything. Which is the main fault of 3.X.

I assume that in general, my NPCs are just as competent, motivated, and successful at exploiting the mechanics as the PCs. That's what I'm calling neutral.

Which is fine. Not talking about PC vs NPC. I'm talking about a caster party vs a balanced party in a neutral environment. The noncaster's contribution to victory is minimal compared to casters. Obviously, rule 0 can enforce balance with enough explicit countermeasures to neutralize them.

If you want to play E6, play E6. That term arose because people realized that D&D changes as levels go up, and they liked low level play better. Nothing wrong with that.

I think people like E6 because both casters and noncasters can contribute at a more equal level. There's simply a wish for a 3.X game where that feel would continue all the way up to level 20.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I was thinking of doing my own little mini-test adventure. I had some ideas actually. I can't commit to a full campaign, but I can do a dungeon crawl.

Would a little sandbox suffice? Town, dungeon, and a wilderness in between? Something akin to the Village of Hommlet, perhaps?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think people like E6 because both casters and noncasters can contribute at a more equal level. There's simply a wish for a 3.X game where that feel would continue all the way up to level 20.

That's not what's appealing, to me, about E6. I quite like the "grittier" feel of the lower levels of 3.5, and the somewhat less swingy nature (compared to high levels). It's not about class balance, though I do appreciate that aspect of it, as well. I think there are a lot of reasons to like E6, and it's probably best not to pin it down to any one factor.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not what's appealing, to me, about E6. I quite like the "grittier" feel of the lower levels of 3.5, and the somewhat less swingy nature (compared to high levels). It's not about class balance, though I do appreciate that aspect of it, as well. I think there are a lot of reasons to like E6, and it's probably best not to pin it down to any one factor.

A fair point. I appreciate that I can play a fighter in it and not feel bad, but the gritty feel is also appealing. I like how a clan of hill giants is an existential threat to a large region!

 

[Wicht]

Would a little sandbox suffice? Town, dungeon, and a wilderness in between? Something akin to the Village of Hommlet, perhaps?

Well, I am brainstorming even as I cook supper (and then I have a game tonight), but I am thinking of something with a recalcitrant Chamberlain, some investigation, and a dungeon. But I don't want to give too much away. Also trying to think of parameters of character design to make it a fair test.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A fair point. I appreciate that I can play a fighter in it and not feel bad, but the gritty feel is also appealing. I like how a clan of hill giants is an existential threat to a large region!

For sure. I appreciate a lot of stuff about E6, even if I never played it, and probably won't (as I don't play 3.X anymore).

 

[Ahnehnois]

To be clear, I'm talking about the fact that a druid, cleric, wizard, wizard party will be more successful than a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard party at pretty much everything. Which is the main fault of 3.X.

And the falsity of which was basically the original topic of this thread.

Durability and reliability matter. The caster party is pretty limited on both counts.

I think people like E6 because both casters and noncasters can contribute at a more equal level.

That might be a reason. I doubt it's the main reason. I think that the numbers for basic skills and abilities staying more "realistic" and avoiding the bookkeeping are likely more important.

 

[TwoSix]

Durability and reliability matter. The caster party is pretty limited on both counts.

Except they don't, really. So I'm happy to call this an impasse of differences at pretty much axiomatic levels.

 

[Cadence]

Durability and reliability matter. The caster party is pretty limited on both counts.

Wizard + Druid + 2 Clerics vs. 4 Fighters. Doesn't the clerical healing add a lot of durability (especially if they can cast heal)? Even more so if there are multiple combats on the same day?