Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

I'll be updating the thread with the play-post of my group's running of this scene and accompanying analysis (system, technique and why the way it worked out would be different with other systems, techniques, agendas).

Looking forward to it.

 

[pemerton]

None of those really change the magic/non-magic paradigm radically though. Fighters are still commoners that swing really fast and are tough, while wizards are the ones who do stuff that other people can't.

This is true, but one common comment comparing AD&D (post-UA and into 2nd ed) to 3E is that fighters in AD&D were damage machines, especially relative to typical opponent hit points. So even within the paradigm you describe, many of those who experience brokenness find 3E different from AD&D - especially that even in combat the fighter doesn't really shine.

Just looking through TB, I noticed the rule that all PCs get two good save progressions of the player's choice. That in itself is a huge boost to fighters, because it gives them a chance to have decent Will saves. The worsening of fighter saves is one frequently remarked upon feature of the AD&D to 3E transition.

 

[Hussar]

That does explain an awful lot though. I'm arguing from the basis of 3.5 D&D. Not Pathfinder or various variants. I'm also arguing from the standpoint of a baseline game, since, as has been stated many times in this thread, we should be sticking to what the books say. After all, the books say that the DM is the ultimate authority, and that's very important to some people, so, it should be equally important that the game is written for certain baseline assumptions.

It's generally helpful to mention that you are playing a heavily house ruled version of D&D when you start making claims. In baseline 3.5 D&D, an EL +5 or +6 encounter will kill PC's virtually every time. Certainly a heck of a lot more than 50% of the time. So claiming that fighters are more resilient is a bit disingenuous when it only applies to your campaign. Yes, if I allow fighters significantly higher wealth and significantly higher base stats, then they are going to be a bit tougher. Additionally, that EL +5 or +6 encounter isn't really +5 or +6 anymore because you've changed the baselines. It's likely closer to a par encounter where the PC's most likely won't die and will burn through maybe 30% of their resources.

 

[Lanefan]

In Gygaxian dungeon play it is common for the GM to "say no", because the GM is reasoning from secret background to fictional positioning of which the players are unaware. But another feature of Gygaxian dungeon play is that it happens in a dungeon, and the players are therefore able to take steps to uncover that secret background, and hence to change their PCs' fictional positioning.

Whether in a dungeon, a town, or a palace there's going to be times when things just don't work the way the PCs might be expecting them to. This is good, in that it reflects real life where things sometimes don't go as expected for no obvious reason.

Once we move the same sort of play into the king's palace, however, the dynamic is very different. If a PC tries to detec magic and fails, his/her player can't just choose to have the PC start ripping apart walls, furnishings etc. In other words the players' freedom to acquire the secret backstory that will then allow them to take steps to improve their PCs' fictional positioning relative to their goals is much less.

Not necessarily; the steps that need be taken are just different. Instead of ripping down walls the PCs need to - dare I say it - use some diplomacy (or chamr spells, whatever) with the servants, or listen for rumours and tales, or simply hide (if possible) and watch which picture the chamberlain hides the money behind.

Secret backstory in dungeon play is a type of default D&D playstyle. White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, any number of old White Dwarf scenarios, and (as best I know it) a more recent homage like Labyrinth of Madness, are all meant to be played in this style.

But secret backstory in social, urban or intrigue play in my view has never been a default playstyle for D&D. It has always been contentious, precisely because in those different fictional settings it is so hard for the players to access the secret backstory other than by having clues parcled out by the GM, who - in playing the "natural responses" of the good and the great to having their homes burgled, their minds controlled, etc - is also playing the major role in determining from moment to moment how feasible it is for the players, via their PCs, to obtain the backstory they need. (I also think that the dynamics of this sort of play, with the GM being in control both of backstory reveals and of making moment-to-moment decisions about how hard it is to extract that backstory, in some cases contribute to the reasonably well-known phenomenon of the players relating to the setting and its inhabitants essentially in the mode of sociopaths or psychopaths rather than actually embracing and caring about them.)

What about secret backstory at a much higher level, to the point where the players/PCs don't even know there *is* a hidden backstory until ten adventures into the campaign (despite occasional breadcrumb clues along the way)? That's what I'm doing in my current game - the results have always been plain to see (hiding in plain sight) but the root causes are completely unknown. I'd give more detail but I've got players who sometimes read these boards...

And again, mystery. As a player I want and expect there to be things I don't know - I'll either eventually get the information or I won't - as that's just part of life. As a DM my stories are (usually) built around things people at least in some part don't know - an example: earlier in my current campaign I ran a series of 5 adventures - in the first one the party finds the long-dead bride of Ares and learns they have to track down several items to build some sort of Torch; those represent the next 3 adventures. Not until the 5th adventure with the PCs already on site and way back in time do the players/PCs realize their real mission is to use this Torch they've built to kill the bride whose corpse they found! <full write-up is here as most of part 2 of the adventure logs, if anyone's interested>

Lan-"in the future and present and past, long past - Ares is burned by the Fires of Decast"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Not necessarily; the steps that need be taken are just different. Instead of ripping down walls the PCs need to - dare I say it - use some diplomacy (or chamr spells, whatever) with the servants, or listen for rumours and tales, or simply hide (if possible) and watch which picture the chamberlain hides the money behind.

That's all good stuff, but - unlike the dungeon, which is essentially passive and doesn't itself get angry when it is torn apart, and only generates constraints in terms of wandering monster rolls - some method is going to be needed to adjudicate how these things work and what their prospects of success are. If it is unconstrained GM fiat with no constraints from system then I think it can easily turn into a very GM-driven campaign, as per some of the discussion around the chamberlain example.

What about secret backstory at a much higher level, to the point where the players/PCs don't even know there *is* a hidden backstory until ten adventures into the campaign

I don't have anything against secret backstory. My concern is with secret backstory that the GM is then using to ajdudicate the players' efforts in ways that significantly affect the likely success or failure of those efforts via changing fictional positioning in unknown ways. The limiting case of this is what one might call "Kafka-esque" RPGing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is true, but one common comment comparing AD&D (post-UA and into 2nd ed) to 3E is that fighters in AD&D were damage machines, especially relative to typical opponent hit points. So even within the paradigm you describe, many of those who experience brokenness find 3E different from AD&D - especially that even in combat the fighter doesn't really shine.

Well, 3e does have power attack and weapons with improved critical hit properties. My experience has been that doing damage is quite feasible. If you want to sell me on the notion that the high-level 3e fighter becomes unimpressive, I won't argue terribly with that. Unfortunately, this is why prestige classes became de rigeur.

Just looking through TB, I noticed the rule that all PCs get two good save progressions of the player's choice. That in itself is a huge boost to fighters, because it gives them a chance to have decent Will saves. The worsening of fighter saves is one frequently remarked upon feature of the AD&D to 3E transition.

True. In practice, I find that most groups will naturally give the best save items and ability boosters to their tank, which somewhat counteracts that. But it is a flaw in the system that there's no medium save, and there's every reason to think that the save math should be revised so that the nonmagical characters get a bit better.

That does explain an awful lot though. I'm arguing from the basis of 3.5 D&D. Not Pathfinder or various variants. I'm also arguing from the standpoint of a baseline game, since, as has been stated many times in this thread, we should be sticking to what the books say. After all, the books say that the DM is the ultimate authority, and that's very important to some people, so, it should be equally important that the game is written for certain baseline assumptions.

It's generally helpful to mention that you are playing a heavily house ruled version of D&D when you start making claims. In baseline 3.5 D&D, an EL +5 or +6 encounter will kill PC's virtually every time. Certainly a heck of a lot more than 50% of the time. So claiming that fighters are more resilient is a bit disingenuous when it only applies to your campaign. Yes, if I allow fighters significantly higher wealth and significantly higher base stats, then they are going to be a bit tougher. Additionally, that EL +5 or +6 encounter isn't really +5 or +6 anymore because you've changed the baselines. It's likely closer to a par encounter where the PC's most likely won't die and will burn through maybe 30% of their resources.

Well yes, but by and large we are talking about "the" game rather than "my" game. And in any case, I've played starting with a very literal interpretation of the 3.0 core rules under quite a few DMs, and there are plenty of examples of how spellcasters were never even close to being dominant going that far back. For example, a rogue I played was much more effective than the wizard backing him up, and that was another DM with none of the houserules I'm talking about.

There is a certain conflict here as well; it's helpful to talk about what's in the books and is thus standardized for everyone, but it's also important to remember that the whole philosophy behind 3e, the standardized, modular mechanics and the open source licensing, was to create a highly customizable game. The game on paper is not what most of us play, especially not this many years after its release. Nor was that ever intended to be the case.

Nor do I want to be put in the corner of suggesting that the game as written is perfect. It certainly isn't. I just don't look at the magic/nonmagic distinction as one of its flaws. Do I think it's bad that fighters have poor will saves and dead levels? Yes. Do I think it's unfortunate that the system relies so heavily on tank characters becoming magic item Christmas trees? Yes. Do I think trying to create some kind of equivalence between fighters and mages is a good idea? No.

 

[Wicht]

Blind teleportation is not high on my list of winning strategies. Besides, I am merely establishing a point, that you can use low level spells to "power" high level spells.

But that's not really what you did. First of all you used two lower level spells to bargain for someone else to cast a spell on themselves and take you along for the ride. Second of all, the effects you are going to benefit from through this bargaining are much more limited than the effects would be if you had been able to cast the spell on just yourself. Thirdly, if you think it advisable for a level 9 wizard to use up his most powerful spells and then abandon his group, more power to you.

I would hardly call a CR 5 Nightmare a deadly threat to a level 9 wizard. The disparity in power levels is quite severe.

There is nothing to stop the Nightmare from visiting the wizard in the night, after the wizard has used up his spells, and stomping on his face while he is asleep but the kindness and goodness of the DM.

Whether this is a prudent use of resources depends, I suppose, on what is in the vault.

I think I suggested it might have been a CR 10 monster. And probably treasure, but definitely a monster.

 

[Wicht]

I remember that being said by a few people too. My memory tells me that Wicht was one of them, but perhaps I'm misremembering.

What I said, and continue to say, is that it is worthwhile, when encountering a problem with mechanics, and other people are not, is to examine the possibility that you are doing something unintended. Just because you can break a thing does not mean it is broken. This does not necessarily speak to incompetence, and I never called anyone incompetent. I said there was the possibility that people might be doing some things wrong. This is not the same as accusing someone of incompetence.

What you are remembering is the assertions you made about what I was saying; assertions I denied then and which I am continuing to deny yet.

In Gygaxian dungeon play it is common for the GM to "say no", because the GM is reasoning from secret background to fictional positioning of which the players are unaware. But another feature of Gygaxian dungeon play is that it happens in a dungeon, and the players are therefore able to take steps to uncover that secret background, and hence to change their PCs' fictional positioning.
[snip]
Secret backstory in dungeon play is a type of default D&D playstyle. White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, any number of old White Dwarf scenarios, and (as best I know it) a more recent homage like Labyrinth of Madness, are all meant to be played in this style.

I am not sure why you would assume I (or others) are not still using this sort of technique both in and out of the dungeon, especially if we as older (older than some anyway) players cut our teeth on Gygax's dungeon. The DM saying "No," even out of a dungeon does not mean that the players cannot find a solution to their difficulties.

But secret backstory in social, urban or intrigue play in my view has never been a default playstyle for D&D. It has always been contentious, precisely because in those different fictional settings it is so hard for the players to access the secret backstory other than by having clues parcled out by the GM, who - in playing the "natural responses" of the good and the great to having their homes burgled, their minds controlled, etc - is also playing the major role in determining from moment to moment how feasible it is for the players, via their PCs, to obtain the backstory they need. (I also think that the dynamics of this sort of play, with the GM being in control both of backstory reveals and of making moment-to-moment decisions about how hard it is to extract that backstory, in some cases contribute to the reasonably well-known phenomenon of the players relating to the setting and its inhabitants essentially in the mode of sociopaths or psychopaths rather than actually embracing and caring about them.)

The highlighted section is I think key. I also think you are quite wrong in your assumption. Dungeons are easier for DMs to manage, and therefore are a great start for beginners. But the same techniques one learns in managing PC information in a dungeon works just as well for the most part out of the dungeon and a good DM is going to learn how to manage information out of the dungeon. I've played for years with secret backstory in and out of the dungeon and the popularity of Paizo's APs makes me think I am hardly alone. And it works quite well. I don't have problems with psychopathic PCs.

For the sort of game I enjoy, a GM who sets an impossibly high DC for the chamberlain on the basis of secret backstory, or who for reasons of fictional positioning derived from that secret backstory simply has the chamberlain walk away or say no, is not doing his/her job.

Well that's you isn't it. In the sort of game I enjoy, DMs can do that if they think it prudent or correct.

The 4e designers were clearly aware of this issue, or stuff in the neighbourhood, because when they wrote in their secret backstory that the duke can't be Intimidated, they also wrote in (i) that there is a clear mechanical way for the players to learn this (via Insight) and (ii) that this won't in itself end the players' propects of success, as up to 5 failures are permitted, and an Intimidate check won't contribute more than one of them.

I prefer more mystery in my games. YMMV

 

[Wicht]

Of course, it may also be something that occurs at the character optimization level. Typically I'm the one trying the fancy spells, your summonings, your enchantments, your polymorphs. I run a lot of high level caster BBEGs. Whereas the players tend to be more straightforward. A lot of martial types, mixed martial/casters. A lot of direct attack and buff spells. Not a lot of gimmicks. Maybe if I just stopped playing the weaker classes...

For what its worth, I tend to see something similar, though maybe not so extreme. Part of this has to do with having five PCs instead of four. In our current campaign we also have two primary buffers, two high damage fighters, and an evocation wizard. Monsters of even parity or +1 CR last about 2 rounds, 3 tops. A poor sea hag in our last session began to monologue before attacking and did not last through the end of the first round (true, she was hit by 2 critical hits in the surprise round, but still).

I don't know that I would throw a +CR 4 encounter at them at the end of the day, but I have no qualms about +2-3 CR.

 

[Wicht]

If it is unconstrained GM fiat with no constraints from system then I think it can easily turn into a very GM-driven campaign, as per some of the discussion around the chamberlain example.

Well it could, but it doesn't have to.

I do get the feeling that some of us here have had very bad experiences with DMs and that is coloring this debate.