Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Hussar]

Different games might fare better with different approaches like that. In terms of 3.5, I've noticed there are definitely some standard magic items that are heavily implied to be assumed and thus become "regular" gear, but there are also a few more circumstantial items that fit the bill for something so nicely that I can definitely see giving them out as rewards if not for "skilled play" then for going on a quest or otherwise putting a lot of effort and resources towards getting.


On the topic of some player-driven stuff versus a DM's "preconceived notions," I was once in a group playing a cleric with the Air domain. The party was captured and basically turned into gladiators and crap. During one of the matches there was magical fog in the arena. Naturally, I had my cleric use Control Winds to move the fog off. The DM got this look on his face that plainly said he not only hadn't foreseen this, but he was pissed off and didn't like how I had "ruined" the encounter. Even when I pointed out that, according to the rules on various fog spells, a strong or severe wind would disperse the fog in one round and since the Control Winds spell lasted for 10 minutes per level and didn't need me concentrating on it unless I wanted to change it, the fog should disperse and wouldn't be coming back for a while the DM was like "No, the fog comes back immediately."

That's what I'd call a preconceived notion. I suspect [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would have at least been irate at that point (if not before since us getting captured was indeed BS) and probably even walked off by then. Luckily I didn't have to bother with that table for much longer because they stopped inviting me. At the time I was a bit dismayed, but now I realize the DM was full of himself and I dislike being around people with that kind of outlook.

Yeah, I'd finish out the session. But, yeah, that would likely be my last one. DM's that can't handle it when the player actually takes the time to read the rules shouldn't be DMing IMO.

To me, "No, the fog comes back immediately" is identical to, "The chamberlain puts his fingers in his ears", "The woman won't talk to you despite the fact that you look like the lovechild of Robert Redford and Sean Connery and have the voice of Barry White", "Everyone in the world knows exactly what a Rope Trick is and how to look for one, and, if they don't find it, have perfectly executed evacuation plans that completely clear out the habitation in under three hours, leaving behind nothing of value and no clue as to where they went." and on and on and on.

 

[Hussar]

Now I can see someone saying that such a philosophy only makes the spellcasters more central to game play, but its not so. Rather it assumes that spellcasters are one facet of what a group has access to and thus incorporates it. Likewise good adventure writing should include tracking opportunities, locks to pick, foes that are better fought with a sword than a spell (certain constructs for instance), undead for the clerics to have fun with, diplomacy opportunities, plenty of knowledge checks (including engineering, local, and nobility), swimming opportunities, climbing opportunities, and the like. That is a good adventure design includes a wide variety of challenges and if done right, then it is true that the casters might use spells to overcome some of them, but it is doubtful any wizard or cleric will have spells suitable to overcome all of them at the same time. And when the spellcaster does not have the right spell, the fighters and rogues are always going to be there to pick up the pieces.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page137#ixzz2iMb9CYWH

And therein lies the problem. For the non-casters, anything that needs spells is a wall that cannot be bypassed. You need to operate under water, or fly, and you don't have a caster? Too bad. You're done. For the casters though, no problem can't be bypassed. All the casters need is time. Locked door? Don't have Knock? Wait a day and now I do. Constructs? Summonings and various buffs are easier than fighters. I mean, it was mentioned in this thread about lantern archons. Love them to pieces. Touch attacks, perfect flight and bypasses all damage reduction. Summon d4+1 of them and stand back. Because, by this time, I'm improved invisible for more than enough time, and casting summoning doesn't break invisibility.

On and on and on. There's nothing that a non-caster can do that a caster can't. The non-caster might be able to do it faster, maybe, but, there's nothing else there. But there are a million things a caster can do that a non-caster can't.

At least, when the DM actually plays fair with casters and non-casters and doesn't endlessly stack the deck.

 

[N'raac]

Then why are you bringing it up in a character balance thread? The whole point of this discussion is character balance. If you're not interested in character balance, don't care about it and rarely see it, then how in the heck is this a solution for anyone who actually does see this problem?

I'd suggest it has been a long time since this thread was truly focused on character balance. However, the current discussion seems to trace back largely to several posters who suggested that claims of character imbalance were overstated, if there was an imbalance at all. This lead to the current discussion of playstyles, due to the belief that some playstyles are more susceptible to character imbalance and/or less able to apply the mitigating mechanisms applied in other playstyles.

I find it interesting that many of the questions aimed at Indie playstyle are dismissed on the basis that Indie players are focused on the shared narrative, do not seek to push their characters' abilities beyond their position in the fiction and are playing with a common vision as to thematic relevance. The assumption seems to be that players of other styles are focused only on the power of their own characters, and will happily trample over the game itself to achieve this. In other words, all Indie players are assumed to be mature individuals focused on making the game fun for everyone, while players of every other style are presumed to be out to spoil the game for everyone else. The former type of players should not present serious balance problems in any game - they will always focus on the shared experience, so any changes needed to rebalance the game will be cheerfully accepted. The latter will be a problem in any game - they play the L1 characters who want to leverage rescuing the Princess' cat from a tree outside the palace into being declared Crown Prince, because "I gots me a +17 Diplomacy Roll - say yes or roll the dice!"

 

[N'raac]

And therein lies the problem. For the non-casters, anything that needs spells is a wall that cannot be bypassed. You need to operate under water, or fly, and you don't have a caster? Too bad. You're done. For the casters though, no problem can't be bypassed. All the casters need is time. Locked door? Don't have Knock? Wait a day and now I do. Constructs? Summonings and various buffs are easier than fighters. I mean, it was mentioned in this thread about lantern archons. Love them to pieces. Touch attacks, perfect flight and bypasses all damage reduction. Summon d4+1 of them and stand back. Because, by this time, I'm improved invisible for more than enough time, and casting summoning doesn't break invisibility.

Are you invisible or Greater Invisible (the former Improved Invisible)? The latter isn't broken by attacks anyway but has a much shorter duration. Lantern Archons are the 4th level spell, so you need a 6th level spell to summon 2-5 of them. How many L6 spells are you packing? As I have said repeatedly, I don't expect to run a game where you have a single encounter and can then flee to rest. Do they avoid DR? Sure - and they have a +2 to hit, albeit against touch AC, for a whole d6 per hit. And they have 1-8 hp each, AC 15 and 10 DR. How many valid opponents for 11th level characters (the soonest they are casting 6th level spells) can't do 15+ points a hit and reliably connect with AC 15? Not many, IME. Are there occasional foes that those Archons can clean up on? Sure - and there's an opportunity for the caster to be the "cool character". But an array of different challenges will provide lots of opponents for whom the Archons are a momentary distraction.

What ever will a L11 Fighter do? How about pulling out that magical bow and firing arrows unaffected by that DR at the Archons who must be within 30' to be able to attack? Now, if that fighter has chose to invest every copper into melee combat, yeah, he has a problem. But that's like being a Wizard who only chooses spells from one school. He's chosen to be an overspecialized one trick pony and it came back to bite him - why is that a surprise?

This is without the possibility that our Fighter friend can hear you and zone in while you Incant for a full round. You're invisible, not undetectable.

On and on and on. There's nothing that a non-caster can do that a caster can't. The non-caster might be able to do it faster, maybe, but, there's nothing else there. But there are a million things a caster can do that a non-caster can't.

Getting past that locked door tomorrow isn't much help when enemies are bearing down on you now, is it? "Faster" can be quite important, unless we simply allow for the world to go into stasis when the caster wants to rest.

At least, when the DM actually plays fair with casters and non-casters and doesn't endlessly stack the deck.

If, by stacking the deck, we mean "actually reading the spells" and "not stacking the deck in favour of the caster", I suppose.

 

[TwoSix]

I find it interesting that many of the questions aimed at Indie playstyle are dismissed on the basis that Indie players are focused on the shared narrative, do not seek to push their characters' abilities beyond their position in the fiction and are playing with a common vision as to thematic relevance. The assumption seems to be that players of other styles are focused only on the power of their own characters, and will happily trample over the game itself to achieve this. In other words, all Indie players are assumed to be mature individuals focused on making the game fun for everyone, while players of every other style are presumed to be out to spoil the game for everyone else. The former type of players should not present serious balance problems in any game - they will always focus on the shared experience, so any changes needed to rebalance the game will be cheerfully accepted. The latter will be a problem in any game - they play the L1 characters who want to leverage rescuing the Princess' cat from a tree outside the palace into being declared Crown Prince, because "I gots me a +17 Diplomacy Roll - say yes or roll the dice!"

As has been said before, pursuit of narrative consistency and thematic feel does not preclude a player from also pursuing strong mechanical effectiveness. (And in many indie games, these are often reinforcing!) That's why 3e is terrible for narrative play; the power ceiling is much too high. Notice how the more popular indie games put strong mechanical limits on how powerful any freeform effects can be. I'm perfectly capable of making a strong mechanical character who then respects the narrative play. But that doesn't mean my Ultimate Magus doesn't chafe at having to haul along a Knight and a Rogue, while thinking "If you had just made a Cleric, you could be Wind Walking us instead of me having to waste money on a Runestaff with Teleport."

 

[pemerton]

While it is true that the players choose the goals for the session, the DM, in Gygax's mind, has already offered goals for the adventure. The sessions are merely building blocks in which the players attempt to fulfill the greater goals developed by the DM in backstory.

Out of curiosity, where is this stated in Gygax's PHB or DMG. I agree that ideas along these lines are present in Moldvay Basic, but I don't recall reading them in the AD&D books.

At the same time, there tends to be a cover story of character background and motivation and clues or developments germane to character growth or story advancement is interspersed among the other things.

<snip>

There has been a movement in recent years, and I mostly approve of it, to focus just a little more on plot and a little less on exploration in published adventures (a move which actually started under Gygax's supervision with other classic modules), but this does not necessarily denote a move away from Gygaxian play for some of us, just a reframing of priorities in print publications. I still present an overarching plot to my players

The notion of "greater goals developed by the DM in backstory", of "clues for developments germane to . . . story advancement" and of "overarching plot" are all instances of which I mean by "the GM having a preconceived notion of how events will unfold in play".

When I say that "indie" play does not involve such preconceived notions, what I mean is that the DM does not have a backstory with greater goals - to the extent that their are greater goals, they emerge out of play and are driven by the players; the DM does not provide clues fo story advancement - to the extent that the story advances, it is driven by the players providing "clues" (rather, cues) to the GM; and there is no overarching plot that is already envisaged in anyone's mind. The plot emerges out of play.

Rather than plot, the GM's role is to provide conflict from moment to moment of play.

Here is the best short description of the "indie" style that I know:

1. One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications.
   
   
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants.
   
   
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
   
   
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. . . The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).

It is the GM's job to provoke choices by framing the PCs into conflicts; but it is the players' job to build their PCs with hooks into conflict for the GM to pick up on; and the consequences of conflict, which create new material for new choices, are worked out in actual play. The GM has a job of managing backstory, but note that it is not part of the GM's role to have a conception of plot, or where the game might go. Only to have a conception of what will make for dramatic choices.

 

[pemerton]

I find it interesting that many of the questions aimed at Indie playstyle are dismissed on the basis that Indie players are focused on the shared narrative, do not seek to push their characters' abilities beyond their position in the fiction and are playing with a common vision as to thematic relevance. The assumption seems to be that players of other styles are focused only on the power of their own characters, and will happily trample over the game itself to achieve this. In other words, all Indie players are assumed to be mature individuals focused on making the game fun for everyone, while players of every other style are presumed to be out to spoil the game for everyone else.

There seem to me to be at least two misunderstandings in this paragraph.

First, only you and Ahnehnois - both of whom seem to have little familiarity with indie play - characterise it as involving "shared narrative". I have not used that phrase, and I don't believe that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6678119]Jackinthegreen[/MENTION] has either.

Second, as TwoSix's most recent post shows, it is the "indie" players who are pointing out that certain rulesets cause balance issues because when pushed hard by the players they break down. It is you - the non-indie player - who is saying that player forbearance can contribute to play balance. Which may well be true for you, but in my view is not true in indie style (for the reasons that TwoSix gives).

 

[Hussar]

What solution?

Oh, that solution. Well, that's kind of built in to the game, seeing as how you're implicitly supposed to start at level 1. High-level play certainly has its problems. I wouldn't place class balance at the top of that list, but there are definitely problems, foremost the sheer bookkeeping and resource management.

But yes, there's a good reason why E6 exists.

You understand what a referee is, right?

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of having a rules system and a social contract associated with it is to provide a basis for saying no to things. It's an imaginary world. Anything is possible, unless someone or some rule says it isn't. And sometimes there are good reasons to say it isn't.

Whereas, for me, the purpose of a rules system and a social contract associated with it is to facilitate resolving any action which the DM or players initiates in the game world. Sometimes, sure, that resolution will be "that's not possible". Fair enough. But, more often than not, it's, "Well, let's see what happens shall we?"

Which is not how you are presenting your game. You have already decided what will happen. The Chamberlain will not let you pass. That random woman in the bar will not talk to you. The lizard man will always have someone come looking for him when he disappears for a couple of hours. etc. etc.

To me, the only reason we have mechanics is to determine what happens when the outcome is in question. And, by "in question" I mean by anyone at the table, not just the DM. That woman in the bar might not be terribly friendly, sure, and if some average Joe with no ranks in diplomacy walks up, most likely he'll be rebuffed. But, my character is analogous to James Bond. How often does Bond get flat out turned down? True, I'm sure it's happened, but, by and large, a player playing James Bond should reasonably expect success when trying to pick up a woman in a bar.

But, because you see the mechanics as the primary force for a DM to simply refuse player actions, I can see quite clearly why you would reject indie style games and playstyle. It simply wouldn't work for you.

 

[Hussar]

Are you invisible or Greater Invisible (the former Improved Invisible)? The latter isn't broken by attacks anyway but has a much shorter duration. Lantern Archons are the 4th level spell, so you need a 6th level spell to summon 2-5 of them. How many L6 spells are you packing? As I have said repeatedly, I don't expect to run a game where you have a single encounter and can then flee to rest. Do they avoid DR? Sure - and they have a +2 to hit, albeit against touch AC, for a whole d6 per hit. And they have 1-8 hp each, AC 15 and 10 DR. How many valid opponents for 11th level characters (the soonest they are casting 6th level spells) can't do 15+ points a hit and reliably connect with AC 15? Not many, IME. Are there occasional foes that those Archons can clean up on? Sure - and there's an opportunity for the caster to be the "cool character". But an array of different challenges will provide lots of opponents for whom the Archons are a momentary distraction.

Note, the archons were in response to the "constructs" comment from Wicht. Most of which cannot fly, and many of which lack a ranged attack. And, invisibility is not broken by summoning spells.

What ever will a L11 Fighter do? How about pulling out that magical bow and firing arrows unaffected by that DR at the Archons who must be within 30' to be able to attack? Now, if that fighter has chose to invest every copper into melee combat, yeah, he has a problem. But that's like being a Wizard who only chooses spells from one school. He's chosen to be an overspecialized one trick pony and it came back to bite him - why is that a surprise?

Again, this is a non-sequitor. Why is the wizard summoning against the fighter? Heck, even a simple 1st level Charm Person has about a 50/50 chance of ending the fight, never minding the endless array of other choices. In 3e, by 11th level, the fighter has very, very little chance of winning against a wizard.

This is without the possibility that our Fighter friend can hear you and zone in while you Incant for a full round. You're invisible, not undetectable.

And there it is. Now wizards must shout at the top of their lungs in order to cast spells. Hrm, hearing in battle is a -10 to Listen checks. There's no reason that I can't whisper, which is DC 15, so DC 25 to listen. Oh, and I'm 50 feet away, so, that makes the DC 30 (note, I can be further away than that if I wanted to be). Listen is not a class skill for a fighter, which means that his Max Rank is 8 and it's unlikely the fighter has more than a +2 for Wis. IOW, he's got a 1 in 20 chance of hearing the wizard. Even with normal speaking, that still means a 50/50 chance of hearing, still forcing a 50% miss chance.

But, yup, let's interpret the rules in the most punishing way possible for casters.

Getting past that locked door tomorrow isn't much help when enemies are bearing down on you now, is it? "Faster" can be quite important, unless we simply allow for the world to go into stasis when the caster wants to rest.

Yeah, because 8 hours always makes a huge difference. :/ Unless we're running Fantasy 24, waiting 8 hours almost never makes a difference.

If, by stacking the deck, we mean "actually reading the spells" and "not stacking the deck in favour of the caster", I suppose.

So, where is it written that putting a bag of holding in a Rope Trick destroys magic items? Hazardous could simply be a d4 damage. Random effects. Various other things could happen. But, no, "actually reading the spells" means that magic items get destroyed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, the only reason we have mechanics is to determine what happens when the outcome is in question. And, by "in question" I mean by anyone at the table, not just the DM.

Definitely not what I'm looking for. If the player has a question about the outcome, he asks the "final arbiter" (aka DM). When players start trying to put their own interpretations of rules into things, I call that rules lawyering, and it gets ugly quickly.

But, because you see the mechanics as the primary force for a DM to simply refuse player actions, I can see quite clearly why you would reject indie style games and playstyle. It simply wouldn't work for you.

Nope.

Which is not how you are presenting your game. You have already decided what will happen. The Chamberlain will not let you pass. That random woman in the bar will not talk to you. The lizard man will always have someone come looking for him when he disappears for a couple of hours. etc. etc.

No, that's not it. What I'm presenting is that the DM decides what will happen. Sometimes, a player will say he wants to do something, and the DM will say to himself "Hey, that sounds like a good idea that I hadn't thought of", and improvise an NPC or other elements in response to the player's intent. Sometimes, he'll say "Hey, that would really screw up my game" and flatly decline. Most often, he won't be so decisive, and those are the cases when he will defer to the dice, and roll something to see what happens.

What's important is that it's his choice, and it's his choice what to tell the players. In many cases, it's important that they not know the reason things happen or don't happen, to prevent them from acquiring metagame knowledge.