Irony on fighters vs. spellcasters

[pemerton]

When am I going to be allowed to grant [MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION] some XP again?

Covered, though somewhat belatedly!

 

[delericho]

One thing in history was that the Fighter USED to be seen as overpowered, as well as somewhat also the Ranger as far as Multiclassing went. Many builds that people did required a Dip in Fighter or a dip in Ranger. It was almost like a plague with how many called for it. Unless one went Pure Spellcaster many saw them as broken for multiclassing.

So it's ironic how times change. People vote more for a straight spellcaster, or comment on the power of spellcasters now for the dip and rate Fighters as something not to touch. I just find it irony on how times change...or maybe it's more those who are doing the CharOps and arguing the builds (it many times doesn't seem to be the most effective ones...but the loudest ones getting their points).

A lot of it is that people have become better at CharOp, to the extent that they've found that some spellcasting builds can outdo Fighters at their own game at first level.

Another part of it is that the expansions for the game have radically expanded the options available, and the spellcasters have benefitted from this much more than the Fighters. Where the Fighter got a vast increase in the number of feats that were out there, these tended to be as powerful as the ones from the PHB, and since the character could only ever take a few it represented a fairly minor increase in power. Conversely, the spellcasters quickly gained access to a whole new action type - the Swift action - which effectively doubled the number of spells he could cast in a round. Additionally, for just about every restriction or hindrance they had, there was a spell or spell combination that got around it. And then, once they'd bounced up against the Vancian limit of the number of spells per day it was pointed out that magic items (especially scrolls) provided an easy way around that, too.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Conversely, the spellcasters quickly gained access to a whole new action type - the Swift action - which effectively doubled the number of spells he could cast in a round.

The swift action is not explicitly magical, and there were some non-magical applications were released.

However, it is true that the action economy was not leveraged effectively for nonmagical characters, where they should have more of an advantage than they do. Trailblazer's new action type, the combat reaction, addresses this reasonably well.

 

[delericho]

The swift action is not explicitly magical, and there were some non-magical applications were released.

However, it is true that the action economy was not leveraged effectively for nonmagical characters

True, on both counts - Swift actions weren't exclusively for spellcasters, but they did get by far the lion's share of them.

Trailblazer's new action type, the combat reaction, addresses this reasonably well.

Trailblazer has a lot of great ideas. And, actually, so does 4e. There are quite a few ways to vastly improve 3e. Only thing is that you're then pretty deep into house rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Trailblazer has a lot of great ideas. And, actually, so does 4e. There are quite a few ways to vastly improve 3e. Only thing is that you're then pretty deep into house rules.

Core 3e definitely has its problems, and could use a comprehensive revision, rather than the patchwork third-party efforts (like TB, FantasyCraft, PF for that matter).

 

[Neonchameleon]

That isn't how I remember 2002-2004 era Char-op on the WotC char-op boards (which is when I was active). It was well known that the most powerful thing you could have was 9th level spells - and nothing was worth a drop in caster level. On the other hand, contrary to reputation, CharOp wasn't just about the most power you could produce (Barbarian 1/Bard 4/Ur-Priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 10 with a caster level IIRC somewhere in the 40s in the days before before Pun-Pun).

The challenge was more normally to hit certain benchmarks (BAB 16, 9th level spells, various others). And Fighter 1 (or occasionally Fighter 2) gives all martial weapons, all armour, and a feat. An extremely flexible package for qualifying for one of dozens of useful prestige classes. Also the advice on fighter isn't IMO as you remember it. It was "Fighter 1 is often useful and very flexible. Fighter 2 is sometimes useful. Under no circumstances ever take Fighter 3. It is useless, pointless and something that you simply should not do because it is so weak".

3.0 ranger, likewise. The advice was "If you want to play a two weapon fighter of some sort, a single level of ranger is an extremely good bargain. Do not under any circumstances take a second level in ranger or you will get laughed at. But a single level in ranger is worthwhile for a two weapon combatant".

And I don't know about you - but to me the advice "Take the first level in this class if you want to do this but under no circumstance take the second level in the class" doesn't say to me that the class is overpowered. It says that the class is front-loaded.
[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] also has a point - that CharOp standard have improved and casters have become more flexible. But at least in 2002 the fighter and the ranger were not seen as strong classes, merely classes that could be of use putting builds together if and only if you took one level in them (possibly two for the fighter but never more).

 

[TerraDave]

If my google-fu was strong I probably could dig up some old threads to confirm this...

But there was certainly a time when people were happy with fighters, rogues (yes, its true) and barbarians. (paladins and rangers seem to be more a mixed bag, though 3.5 gave the ranger a brief boost).

I think what changed was level of play. A lot of gaming takes place at low and mid levels, and this certainly true in the early years of 3E. At those levels, its a pretty balanced game.

Now, on the other hand, and to go on a bit of tangent...

In in earlier D&D, the way spell disruption, magic resistance, monster immunities and resistances, and, especially, saving throws, worked all helped keep play more balanced at higher levels. DMs careful control of magic items could reinforce that. I am not saying higher level play was easy in those editions (it wasn't), but sometimes your wizard might be godlike, and sometimes he might really need the fighter with the +4 sword to save his ass.

 

[Empirate]

Nice necro, but why not post here again I guess...

I think the action economy advantage that casters can get at mid to high levels really seals the deal, but even before that, spells allow primary casters to function at a whole different level of play. Spells like Teleport, Contact Other Plane, Planar Binding/Ally, but also lowly Rope Trick, Dispel Magic, Fly, or Augury, heck, even Detect Magic (!) see to it that casters have the option to know about and circumvent difficulties beforehand, while a mundane usually has to fall back on skill use. Casters are not just "moar powerfuller", they're more versatile. And that versatility boils down to obtaining a certain amount of strategic control (of the narrative itself), while not sacrificing tactical control (of individual encounters).

This is an issue that I'd argue has always been in the game to a certain degree. However, in pre-3E, Fighters were at least very, very powerful on the battlefield, while Wizards or Clerics needed just the right prep and just the right circumstances to rival them tactically, due to spell disruption and the saving throw mechanic. Casters also had less spells and often much less consumable magic items to increase their versatility tenfold. So pre-3E I'd say casters were more focused on being strategic assets, while Fighters were tactical assets. In 3E (3.0, 3.5, PF...), casters don't give up sheer power anymore.

 

[Evenglare]

Every setting book had spells, every specialty book had spells, every new Prestige class had spells. They just kept coming, and most spell casters could take advantage of the added range and power almost as soon as the ink hit the paper.

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT RESTRICTING THINGS?!?!?! Oh my god, how is it that almost every other RPG GMing section it says to watch out and limit certain abilities but in D&D people seem to think that whatever is printed is fair game. HERO for example, can make a STUPIDLY powerful being, but the GM has the option of banning or limiting access to certain moves due to how he wants the game to run. I just... ugh... I can't believe this comes up so rarely on D&D forums, banning spells you do not want to deal with fixes about 99% of the complaints about magic users. Hell, you don't even have to ban them, make a powerfull spell the object of a quest, then if they complete that quest THEN you can learn it from a scroll or something. I simply can not emphasize enough how mind boggling this is to me. GMs seem to limit races, classes,feats, equipment, magic items but almost never exclude particular spells. How is that any different than banning or restricting the other things mentioned?

 

[Neonchameleon]

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT RESTRICTING THINGS?!?!?! Oh my god, how is it that almost every other RPG GMing section it says to watch out and limit certain abilities but in D&D people seem to think that whatever is printed is fair game.

Because I did not fork over good money for a game system in which the designers sold me a point buy system implying that it was balanced. If it wasn't balanced the designers simply have not done their job and the game is not fit for purpose. I am not a professional game designer. That's a big part of why I actually pay for games rather than simply homebrewing. I am not as much of an expert in the game designer's system as they are and should certainly not be expected to be more of one than the designer was when they clearly didn't stop the problems.

As GM I restrict things - I restrict things to the tone and theme of the game. If I need to restrict things for balance (other than obvious abuses of the rules through either spam or modifier abuse) then it means that the game quite simply isn't finished or fit for purpose. And I don't know why I paid money for the half baked ruleset.

Why do you expect me to put up with a set of rules that are not fit for purpose?