D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5E] Will Warriors be on equal footing with casters?

[Petrosian]

Regarding fighter out of combat ability...

he can be quite proficient in a non-combat area by spending cross-class skills. Many of his class skills are useless or run contrary to his heavily armored self.

of course, everyone knows cross class skills are too expensive... thats a self-frustrating prophesy.

Example: fighter spends 1 skill per level on bluff. By 10th level he has a +5. Against anyone who does not have sense motive as a class skill who KNOWS that cross class skills are useless, this +5 will be making the fighter win most bluff checks.

The fighter in my game has the highest sense motive roll in the group, because he spent the skills cross class to gradually accumulate the ranks.

Will the guy spending cross-class skills get good enough to beat the classes for whom this is a prime ability? Nope. But most caases wont need him to go against those best-of-show guys.

As an additional note, with all those bonus feats, its easier for a fighter to spend his normal feats on expansive things, like perhaps skill focus.

Fighter-10 WIS 12.
One feat on track.
One feat on focus wilderness lore.

12 skills in Wilderness lore cross class for +6

tracking with a +9 to the roll does not suck.

 

[Ruvion]

I wish that 3.5e will bring in changes to the way class skills are determined. Sure a fixed list of class skills are needed for expediency, but it will be interesting if all classes get to choose 1 skill that is a cross-class skill as a class skill from a select list (a different list for every class). So you may have a enchanter that has bluff as a class skill (provided bluff can be selected a class skill for wizards) or a fighter with sense motive as his class skill. Rogue should also have this option (else he will have left dry) of course. ^^

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the answer to the question fundamentally depends upon whether the DM runs adventures such as dungeons where the party has to march through a whole range of encounters in short order, or if the DM runs adventures such as wilderness treks where there is only one or 2 encounters each day.

In the latter case, the casters will outshine the warriors every time, because they tend to be powerful over the short run, but lack staying power. If it is the former case then casters have to be much more cautious about expending their power and the warriors staying power and endless ability to cause damage will make them more impressive.

That, IMO, is the big issue. If casters can shoot their load on one or two encounters and then re-prepare, they will dominate. If they are going to have to last across 20-30 encounters...

 

[Dark Jezter]

Fighters deal good damage, if min-maxed properly. Big whoop. Outside of that, they do nothing useful. Outside of combat, Fighter types are worthless compared to casters. Casters can investigate, do diplomacy, stealth, travel faster and easier than any class has a right to, AND are extremely effective in combat. People talk about SR like it's so unfair, but it's nothing compared to what happens to Fighters when they go up against creatures like Oozes and Nightshades.

And casters are useless against enemies like golems and beholders. I won't get into the "fighters are useless outside of combat" thing because if that's the way you've seen it, it's a problem with DMing and not the class itself.

Fighters without their equipment are pathetic. Casters without their equipment still rock. Go up against a DM who makes use of Sunder, Disarm and things like Rust Monsters or Oozes. Or how about stealing the Fighters weapons, or Stunning them, causing their weapons to drop, grabbing them and then teleporting away? Looks like the Fighter can't do anything much now. Casters can do it all, including combat, and they can do it without magic items. Fighters can do well in combat, but against monsters they require magic items to be effective.

If you're tailoring situations to make it impossible for the fighter to succeed, then you can also do so for spellcasters. Strip a wizard of his spellbook and watch him become a fifth wheel, and without material components, both wizards and sorcerers will both find themselves greatly limited in their spell selection. Divine spellcasters are not as easily crippled as the arcane spellcasters, but they aren't exactly masters of combat magic. Any strict casters will find themselves useless inside a dead magic zone or an anti-magic field, and even when they use up their daily allotment of spells.

And it's not just magic weapons, or magic armor, a Fighter has to have Teleportation items available if he hopes to get out of Walls of Force, grapples and close quickly with bombard mages, he has to have flying to deal with monsters and enemies equipped with flight, etc. A Fighter is completely reliant on their magic items. Take them away, and they are easily destroyed by most high level monsters. And it is shockingly easy TO take them away. And even with magic items, Fighters do nothing of note outside of combat, while casters do everything. But that's D&D. Casters rule, and I doubt that will ever change without a total revamping of the system. And if they do that, why even call it D&D anymore?

And a mage without the right spell for the job is dead meat when confronted by a powerful enemy. Sorcerers and bards are the only ones who don't have to prepare spells in advance for their battles, but those two classes are extremely limited in thier spell selection choices.

Despite your arguments, I'm still not convinced that fighters are useless and casters are capable of doing everything and more. I've played a lot of sessions where casters found themselves needing the help of a fighter, and vice-versa.

 

[Zappo]

"Fighter is useless outside of combat".

Well, ummm, the name of the class is, ummm, you see, FIGHTER. If your campaign, like mine, has long periods without a single fight, then the party fighters can multiclass a bit. Anyway, they are only useless if they need to make a check - and at least IMC there is plenty to do that doesn't involve rolling dice or that has a pitiful DC.

 

[Fenes 2]

As for Fenes argument, that's ridiculous. So basically, if your DM gives you severe circumstance modifiers to do all of those things, sets low DCs, and has the other members of the party help out, the Fighter can be effective outside of combat? Well, I guess Commoners don't suck in combat, since the DM can set low ACs, give them high circumstance modifiers on their to hit rolls, and have everyone else use Aid Another, huh?

Obviously, we have different definitions of "effective". IMC, you don't need to roll 20+ with a diplomacy or other skill check each time you do something other than swing a sword. Heck, if a fighter imc wants, f.e., to start his own school of swordfighting, I do not require many rolls at all just to get it started, nor will he be ineffective just for not having tons of ranks in a preofession skill or two.

And, frankly, if a DM would try to tell me that my fighter who just got back with the head of the slain red dragon does not get severe circumstance modifiers for diplomacy and other checks in the town he just saved I would probably walk out. IMC, circumstance modifers may be much more important than ranks - a noble usually has a better chance at influencing another noble than a commoner. A prince's word will be valued more than an unknown adventurer's. A known hero will be recieved favorably, as favorably or even more than an unknown bard.
A fighter has no ranks in diplomacy? A generous gift goes a long way in convincing that mayor to allow him to bear and carry arms in the city.

 

[Angcuru]

Fighter=COMBAT HEAVY DUDE. If you pick someone that combat heavy, don't complain about a lack of non-combat stuff you can do. Fighters whomp incredible amounts of butt in combat, but when that's over, they sit around scratching their behinds and wondering when their next fight comes along. This is where multi-classing comes into play. A few levels of ranger, rogue, perhaps bard, even, can make your fighter experience a whole lot more enjoyable outside of combat.

I have sitting on my shelf a LVL 37 Paladin who I constructed in a way that he can take out an equal level fighter or mage no problem. Heck, he was even able to take out Cthulhu's Big-Bad Avatar no problem when I ran him in a one-shot. Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting GOOD! Why do you think you see so many high-level characters using two weapons? It's because they realize that they can't compete with the rapidly increasing odds unless they manage to pump up their damage output FAST. And besides that it's good to have weapons with different enchanments, besides the point that if you loose one of them you can still fight quite effectively.

But a whole lot of the fault in this general topic rests on the head of the DM. A DM who has a couple of big combats or a bunch of little ones as the base theme for his sessions is going to have players who will either feel extatic or completely boned. You need to have a balance. If the party just finished a 5-session long dungeon crawl and is heading back to town to divvy up the loot, let the non-combat heavy characters have some fun. Throw in a romance or two, add a dash of political intrugue and perhaps a hint of betrayal, and BAM! you got yourself a couple sessions worth of role-play set up. And what do you do with the fighters during this role-play? That's what arenas, sparring sessions, and whorehouses are for. While your rogue or bard is off romancing the throne, the fighters are growing more and more monstrously deadly, the mages are poring over books and perhaps staring construction on a tower or two, and the cleric/paladins are helping out at the local temple. This gives you time to plan out the next big combat-heavy sessions, so when you sense the fighters' bloodlust rising, guess what? Here's where you throw in a war sparked by the rogue's attempts to seduce several noble madiens at once; the demons of the lower planes that the wizards inadvertently pissed off coming around to wreak vengeance; and the occasional holy quest laid down by the clergy.

A simple system like this can allow you to set up a pattern of FIGHT roleplay FIGHT roleplay roleplay BIG FIGHT big roleplay EVEN BIGGER FIGHT roleplay....yada yada yada.

Personally, I'm working on a Forgotten Realms campaign where the PCs are going to start out LVL1, your basic "I wanna go kill things and take their stuff!" people. But I'll slowly work in the REAL plot. Y'see, at least one of the characters is going to be the child of a pair of VERY Epic characters who are going to put into the works a plan to regain the lost glory of their people. Can you say Avariel? The characters get swept up in it, at first not knowing what's going on, but sooner or later they have to choose sides in the ensuing conflict, perhaps spliting the party straight down the middle and bringing about a good deal of roleplay as well as a heap of battle. But one thing to remember is that you don't NEED to constantly use monsters, demons, and the like. There are things called NPCs for good reason.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Apok

From my experience, the balance of power works like this; at low levels, warrior-types are your mainstays and rule the combat arena. At medium levels, the casters take over as the big damage dealers. At high and epic levels, warriors once again take over. At Super-Epic (30+) the spellcasters can potentially take over if they are built right.

The problem isn't direct damage, but save-or-die spells.

At around 3rd level, a wizard can use Blindness, Glitterdust or Web. At 5th they get Fireball, which lets them... not catch up with a fighter . At 7th they can get Confusion and Polymorph Other, at 9th they get Hold Monster, at 11th Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone, at 13th Finger of Death and at 17th Dominate Monster.

(I'm going to ignore Haste - two Disintegrates a round! - and the save-less Wall of Force and Forcecage for the moment. Well, I'll almost ignore them )

A cleric gets these kinds of spells starting at 9th level (Slay Living) then more at 13th level (Destruction). I'm going to ignore Harm for the moment.

A spellcaster's strength isn't in damage, but save-or-die. I don't know if spellcasters should do a lot of damage - wizards have only d4 hp/level, so it isn't really fair to beef up damage - but a spellcaster who uses other tactics will get further ahead.

(Clerics get pretty much the same offense as a wizard, plus much better defenses. No wonder they're the most powerful class.)

Incidentally, fighters rarely deal that much damage. Using a full-round attack, even with Power Attack, often results in a nearly dead fighter. I'll never forget the difference between a 13th-level encounter trading full-round attacks (the fighter died, despite getting a Heal spell) and when the fighter moved around and used Spring Attack. In the second scenario, the fighter lived, didn't have to soak up Heal spells, and the spellcasters unleashed a lot of damage, as well as Hold Monster.

Now, if the fighter had been an archer, he could get a full-round attack every round...

Lord Ao

In my opinion, it is spellcasters who are too weak at high levels. Virtually evrything they encounter has spell resistance or immunity to something magical. It gets very annoying.

Cast Wall of Force Even with a Reflex save (my house rule) it's a kick-butt spell. It works on anything that can't Teleport.

Zander

There are far too many creatures with SR.

I disagree. I see SR like DR - both are commonplace, and not universal. Both should be potent defenses, but in practice, DR is nearly worthless as a defense. Fighters will get a bit weaker in 3.5 since they'll often face -5 or -10 damage per attack.

Furthermore, a wizard's save-or-die spells are a lot more powerful than a fighter's weapon. Finger of Death is more powerful than any weapon, and doesn't require crits to work like a vorpal sword. (And vorpal is broken, IMO.)

Elder-Basilisk

Any wizard without save increasing items will fall to the first disintegrate, Finger or Death, or Destruction just as surely as the fighter will fall to a hold person.

I disagree. A wizard can protect himself from most of these spells with Spell Turning and Protection from Spells. Of course, the former is limited (and won't work against Disintegrate) and the latter requires an expensive diamond. Mirror Image, Mislead or Improved Invisibility will save you from nearly anything without True Seeing or blindsight. (Note that a lot of high-CR creatures use this, of course.) There aren't that many powerful defensive spells for the wizard. However, the wizard's offense is very powerful.

Jasamcarl

If a character's items are entirely destroyed, it behooves the DM to stay in tune with the treasure by level table listed in the DMG.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction is broken

Dark Jezter

And casters are useless against enemies like golems and beholders.

Beholders... yes. Very. A beholder can Disintegrate a spellcaster very quickly, or just anti-magic them. On the other hand, a spellcaster can usually deal with a golem - eg with Wall of Force or Summon Monster. (The old DR rules made the latter a joke, however.)

(Rant: Why are nearly all the golems magic immune?)

 

[Angcuru]

Mordenkainen's Disjunction is broken

That it is...that it is...

Nothing like being surrounded by a dozen maraliths each armed with 6 +5 vorpal keen falchions, and saying to yourself: HMMMM? What to do? MORDENKAIDEN'S DISJUNCTION and watch their swords immediately loose anything resembling a glimmer of magic. And then proceeding to cast Time Stop, whip out a couple Walls of Force to create a box-like effect to keep them in one spot, then summon up a couple Gargantuan Earth Elementals. And then proceed to pull your Cabinet of Feasting out of your Bag of Holding, grab an ale and some popcorn, and watch the fun.

Overpowered? You betcha.

 

[Belen]

IMC, I have a group of min/max players. Every person knows how to cheese the rules. Can we guess who the most powerful character is? Yep, the fighter, which pulled 114 points of damage in one round!!!! The highest I have ever seen the mage get was 48.

Yes, the fighter's minimum is 23 per hit. The fighter has four levels of improved crit. Disgusted yet?

In the fight that the fighter did 114 points of damage (with only a +2 sword at 11th level and no buffs), the mage did ZERO points of damage. Why? The enemy had an SR of 26 and the 11th level mage just couldn't get through it.

So much for the mage.....

By the way, the fighter happens to be a decent roleplayer as well. He may not have the skills, but he darn well participates out of combat.

It really disgusts me when people say that fighters cannot do anything outside of combat. Yes, he doesn't get the freaky skills or bonuses, but the fighter can still roleplay! If sounds as if a lot of people are using numbers to roleplay now and that just sickens me.

I have a +30 diplomacy, so I get to roleplay and the fighter doesn;t speak? Who plays in those games!?

Dave