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

[Felon]

I'm not the only here that noticed GREATER Weapon Focus and Specialization on the 3.5 feat list am I? Fighters will certainly rock, although I suspect they may actually lose exclusivity on Weapon Specialization.

Clerics will always be uber, druids get a boost in 3.5.

Wizards and Sorcerers really need more class features. There really is no jusftification for them being so much softer than divine spellcasters. Hasn't been since 3e gave clerics 9 spell levels and more spells per day than a non-specialized wizard.

 

[The Forsaken One]

Wizards have one big, very big problem which everyone in my campaign feels very very well..

They run out of spells.

They aren't the only ones with that much int, plans, minions or whatever. I bring the fight to them as much as they go out and try and find and get someone or something. Give them enough intelligent opponents at once who spread out enough to make area spells useless and quite enough of them. I'm quite sure you'll make the wizard feel bad if he Finger of Deaths or disintegrates whatever and kills it in 1 second with his DC way to high to ever be made munchking Save PRC Combi character and there are another 20 heading for him.

Wizards in my campaigns run out of spells every adventuring day and then they get into some real trouble. Their spells are good, sometimes to good. But they are only too good for as long as he can cast them and as long as they last.

 

[Felon]

Wizards have one big, very big problem which everyone in my campaign feels very very well.. They run out of spells. Wizards in my campaigns run out of spells every adventuring day and then they get into some real trouble.

*scratches head*

Why don't they buy--or make--wands? 50 charges there. Pretty hard to run out of'em at inconvenient moment, especially since that's so many damn charges that DM's can't keep track of them, which is really what counts

 

[Valiantheart]

Fighters will certainly rock, although I suspect they may actually lose exclusivity on Weapon Specialization.

Well that would go a long way towads making the fighter completely useless. Just what i need barb with 5 DR and weapon specialization

 

[Henry]

Let's not get too hot under the collar here, folks. It doesn't do to tell each other how stupid or ridiculous they are. Besides, this argument is not by any means old.


Now, my perspective is a bit different, in that I believe that each class should have one strong area and several weak ones. Anyone who is purely one class is going to have some numerous holes in their defenses - and given the original design philosophy of Dungeons and Dragons, this is as it should be.

I wish to point out one mistake that I think some are making in declaring Clerics and Wizards stronger fighters than Fighters are: They assume that given a certain set of circumstances that are true in their experiences, certain classes are just as strong as others in the same circumstance.

No one can deny that Fighters are poorer at social interaction than Bards and Rogues in general. But claiming that Sorcerers and Wizards are as good as fighters in combat ignores circumstances such as:

*Lack of rest between combats - Fighters excel here over mages.
*Melee Combat - Sorcerers and Wizards cannot stand in Melee combat as long as Fighters can, nor are they as high in AC without using most of their wealth towards this purpose.
*Ambushes - in most circumstances, fighters are no less defended in a surprise combat than when prepared. A mage who has not prepared for a combat frequently spends several critical rounds activating their magical defenses while the fighters are already set to go.
*Adverse magical situations - everyone will agree that a mage without magic is dead in the water, and in wild magic or dead-magic areas, a fighter will fulfill his role mroe effectively than a mage will fulfill his.

There are some spells that break this paradigm - Haste being one large offender. A hasted mage getting a +4 AC at most times in combat, and combined with shield and mage armor, with the extra action putting them to double effectiveness in spells, expands the role that mages are supposed to fill a little too far.

In optimized conditions, a mage is quite powerful, but situations always abound in D&D campaigns where one class or class type is disadvantaged, and DM's can easily fall into the trap of doing one thing, one way, all the time (such as allowing circumstances that let players pick their battles at all times, or mages never encoutnering anti-magic in any form.) In these instances, a certain experience will be true, but it still doesn't make it right for all instances.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Not to side-track too much, but that's the point of having "social" skills in the game. The fighter is certainly free to interact with NPCs, but he shouldn't be as effective as someone who's built up the skills.

Shouldn't be any arguement. (I say shouldn't...) The bard in my game can be incredibly charming and does handle most of the encounters involving money or somebody with a title. He knows lots of movers and shakers in the community.

Our Cha:10 skill:0 fighter probably knows two or three times as many people for two reasons: gold and platinum. The boy works his situation modifiers and almost mindlessly burns cash. Almost. When you mix "opponent blind drunk and being fondled by a lady of the night" with "fighter sober and taking 10" the fighter can acquire an amazing amount of information. Not as quickly or cheaply as the bard, mind you, but he can do it.

A bard with 30 ranks in Diplomacy should be much more likely to get a discount from a merchant, or convince the dragon to let the party live, or help forge a peace treaty between warring nations. Roleplay it out, but use the dice to help determine NPC reactions.

I agree with the exception of the first option. Our fighter gets the "High Roller" discount in just about any town his visited twice. It doesn't do much if they're low on cash, but it makes the fighter feel good when the party sits down and the barkeep sends over a tray of drinks on the house.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You don't need to have ANY ranks in a skill to do OK in it.

Sure, Fighters who use Diplomacy may not be very good at it in general, but against your average Wis 10, Cha 10, Int 10 villager, they will make most of the checks about 50% of the time.

Diplomacy...Bluff...Knowledge...how many of these skills can't be used untrained, exactly?

In the same way, a wizard can wade into melee combat and potentially not do too shabby.

All ranks and BAB do is increase the likelihood of you doing well. They don't make you suddenly able to do something.

I have a psion/sorcerer who specializes in melee combat. The dude isn't nearly as effective as a fighter would be, but he's not too shabby after all the buffs...

I similarly have a fighter who goes the Expertise route. His Int of 14 means that he's pulling even with the ranger on skills, and he doesn't suffer too much in other areas (his Dex ain't that great, but I give him big bulky armor, so he don't need it. ). He's not nearly as skillful as the rogue, but that hardly means he's incompetent.

Listen, you don't need high ranks to do well. A cross-class here or there, a skill focus, or just a decent stat of Cha or Wis will allow you to do VERY well in noncombat arenas.

I mean, haggling down the price of a longsword isn't a DC 25 activitiy, y'know? Setting up a fighter school isn't DC 30+. Getting free beers at the local bar isn't DC 20.

These are DC's of 10...11...12...maybe 15 at the highest. ANY character can do well in these checks just by makin' a little roll, and maybe having a decent stat.

See, those social skills exist so that there's an actual reason to have a decent Cha.

If you walk around without one, it's not the game's fault you can't interact socially...it's yours, because you value being able to move faster or an extra hp over getting free beers.

 

[Grog]

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.....

Well, in that situation, of course the mage isn't going to deal much damage. But he can still cast spells that assist the rest of the party.

Turn it around and say the enemy had an AC of 35 or DR of 25/+3, and suddenly the fighter is the one who can't do damage. Problem is, he has a lot fewer options than the mage does in that situation. Sure, maybe he could grapple, or bull rush, or something, but he might not have that opportunity.

Also, when fighting one single creature, it's not surprising that the fighter will do more damage than the mage. But against half a dozen creatures, the mage can deal FAR more damage than the fighter can in one round.

Not to mention, against a single creature, the mage can use a save or die spell.

I really don't think mages have much to worry about.

 

[LordAO]

Will Warriors be on equal footing with casters?

Considering how much they have nerfed all the good Wiz/Sor spells, they will be far more than equal!

 

[LokiDR]

Sick is a 3e wizard of high level with lots of all day buffs, imbue familar, and quicken spell.

Scry (via a crystal ball) on the enemy
haste, improved invis,
teleport

The surprize round is 4 spells. The first round is 6. Sure, I can only do this once, but not much should live through it.