Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[reapersaurus]

Grishnak, meet Cyraneth: http://enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62799

 

[Thanee]

Unless the DM challenges the group and the spellcasters with situations/opponents, which require more cunning, than the expenditure of a few spells, then yes, the spellcasters will rule them all!

Pure spellcasters are the most powerful classes in high level D&D, but well-built fighters or rogues are far from being useless, if (and that's very important) the DM balances the adventures decently.

I believe that it requires a lot of experience to do so, tho.

It's sad, if your friends can't see this problem, that the spellcasters are doing all the work and the non-spellcasters' players are sitting around getting bored. Maybe you can bring this topic up for discussion?

I assume, that your DM just can't handle high-level D&D in a decent way, and that it would be a lot more fun to play in lower levels. Maybe the other guy you mentioned can do a better job.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dark Jezter]

At low levels, warrior-types deal the majority of the damage and take the majority of the damage. At higher levels, spellcasters do the majority of the damage, and warriors are still there to lump it and soak up hits while the spellcasters destroy the bad guys. But without the warriors to soak the damage, the spellcasters can't do the damage, and once in a while at high levels you can get in a few cool rounds of combat. Spellcasters own at high levels - that's just the way the game's set up.

That's a lot less true in 3.5e than it was in previous editions of D&D. I've participated in a few high-level excursions, and I've seen barbarians and fighters deal over 200 damage in a single round, and over 100 on a critical hit. I've seen warrior characters roll good on initiative, grapple with enemy mages, and effectively remove them from combat for the rest of the encounter.

In 3.5e, warrior characters have gotten a lot more valuable at higher levels, due to 3.5 power attack, Greater Rage at lower levels, Improved Weapon Specialization, etc.

 

[Scion]

I hope this doesnt sound too dumb

going along with another poster, tell your dm that you are a bit unhappy and ask if you would be allowed to modify your character slightly.

I would suggest getting the 3.5 srd (if you arent useing 3.5 anyway) and remake your character a bit. Pick up 11 levels of ranger (still focus on two weapons of course) and 5 levels of shadowdancer. You will have incredible amounts of hiding and sneaking skills (this is not to be overlooked) along with 6 attacks per round.

From the numbers you posted it seems that you either have fairly weak magical weapons or none at all. There are a few spells that can help this (either of the casters in your party should be willing to help, one or two spells on you from each and you will be an even better tank for them).

Get a good weapon or two, pick the feats appropriately and for fun. Search through and get some special purpose magic items. At this point all of your problems should be fixed.

If somehow you are still being overshadowed constantly and consistently then I will have to agree that it is the dm's fault there are many ways to make each person with their specialy able to see a good amount of 'in the spot light' time.

Remember your strengths though, full round attacks are what you need, hide in plain sight while sneaking can get you those all important attacks. Your shadow pet is incorpreal so can walk through walls, your character should know just about every step of a place and be able to tell everyone. Being the tracker, finder, and all around necissary information aid does have some enjoyment to it

 

[ForceUser]

That's a lot less true in 3.5e than it was in previous editions of D&D. I've participated in a few high-level excursions, and I've seen barbarians and fighters deal over 200 damage in a single round, and over 100 on a critical hit. I've seen warrior characters roll good on initiative, grapple with enemy mages, and effectively remove them from combat for the rest of the encounter.

In 3.5e, warrior characters have gotten a lot more valuable at higher levels, due to 3.5 power attack, Greater Rage at lower levels, Improved Weapon Specialization, etc.

It's true that warriors can crank out some amazing damage verses one or two individual foes, and in rare cases with Whirlwind Attack set up perfectly, up to eight, assuming they have that feat.

That's nice.

Meanwhile, spellcasters can do solid damage to evey single creature within their spells' areas of effect, over and over until they are out of spells. Whereas a warrior must attack, slay, move up, attack, slay, etc., a wizard worth his salt can drop an empowered cone of cold on ten or fifteen hapless foes at a time, followed up by a quickened lightning bolt. He may not kill anyone in a single volley, but add up the damage inflicted per foe - it's far more impressive than what the like-leveled warriors are doing.

As an aside, there's an argument going around that warriors are better than spellcasters because over the course of a day they can crap out more damage. While this is technically true, it's a fallacious argument; when the wizard is out of spells and the cleric is out of heals, you're done. Generally speaking, at that point the whole party packs it up and looks for a nice spot to camp, making the fact that warriors can keep on trucking completely irrelevant. High level parties live and die by their spellcasters.

 

[gariig]

Can you post some additional stats for your character. I know min/maxing is somewhat frowned upon, but..a little does help.

Gariig

 

[Darkness]

Grishnak: Do your spellcasters often have the chance to regain their spells between encounters?

 

[newtongamers]

Sounds to me like a balance problem in how the game is being run. I have to wonder...if the spellcasters can kill these creatures in one or two rounds, what kind of CRs are you facing? I would go on to ask which creatures are attacking the spellcasters, forcing Concentration checks and dealing attacks of opportunity during casting. I would also ask where the creatures with massive SR are, and where the creatures that can dispell, counterspell, and create anti-magic zones. And what happens when the spellcasters go dry in the middle of combat. But those questions are irrelevant seeing as how the party is clearly underchallenged. And underchallenged encounters greatly favor spellcasters.

I would likely chalk it up to the DM not having experience with high level play, or simply pandering to the other players. Either way, it sounds like you're in the wrong game. I would try bringing it up with the DM, but in the end, you might have to just hang up your sword and shield as far as this game is concerned--in one way or the other.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Meanwhile, spellcasters can do solid damage to evey single creature within their spells' areas of effect, over and over until they are out of spells. Whereas a warrior must attack, slay, move up, attack, slay, etc., a wizard worth his salt can drop an empowered cone of cold on ten or fifteen hapless foes at a time, followed up by a quickened lightning bolt. He may not kill anyone in a single volley, but add up the damage inflicted per foe - it's far more impressive than what the like-leveled warriors are doing.

I've noticed that higher-level encounters tend to pit the PCs against small numbers of powerful creatures rather than large numbers of weak monsters.

Yes, Wizards are very powerful at higher levels, I never said they weren't. Wizards are especially deadly if the enemies are willing to line up neatly in a row/cluster and let the wizard take them out with area-effect spells. I've found, though, that those situations don't always present themselves in cramped dungeons or when the PCs are ambushed. There's also the fact that for a wizard to be at his most effective, he has to know at least a day in advance what he'll be facing and how to best prepare for it.

As an aside, there's an argument going around that warriors are better than spellcasters because over the course of a day they can crap out more damage. While this is technically true, it's a fallacious argument; when the wizard is out of spells and the cleric is out of heals, you're done. Generally speaking, at that point the whole party packs it up and looks for a nice spot to camp, making the fact that warriors can keep on trucking completely irrelevant. High level parties live and die by their spellcasters.

The fact that spellcasters eventually run out of spells is a weakness. At high levels, a wizard can expend all of his high-level combat spells in 1 or 2 combats, and lower-level standbys like magic missile and fireball are about as effective as sticks and harsh language against the likes of dragons, powerful fiends, and high-level NPCs. And then there are monsters like Beholders and golems, that eat casters for lunch...

Spellcasters are an essential part of any party, but neglecting to have a good warrior in your group can be disasterous.

 

[Victim]

Essentially, most spellcaster characters will automatically have power handed to them as they level. Even if the caster doesn't have very good DCs or whatever, they can work around it.

On the other hand, a high level warrior essentially has to pick all his feats and equip himself with the right magic tools in order to be effective. If you play a warrior, you have to work to make your character effective. At high levels, the casually built warrior will be no match for the casually built wizard or cleric. Since a Ranger/Shadowdancer will have trouble hitting and doing significant amounts of damage, the character will have problems.

On the other hand, mundane characters with the right builds can easily compete with casters. In some cases, they may be more effective. A paladin with Spirited Charge and Holy Sword will probably be able to trash tough opponents in one charge without being too cheaty. Crit machines or dual weilding sneak attack monsters can be effective. The greatsword barbarian/fighter can hit really hard.

But attacking at +19 with (apparently) low damage per hit isn't going to cut it. You might want to consider asking to rework your character somewhat, or see if the DM will toss in some nice items for you.

Newtongamer, no high level caster will provoke AoOs from casting. Defensive casts are easily managed by powerful casters even if they don't cheese out and make a skill boosting item. Counterspelling is usually worthless. Antimagic will often hinder the creator of the field as much as the enemies - look at the Beholder, a pincushion waiting to happen. With the 3.5 changes to spell storing items, AMF is much harder for characters that gain the most from it to obtain.

The problem seems to be more that the fighter type can't really fight well than casters being favored.