Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[Doug McCrae]

Brother MacLaren, good point about the number of common animals that have track. If the PCs cover their tracks the DC is 19 (for a four man group) so trolls and minotaurs, with survival checks of -1 and +0 respectively are going to have a hard time following the PCs. A pack of dogs is thus practically mandated for every humanoid lair.

There's a problem though. You only want to track the PCs if they are 'bad' and only have a couple encounters before resting. What if they are 'good' and have four. Your dogs are still there. Do you have the PCs tracked, knowing this could well be a TPK?

Another possibility is that PCs retreat to a well defended base. Perhaps a nearby village or an elf enclave in the woods.

As a DM I rather like using tombs and similar dungeons, guarded by traps and unintelligent constructs/undead. PCs can pretty much rest anywhere in these places. In fact in one recent game I ran the party, which had no healing at the time, spent two and a half days recovering on a staircase between two trapped rooms. Whether a portcullis falls at the entrance is irrelevant as they can sleep inside. I ought to be able to run tombs and treasure vaults without the game breaking but as it stands, I can't.

Wandering monsters have very much fallen out of favour, for good reason. I still use them occasionally but a lot of the time they don't make any sense. Definite old school points, though.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Okay, but if it doesn't become a problem until 13th level, then it's not a problem at all for about 95% of all actual gameplay.

Levels 13-20 are 40% of non-epic gameplay using the default, actually.

See, right there you note FOUR different conditions that prevent the flee-and-nap routine. The nature of the dungeon, the fact that it is unsporting (and in my experience not fun), a time limit, and the threat of opponents regrouping.

The fact that there are four conditions doesn't indicate how often those conditions actually come up in play.

I'd add another factor. The real resource to manage is not HP, spells, or even actions per round -- it is gaming time. If retreating to Mount Celestia, regrouping, buffing again, and going back into the dungeon makes the adventure take 4 times as long to complete -- well, I'd rather do without all the retreating even it means my PC dies. I like my games to be a bit faster-paced and getting more cool stuff done in my four hours every other week. This is also why, as the player of a druid, I cut back on summoning spells and do without an animal companion. 1d4+1 Dire Bears with Improved Grab are almost always more effective than Finger of Death, but they just take too long to resolve.

That's you, though. Lots of players play to win, and if spending 10 minutes announcing your exit, rejiggering your spell list, and resolving healing keeps your character alive, they'll do it.

The fact is that the conditions we're discussing are unnecessary contrivances that rather feebly attempt to reduce the power and versatility of spellcasters in gameplay. It would really be best overall, IMO, if casters were whacked repeatedly with the nerf bat until they resembled literary wizards more than the crazy godlike beings they are now at high levels, but that's not really likely to happen without the game no longer resembling D&D, so the designers instead appear to be buffing up the fighter-types, a decision of which I approve.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Levels 13-20 are 40% of non-epic gameplay using the default, actually.

No, they're not. ACTUAL gameplay, I said. Not what is possible by the rules. Most campaigns end before level 20. When you factor in the many, many campaigns that only run for levels 1-8, 3-10, 1-12, or what have you before falling apart, I believe that about 5% of all 3E/3.5 game sessions occured with average PC level of 13+.

Game sessions that actually feature 7th-level spells being cast are a much smaller fraction of all 3E/3.5 game sessions than 40%.

That's you, though. Lots of players play to win, and if spending 10 minutes announcing your exit, rejiggering your spell list, and resolving healing keeps your character alive, they'll do it.

We are obviously talking about completely different things. I said "4 times as long," you said "10 minutes longer."

 

[Brother MacLaren]

There's a problem though. You only want to track the PCs if they are 'bad' and only have a couple encounters before resting. What if they are 'good' and have four. Your dogs are still there. Do you have the PCs tracked, knowing this could well be a TPK?

Oh, absolutely, if it's what the monsters would logically do. If the PCs went after the local orc tribe, killed a few guards, realized they were in over their heads and fled... you now have a very cool "pursuit" adventure on your hands. I wouldn't say you only track them if they're "bad" -- you track them if that's what the enemies would do.

Another possibility is that PCs retreat to a well defended base. Perhaps a nearby village or an elf enclave in the woods.

And if the enemy is strong enough to mount a siege, you get to run that. Cool! Maybe the PCs will be responsible for the death of the villagers they chose to hide among. If the enemy isn't strong enough, they may lie in wait for the PCs to come out again. Now, iIf the PCs retreat a ways with a poorly-hidden trail and lay an ambush for pursuers, they should be rewarded for their clever ideas.

 

[ruleslawyer]

No, they're not. ACTUAL gameplay, I said. Not what is possible by the rules. Most campaigns end before level 20. When you factor in the many, many campaigns that only run for levels 1-8, 3-10, 1-12, or what have you before falling apart, I believe that about 5% of all 3E/3.5 game sessions occured with average PC level of 13+.

Game sessions that actually feature 7th-level spells being cast are a much smaller fraction of all 3E/3.5 game sessions than 40%.

I'd like some data to back that up. As presented in the core rules, levels 13-20 are 40% of gameplay.

We are obviously talking about completely different things. I said "4 times as long," you said "10 minutes longer."

Um, no. You *asserted* that it takes 4 times as long. It doesn't, really; buffing and re-prepping spells is pretty short work in terms of game time. It goes like this:

1) "I cast plane shift to Mount Celestia."
2) Players talk among themselves about who needs healing, and resolve accordingly for spells and rest.
3) Casters look over their spell lists and make adjustments.
4) "I plane shift back to the dungeon."

That doesn't take longer than 10 minutes.

 

[Mirtek]

Garbage defenses? Say what?

I think that being invisible, flying, and able to teleport (the wizard's *default* status in any sane player's hands) are plenty boffo defenses. Plus there's that pesky calling-spell issue to deal with; is a 17th-level fighter ready to take on a CR 22 solar? Dunno.

A contingency to turn him incorporal just as the fighters weapon would connect is also always nice to have

 

[Doug McCrae]

With the humanoids pursuing the PCs again we seem to have the problem of managing the number of encounters per day. The DM has a very hard time fixing it at the appropriate number. It seems either there are too few, if the PCs aren't chased, or too many if they are. In the example you provide it looks as if the only correct solution for the players was never to attack the lair in the first place. I agree that interesting situations come out of it. But from a game point of view, the challenge levels are broken.

If instead there were no per day abilities, only per encounter, the PCs could have cleared out the whole humanoid lair encounter by encounter in a single day with the DM having a much tighter control on challenge levels. From the perspective of D&D as game, this is a lot better.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'd like some data to back that up. As presented in the core rules, levels 13-20 are 40% of gameplay.

The rules say nothing at all about what actual gameplay looks like. Nowhere does it say "You must play to level 20 before you can start another campaign." Nowhere does it say how long an average campaign will last. Certainly it wasn't true in BECMI that the top nine levels were 25% of gameplay.
How many sessions of 3E and 3.5 have you played or run? Of those, how many had PCs at level 13+? Here's mine, assuming 3.5 sessions per level:
I played about 70 sessions of 3E (1 character from 1-12, 1 from 1-8) and ran about 21 (PCs from 1-6). I played about 70 sessions of 3.5 (1 character from 1-20) and ran about 42 (PCs from 1-12). So that's 203 sessions, with about 25 of them featuring PC of levels 13+. That would be 12%.
And for the other players in my 3.5 game (the one I ran from 1-12), they had NEVER run a game to above 7th level although that group had run several campaigns previously. What are your numbers?

Um, no. You *asserted* that it takes 4 times as long.

Yes. The DM has to look up his notes on Mount Celestia, figure out how far away from their intended spot they Plane Shifted, devise encounters for them to have and NPCs for them to interact with. If they want to buy some new scrolls or potions he has to figure out what's available and where, likely inventing a town on the spot. There will be some amount of time taken in, you know, running the adventure of the PCs being on another plane. The casters will take a lot of time figuring out what spells to take to be better prepared for this particular dungeon. The wizard will look up the formula for scribing scrolls and haggle with the other party members over how much gold he can have to buy components. The cleric will pore over every allowed book for which spells to prep. The DM will then figure out what the monsters have done in the PCs' absence and shift around the encounters, maybe adding some wards or traps. The PCs will scry, so he'll have to look up the target's Will save, roll that, and check for spotting the sensor. The DM will then have to figure out what they can see, and the players will debate tactics for a while.
Then they Plane Shift back, likely many miles away, and have to get back to the dungeon, then get through back to the point where they left off.

Just a guess that it would take 4 sessions of this cowardice to get as much done in one session of forging on ahead. But as I said, you and I are talking about completely different things when we envision the "flee-and-nap" routine.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not sure its cowardice.

Let me give you a real woyld example. Some of my friends are spleunkers, basically people in real life who *willingly* go into dark and dank places.

Yet, these crazy friends of mine would NEVER go into a cave with only 50% of their supplies (oxygen tanks, batter power etc...)

So why would it be considered cowardice for adventurers to always be at least 100% when on an adventure?

Unless it is time-dependant, I find it somewhat more realistic for characters to want to rest before continuing.

 

[Campbell]

What it all boils down to, for me at least, is that the current spell casting balancing mechanisms tie my hands when it comes to adventure design, enough so that I moved my fantasy gaming over to Mutants and Masterminds despite its lack of fantasy resources. Attrition based design, espicially when different classes use divergent attrition rates, requires a certain adventure structure in order to work appropriately. Personally, I prefer having the freedom to design adventures without considering how many encounters are needed within the scope of a given day in order for fighters and wizards to both have a chance to shine. Besides, I don't like how spell casters tend to play a more integral role in the big climatic showdowns than those classes with a lower rate of attrition.

I think we've had this argument before.