Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[DeadlyUematsu]

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.

They don't make sense? Wandering monsters make perfect sense. Wandering monsters were there to keep the game moving by punishing players who wasted time in the dungeon (instead of setting objectives and meeting them in a prompt fashion) - a reasonable emulation of the race against time element if you will.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

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.

Nonsense. It's the player's responsibility to manage challenge levels - the DM should throw out whatever is appropriate. If they bite off more than they can chew, so be it.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Ugh! Balance by tedium--"This ability is balanced because it's so obnoxious and time-consuming for the player that players will hardly ever use it"--is one of the worst approaches to game balance ever, IMO. It encourages the obsessive-compulsive in all gamers and offers players a choice between a fun game that ends in depressing failure, or a tedious game that ends in success. If a game system regularly presents players with that choice, I need no further evidence to conclude that it has severe balance issues.

 

[neceros]

Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

Have you played a Warblade? Short answer: Yes.

 

[Victim]

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.

Which is a further incentive toward pulling out of the dungeon early, since the party might need reserve power to attack pursuers.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

There's also a problem with continuously harassing characters who retreat to rest: it is no fun for the players. Occasional nightly ambushes and wandering monsters are good to keep people on their toes, but if it becomes a constant thing, either the characters are going to come up with a way to thwart those (rope trick comes to mind), or the players get frustrated.

No matter how realistic, thorough and true-to-life your gaming is, it's still a failure if people around the table don't have a good time. Because, in the end, D&D is not a simulation of some strange fantastic reality, it is a cooperative game, and realism and verisimilitude are only valuable so far as they lead to better gaming experience.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Because I know I've wandered a bit here, let me sum up. And hey, it's my 1000th post, I'll make it a good one:
There are many ways to balance casters against fighters. Spells per day is a possibility and, although it has its flaws, it can be made to work. For those who don't like it, I've offered alternatives. For those who are skeptical but open, I offer two things to consider:
1) The tactic that most overpowers casters relative to fighters in a spells-per-day paradigm -- retreating and resting as often as desired -- leads to tedious and boring games IMO. For this reason, I rarely see it used in play.
2) Adventure design that frustrates retreating and resting (time pressure, competition, enemies pursuing or fortifying) actually makes for more exciting and more fun games by adding a sense of urgency. Many fantasy stories have some sort of race against time.

Ugh! Balance by tedium--"This ability is balanced because it's so obnoxious and time-consuming for the player that players will hardly ever use it"--is one of the worst approaches to game balance ever, IMO. It encourages the obsessive-compulsive in all gamers and offers players a choice between a fun game that ends in depressing failure, or a tedious game that ends in success. If a game system regularly presents players with that choice, I need no further evidence to conclude that it has severe balance issues.

It's more about play style than game design IMO. I don't think it was an intentional design decision, but I think it's an artifact of the way certain spells and abilities work. The choice pops up in many types of games and sports. There are groups whose style in 1E was slow, methodical, extremely cautious, and IMO boring. I think Tomb of Horrors was designed to appeal to such players. That style is both slow for the PCs and for the players. And there will always be spells with complicated or lasting effects that take longer to resolve. This isn't always bad; it's great when you're low-level and want your spells to last (Produce Flame or SNA II for the low-level druid). But, yes, I perceive "gaming time" as the most important resource to manage since I don't get to game that often anymore. I hardly think it's obsessive-compulsive -- in fact, I think paying some attention to gaming time makes the players and DM more willing to NOT micromanage everything and parse every rule's phrasing.

There's also a problem with continuously harassing characters who retreat to rest: it is no fun for the players.

Sure. That's why I wouldn't say "continuously," but rather "when it's logically what the opponents would do." Guardian Daemons and golems aren't going to pursue you back home (or if they do, you can slip around them and back to what they were guarding). But to me, it is less fun to have a game where we can raid the Caves of Chaos at will and the humanoids just sit there and take it -- it would be a MUCH cooler game if they followed us back to the Keep and staged a massive assault. And in general, I prefer games with some kind of pressure during the adventures. Time, competition, enemy reinforcing, or some sense of urgency. It's more fun and more like the movies that I enjoy.

Enemies pursuing when attacked in their lair include Thulsa Doom in Conan, Smaug in the Hobbit, the orcs of Moria in FotR, and the vampires in Lost Boys to name a few.