Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[jtrowell]

Qualify for a prestige class that allows him to throw any melee weapon like a boomerang.

If you start as a fighter to get the needed feat to access a prestige class that give some spells, does it means that the fighter get spells ?

So why do you use this exemple about the warblade ?

And yes, I own the Bo9S, read it, like it, have played several characters from it-- but don't like it replacing the core fighter entirely.

To their credit, they have made those classes both useful for 20 levels, and great to take a few level.

I started dming a new Eberron campaign where 2 characters use classes from ToB : a rogue/swordsage warforged scout (with a special background to explain its "magical" maneuvers), and a warblade/fighter warforged (currently Warblade 1 / Fighter 2)

My 50' leap w/ flaming boomerang sword example is something that was a combination of abilities from Bo9S (one of the Tiger Claw jumping abilities, + that boomerang sword class + Desert wind type stuff).

The leap is a problem with the jump skill, not the maneuver. A vanilla 3.x fighter could, with max ranks and a few other bonuses, beat the world jump record while wearing full plate with just a few levels.

Fix the jump skill (and the 3.x skill system), and the maneuver itself is not a problem anymore (I suppose you were refering on the maneuver that allow to make a jump as a swift action ? It does nothing more than you could do with a normal action you know ?)

And the "flaming" part doesn't come from your warblade maneuvers.

You say that you used "desert wind stuff" but desert wind is *not* among the disciplines available to warblades (unless you use a feat, the same way a fighter could take some feat giving a spell like ability, *not something he get from the class itself*).

Make no mistake : there are several things that I don't like in ToB :

- the fluff that I don't use at all
- some maneuvers are broken or could be depending on how you use them (but then, the spells in PHB and several feats aren't exempts from this kind of problem)

But I love the base maneuver/stance system, and knowing than 4th edition will use a similar system (even if somewhat different with at will, per encounter (with no easy recharge during combat) and per day powers instead of at will combat stances and per encounter (with recharge) maneuvers)

Oh, and Btw-- the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class (which is built for warblades to take)-- says that the ability to throw a greatsword like a boomerang is rated (Ex), not (Su).

Not a class ability or maneuver from the warblade.

"Bloodstorm Blade prestige classe is mainly accessed from warblade levels" doesn't means than all warblades must take this prestige class.

I'm fairly sure that there are several prestige classes in 3.5 hstarting a a fighter is the best way to get to the base attack and feats needed, and were the class get some surnatural ability.

The existance of a broken/surnatural/underpowered/overpowered/extreme or boring prestige class has *no* influence on the base class best used to access the prestige class.

 

[Dronehound]

I have not played 3.0 and my experience with 3.5 is very limited, but in the old days, Fighters were somewhat balanced with the Wizards.

Experience: Leveling up as a fighter required a lot less experience, and mid to high level, the fighter character would be a full level higher than the magic-user.

Saving throws: Fighters always had better saves than the magic-user, even more so at higher level.

Magic items: Magical items were more powerful but much less common back in previous edition. Less potions, scrolls and wands. A mid level mage was lucky if he had 2-3 wands under his belt. But this is depending on your GM, but most of the store-bought adventure had about a dozen magical items in them that the party had a chance of claiming.

Initiative/Spell disruption: In 2nd ed, initiative was the big equalizer. The higher the spell level, the longer the casting time was, while longbows and swords were pretty fast weapons. And if the fighter hits the mage, he loses his spell.

Followers: Fighters had followers. A bunch of them. While you couldn't take them in dungeoncrawls, they could be very useful taking care of the mooks guarding the main bad guy's lair while the heroes do the heroic thing and go straight to the leaders.

In the big fight Fighter vs. Magic-user, the followers could shoot a ton of arrows on the mage while their Fighter leader closes the gap and go for the kill. Even if spells like Meteor Swarm or Fireball could clear out a bunch of them, the initiative game favorise the Fighter, one in 20 arrows hits the mage making him lose his powerful spell with a long casting time.

And if you say: well the Fighter cannot use his followers, my anwser is that the Magic-user cannot use his spells then, because the followers are as much a part of the high level Fighter desing as the spells are a part of the Magic-user's.

This is how you used to play a Fighter, and it wasn't as unbalanced as it is in 3.5E. It was not perfect, but the Fighter, one level higher and with his mooks didBut then again, the focus of the game seem to have changed, you face less hordes of mooks with underbosses and bosses in a building or set of caves, now it seems its more tactical encounter after tactical encounter. That is why I really don't like the whole EL / CR principle from the little that I have seen.

 

[Counterspin]

"you face less hordes of mooks with underbosses and bosses in a building or set of caves, now it seems its more tactical encounter after tactical encounter. That is why I really don't like the whole EL / CR principle from the little that I have seen."

This seems nonsensicle to me. How is a fight with mooks and underbosses in a building not a tactical encounter? Could you try to better explain what you dislike about the CR system?

 

[ruleslawyer]

I have not played 3.0 and my experience with 3.5 is very limited, but in the old days, Fighters were somewhat balanced with the Wizards.

[lots o' stuff]

A single contingency spell basically takes care of any of the attack strategies you were suggesting in a fighter vs. wizard battle. And that's assuming that the wizard starts the fight on an open field within striking distance of the fighter and/or his allies, which will basically never happen (if it does, the wizard casts his 1-segment teleport spell and escapes to return and fight on his own terms). Moreover, the wizard can do far, far more to generate effective help out of combat than can the fighter's few measly followers: charm monster, polymorph other/any object, and so on can prove nasty in generating some useful allied forces.

Believe me, I've seen it; the destruction that a 15th-level magic-user can rain down while remaining invisible, flying, and protected from minor non-magical attacks is astounding in 1e/2e.

 

[Dronehound]

A 10th level party needs to be fighting four EL 10th encounters rooms then rest up. Then again four EL 10th encounter rooms and rest up. The first Temple of Elemental Evil, in a lot of places, you had rooms after rooms of low level mooks, then their bosses would join up, before you were able to rest up. To use a videogame analogy old DD was Doom, 3.5 is Rainbow Six. Nothing wrong with that, but not my cup of tea.


Additional: Well, if you get the prep time and choosing the terrain and getting more allies and stuff, high level fighters usually get lordship where they can access those resources, and for choosing terrain, he could always pick Wild Magic or even better Dead Magic area. No, the scenario I'm talking about is the Magic-user Bob is taking a healthy walk on the road while he spots his half-brother Rob the Fighter with his gang a 50 yards ahead. They decide to fight it out on the spot. No suprise round, roll for initiative. I'm not saying that the Magic-user would have no chance, but the fight wouldn't be as one sided as some of you have said.

 

[Scribble]

Qualify for a prestige class that allows him to throw any melee weapon like a boomerang.

And yes, I own the Bo9S, read it, like it, have played several characters from it-- but don't like it replacing the core fighter entirely. My 50' leap w/ flaming boomerang sword example is something that was a combination of abilities from Bo9S (one of the Tiger Claw jumping abilities, + that boomerang sword class + Desert wind type stuff).

Oh, and Btw-- the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class (which is built for warblades to take)-- says that the ability to throw a greatsword like a boomerang is rated (Ex), not (Su).

So because of one weird ability the entire system is broke?

There are plenty of weird feats out there... does that mean feats are broken as well?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think using actions as currency can be a good idea. Possibly lowering long-term risk by using more actions (increasing short-term risk) to cast a spell. One advantage to this is that defending the wizard becomes very important as they might require several rounds to loose a powerful spell.
In general I prefer all magic to be somewhat risky as it helps me also say why more individuals do not practice it.

There is a problem with making casting spells safe if you take several rounds to do it: If the mage is in a position where it is too dangerous to take the time he often has not got the option to take a big risk without dying so there is little he can do (ie next to a foe which often means he will be low in HP). But the worse thing is when he can take the time the poor player has 3 (or whatever) rounds of saying "mmm yup still casting that spell" while everyone else has fun trying to keep the hordes off him

But I do like the risky part, if Wiz spells are going to be AWESOME then they should have a chance of failure and a chance of a negative effect. I like the 3E DL optional rule which mimiced the book- make a check or you are exhausted B4 the spell is cast.

However I prefer the way 4E appears to be going, everyone can do something per round; it is not terribly realistic but at high levels martial characters are just as awesome as spellcasters and everyone has lots of options. Hopefully thats the way it will work out.
My previous campaigns all sopped at 8-10th level cos of 3.5E (and, esp, my) push to realism- the guys who played martial characters got bored beyond that; I introduced Bo9S and we are now playing at 14th with no complaints- no fighters (etc) in the group.....

 

[apoptosis]

There is a problem with making casting spells safe if you take several rounds to do it: If the mage is in a position where it is too dangerous to take the time he often has not got the option to take a big risk without dying so there is little he can do (ie next to a foe which often means he will be low in HP). But the worse thing is when he can take the time the poor player has 3 (or whatever) rounds of saying "mmm yup still casting that spell" while everyone else has fun trying to keep the hordes off him

But I do like the risky part, if Wiz spells are going to be AWESOME then they should have a chance of failure and a chance of a negative effect. I like the 3E DL optional rule which mimiced the book- make a check or you are exhausted B4 the spell is cast.

However I prefer the way 4E appears to be going, everyone can do something per round; it is not terribly realistic but at high levels martial characters are just as awesome as spellcasters and everyone has lots of options. Hopefully thats the way it will work out.
My previous campaigns all sopped at 8-10th level cos of 3.5E (and, esp, my) push to realism- the guys who played martial characters got bored beyond that; I introduced Bo9S and we are now playing at 14th with no complaints- no fighters (etc) in the group.....

I dont mind the part about the player sacrificing rounds for a large effect, for me as a player that is fun.

There can definitely be issues for some individuals with the risk type of magic as you mentioned, i just don't happen to think it is an issue for my gaming style (like all of this it is personal preference)

While I definitely can see good design aspects in 4E for certain playstyles, from what i have read 4E is not really the design i would enjoy for my general fantasy campaign (though sounds like it would definitely be very fun for a one-shot dungeoncrawl like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain type module)

I have specific aesthetics for a fantasy game (i generally run them) and one of the basics is that magic is more powerful than mundane equivalents but with far higher risks and prices. The characters actually end up sharing the spotlight as magic is not used indiscriminately.

I know others might not really have the same aesthetic and some have other game issues which are of more importance (like all characters capable of the same scope of results).

 

[ruleslawyer]

Additional: Well, if you get the prep time and choosing the terrain and getting more allies and stuff, high level fighters usually get lordship where they can access those resources,

Lordship is access to mooks, who are just bonus XP for the wizard once combat begins. Being able to generate allies is much, much better done with magic in 1e/2e, since you get *monsters*, not 0-level men-at-arms.

and for choosing terrain, he could always pick Wild Magic or even better Dead Magic area.

Those are highly campaign-specific, and if you can pick the battlefield like *that*, the wizard could even more easily choose to fight underwater or a couple of thousand feet in the air than the fighter could choose a dead magic zone.

No, the scenario I'm talking about is the Magic-user Bob is taking a healthy walk on the road while he spots his half-brother Rob the Fighter with his gang a 50 yards ahead. They decide to fight it out on the spot. No suprise round, roll for initiative. I'm not saying that the Magic-user would have no chance, but the fight wouldn't be as one sided as some of you have said.

*Were* a high-level wizard actually walking anywhere (and with phantom steed, teleport, polymorph, flight, shadow walk, etc., this is hugely unlikely), said wizard would be invisible (24-hour duration means it's always on from 3rd level onward), so the fighter would have rather a hard time *seeing* him in the first place. Then there's contingent dimension door or teleport, or better yet succor. The wizard simply goes home with no initiative rolled, and comes back later. Yes, the scenario *is* that one-sided.

Nonetheless, fighter vs. wizard deathmatch power isn't the issue. The issue is that most important metric of class balance, spotlight time/ability to contribute meaningfully in a variety of situations. And by that metric, I imagine that the designers *could* bring the fighter to par with the spellcaster using quasi-realistic abilities... unless the campaign features the standard D&D tropes of flight, invisibility, et cetera, at which point the fighter's ability to participate drops off precipitously without some kind of pseudo-magical countering mechanism.

Right now, the fighter's main protection against obsolescence is the Christmas tree, but that has allegedly been stripped out in 4e, and it was problematic in 3e in any event because of the fighter's vulnerability to disjunction et al. So something else may be needed unless magic has changed a lot in 4e.

In any event, I don't think that the issues with the fighter are related to dealing or absorbing damage. They're more an issue of the number of end-runs available to the wizard that might not be available to the fighter or might make the fighter's role irrelevant. WotC seems to be addressing a number of these (flight vs. overcoming obstacles, charm vs. diplomacy, etc.) in 4e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Vancian restrictions on magic aren't a good balance mechanism for two reasons:

1) The players can usually control how many encounters they have per day through a variety of means.
2) It greatly restricts the sorts of adventures a DM can run.

Unfortunately 4e retains the Vancian mechanism as there are still per day abilities. I'd like to see these done away with altogether and replaced with one or more of:

a) Per session or per adventure abilities rather than per day.
b) Drawbacks such as loss of actions, damage, disabilities or even loss of spellcasting for a time, as others have suggested above.
c) Increased casting time so some spells can't be used in combat. The end of flashbang Gygaxian magic. 4e will be going down this route to a large extent.