Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Bullgrit]

The Spotlight Interview with Rob Heinsoo at wizards.com has Rob saying this:

I hated the fact that once you started playing level 11+ in 3E, the non-spellcasting character classes didn't matter as much as the spellcasters. There was fun to be had as a fighter, or as a monk (mostly through roleplaying), but the truth was that adventures usually depended on the abilities of the wizard and cleric—where a missing wizard or cleric got some high-level 3E games I was in rescheduled. Did 3E games get rescheduled if the fighter was missing? Only if the character was central to the storyline of that session, not because the group actually depended on the fighter for survival while the wizard and the cleric were around.

[Bolding by me.]
Now, I haven’t played a lot of any D&D above 12th level (I’ve played some, just not a lot), so maybe that’s why this statement seems totally off to me.

In my experience, even at levels 9, 10, 11, and 12, I haven’t seen this phenomenon of non-spellcasting classes don’t matter. I’ve seen parties get by without one class or another -- they work around that hole in their party –- but they could do better with adding that class (even fighters). Heck, I’ve seen parties get by without an arcane caster in their number.

As for adventures depending on wizards and clerics – isn’t that a fault of the adventure? I mean, if you have an adventure that only spellcasting can get the PCs through, isn’t that as bad as an adventure where spells don’t work?

I know this complaint about high-level play was around back in AD&D’s day, too. And I can see how it might be true like when an AD&D1 magic-user got to 18th level and could throw around wishes. And fighter hit points slowed down to 2 (or 3?) per level after name level, yet fireballs and such kept getting more powerful with the M-U’s level. But that got toned down in successive editions.

So, since I’ve apparently missed this situation in the higher levels of D&D3, can someone give me examples of adventures or situations where non-spellcasting classes didn’t matter? Or where a wizard and cleric could get by perfectly well without a fighter-type?

Bullgrit

 

[roguerouge]

Can't speak for anyone but myself, but it's certainly been true in my games over the past five years. Basically, once you have the ability to scry/buff/teleport, the casters' power level goes way up. Once you have enough spells/day to not have to husband them to get through 4-5 combats, the caster's power level goes way up. The fighter's never been good at battlefield control, especially at high levels where the huge monsters live, while the wizard can start walling off people left and right. The CoDzilla can quickly take over the fighter's melee role, if the party has any kind of information gathering mojo whatsoever. It's harder to stop an opponent from pounding a will save, while death wards and righteous wrath of the faithful make it much easier to negate Fort save attacks.

Basically, the best thing that a fighter can do is to inflict damage on a single opponent... but they're slow moving, only affecting a single opponent, and largely incapable of preventing a monster from walking around them to kill the casters. The casters are dealing with everyone else.

 

[Gimby]

Partly its because Clerics in particular can bootstrap themselves to Fighter melee power with their spells.

Given the appropriate domains, a cleric has the same effective weapon and armour proficiencies as the Fighter. Use of Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment can give magic items of significantly higher value (The fighter has a +3 sword, you have a +1 flaming shocking sword - one GMW later you have a +3 flaming shocking sword, a +5 equivilent weapon). At around these levels it becomes possible to have Divine Power up in all major fights giving you the same BAB and HP as the fighter (and a belt of giant strength +6). Righteous Might becomes available for tougher fights.

Feats give the fighter more options, but if you are planning on being a melee cleric you can get the important ones too.

So in short, with a little thought melee clerics bring the same or better AB, AC, HP, Damage and combat options as a fighter of the same level, while having better saves, more out of combat actions and the full range of healing available.

As for adventures depending on clerics and wizards, that appears largely to be because these classes bring unique options - its much harder to make the fighter "needed" because there's nothing unique it brings.

 

[Voadam]

In my high level group the 17th level straight fighter archer is easily the most effective character at combat. We each do our thing but he is recognized by us as the toughest and dispatches foes the fastest.

Is he necessary for us? No. But I don't think any of us are necessary. We are currently proceeding without the cleric and doing fine (relying upon paladin healing and cure wands). I don't think any class or role is necessary and we would game with whoever is there and expect to be effective at handling the adventures and have fun.

 

[billd91]

I haven't seen it either, frankly, but then my players aren't into the scry/buff/teleport method of adventuring either. There are, for one thing, too many PCs for that to work terribly efficiently.

I do think that the 3e cleric buffs go too far. It takes time to put them into effect, that's true, but a couple rounds of buff time is sufficient to be obnoxious. But that's not part and parcel of high level play. That's a pair of spells that are too powerful and play too nicely with each other and other buff spells.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Yes

I pretty much agree with Rob's points.

Certainly, in my 3E games I find myself using house rules and availability of splatbooks to attempt to rein in the spellcasters and help the martial types.

I think one big problem is saving throws, specifically the will save. In my opinion, it was a mistake to tie the will save to a mental stat. It seems to me that part of the high level fighter's schtick should be that he has an indominatable soul -- if his will save was significantly better than the other classes it would go a long way to making him more relevant at higher levels.

With regards to scry/buff/teleport, well this is another area where 3E failed. The PCs should not be able to scry their opponents and wait until they have to go to the toilet to 'drop in'. It's extremely unheroic and unfun. I am glad that 4E fixed this , as I have work to make sure it doesn't become a problem in my 3E games.

And yeah, clerics do sortof overshadow fighters at high levels when they're tricked out as melee machines. There's a sortof social contract in 3E regarding the cleric: 'you get to have the most powerful class, but you have to spend your rounds healing the others'. When the PC doesn't folllow the social contract and instead becomes a fighter, the guy playing the fighter pretty much gets screwed. This is yet another thing 4E fixed, although I have to say I'm really unhappy with the way clerics throw around radiant damage in 4E.

Ken

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, in my Thandor campaigns, I have long since *nerfed* the whole *Scry/Buff/Teleport* dynamic, so that is not really a viable option most of the time.

Next, on one hand, adventures in my campaigns are typically multi-faceted, and simply require a combined-arms approach to have any hope of success.

The party thinking of going into an adventure without being accompanied by their prime warrior? Such a party would be almost certainly doomed to a swift and crushing defeat!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[carmachu]

We're just hitting 9th now and frankly I cant see our party without our Bar/F glass hammer. He does more damage per encounter then the mage ever will.

We all have our talents, and meshing them together is what makes our party work. My cleric could buff and fight, but he's better to hang back and heal and do other things. Let the bar/F and the F/Cl do the fighting....

 

[Nagol]

Part of the problem is that only spellcasters provide the out-of-combat capabilities required to discover, reach, and survive exotic adventure locales.

Fast long distance travel? Spell casters offer Wind Walk, Teleport, and Shadow Walk.
Non-spell casters? Horses and boats.

Planar Travel? Plane Travel (followed up by fast travel to get around the 5-500 mile scatter) and Shadow Walk.
Non-spell casters? No equivalent.

Extreme environment survival? Water Breathing, Endure Elements/Resist Energy.
Non-spell casters? No equivalent.

The adventure has investigative requirements? Divination, Augury, Detect spells, Contact Other Plane, Scrying, etc.
Non-spell casters? Gather Information and Diplomacy, if the information is known to non-hostiles.

Of course, non-spellcasters have the option of buying items to emulate the abiliites of spellcasters, but there are a lot of abilities to emulate and only so much cash to invest in what-if scenarios.

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, two things.

1. Level 11 is a little low. That's where the decline started, but it didn't kick in until you got to the levels where spells broke too many rules with absolute effects that could only be negated by other spells or items of gear that created spell effects. You know how it goes- Forcecage! I counter with my Cloak of the Montebank! Wall of Iron! I counter with my flying shoes! Invisibility! I counter with my Goggles fo See Invisibility! Etc!

2. 3e was broken. As a result, any class could be built to be at least somewhat balanced, by exploiting aspects of the game. So your vanilla 3e Fighter was pretty useless at level 12, sitting there with his cleave and his weapon focus and his longsword and his shield. Meanwhile his friend with the spiked chain machine gun build was still relevant if not the best in the party (assuming the spellcasters didn't also have a build they got online), etc, etc, etc.

For any given class, there was at least one build that didn't suck. Its just that some of them got REALLY edge case and specialized. Bards, Hexblades, Spellthieves, Monks... they all had at least one way to really tweak them until they became powerful or even broken.

This has one good effect, and two bad effects.

The good effect is that you really can play any class in 3e all through 20 levels, if you know what you're doing. You might not be able to happily play any particular character for 20 levels without retraining rules (ie, the things you need at high levels may have to be taken at low levels before they do you any good, resulting in many functionally dead levels of advancement [ie, and the opposite, of course, the things you need at low levels may be useless at high levels]), but the class as a whole should work for any given level. Of course, this really didn't help as a balancing factor, since anyone with the skill to break the Monk class could break the Psion far, far worse.

The first bad effect is that it makes discussing class balance really, really hard. Someone will say something like, "bards are underpowered in 3e," and immediately the bard's fans will pipe up to remind them that the bard can cast Haste and perform Inspire Courage and then stack some other buffing spells from some splatbook and turn the whole party into monsters. Which is technically true, but ignores that the vast majority of the class's options weren't very good.

The other bad effect is that... well, this one isn't inherently bad. But I think its bad.

You know the game Warmachine? Its a table top wargame that, at least in how it advertises itself, takes the approach that if everything is broken, nothing is broken. If every single unit in the game has some power that's like WOAH, THAT'S TOO GOOD! then isn't it like saying that every unit is equal? Well, maybe. But there's an aesthetic to that sort of play that doesn't appeal to me. It creates a high level environment where everyone has one superpower feat/item combo that demolishes a few types of foes, and is worthless against others. The spiked chain machine gun tripper? Almost automatically wins against certain encounters. Pointless against others. Etc. Meanwhile, spellcasters get a larger variety of superpower feat/item combos because they're really running feat/item/SPELL combos, and they get a lot more spells.

In my opinion, this type of play really overdoes the whole strengths/weaknesses thing for each character, making it almost a binary atmosphere instead of one with a gradient.