Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

I don't believe I ever said it was, but using COP and your familiar's Commune would allow you to establish the general location and general defenses with a few day's worth of effort, which is a great benefit.

I think there are plenty of ways to get that basic outline. Ultimately, if you can't find the general location, a lot of work went into designing the Dragon and its lair for not much real purpose - adventure notes make lousy wall hangings, even with a nice frame

Incidentally, I believe one can take 10 on the Int check with COP, which reduces the risk of losing spellcasting somewhat.

That mitigates the issue quite nicely, and returns the spell to "usable". I'm not sure of the designer's intent, but a penalty that substantial should not be possible for non-abusive use of a spell, and it's consistent with Take 10 on spellcraft when crafting magic items.

The one in the PHB, I imagine.

I think Polymorph holds the record for "most errata'd spell" (and is not content to rest on its laurels...) The SRD version at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm provides as follows:

This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.

Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead.

The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities.

Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action. "

So nice physical stats, but no regen, for example. Other forms (or spells) could clearly be used to augment the fighter, though.

If I have a party, I might as well make use of the fact. Using Planar Binding to get substitutes for a party is possible with enough work, but I see no reason to do extra work as my contention is not that the wizard can solo dragons, but that wizards are more powerful than fighters, in that they can contribute more to combat and non-combat situations.

So long as the result is an enjoyable game for all participants, I'm not too hung up over a perception of some power differential. The wizard is unquestionably more versatile, and I agree with the Pathfinder approach of beefing up the warrior types with more additions than the spellcasters got. I'd also like to see non-spellcasters get some class abilities that are directed to non-combat contributions, ideally choices of abilities which cannot be traded in for more damage/to hit bonuses, etc.

I can imagine a few things that would stop the dragon from retreating into the Solid Fog and lobbing out acid, such as a polymorphed fighter charging into the fog. Alternatively, Resist Energy.

The fighter can't move any faster than the dragon, though. Resist Energ would help, although this becomes a question of the dragon's options for stalling for time. 10 minutes per level practically means "run away and come back later" if he wants to stall, though. I would, however, expect the team working together to defeat the dragon, so I'm not really all that disappointed if the party wins. If the wizard abandons the party to take it on by himself, that's a concern.

 

[Hussar]

Cyclone_Joker, your behavior here is immature.

suffice it to say that IF you can play your favorite edition without needing to paint by the numbers, it can go a long way towards solving these sorts of problems, if your group is even having them.
It also happens to be a vital element of playing an RPG, regardless of edition. It's not a lame way out. To exclude house ruling, one might as well exclude dice, or, Gods forbid...pizza. It all goes together.

The problem is MJS, CJ's condescension notwithstanding, is that if you want to discuss the mechanics of a given edition, putting the goal posts on roller skates and invoking "Rule 0" for any counter argument becomes problematic because what's to stop CJ from stating that his wizard has no discernible scent? After all, we're allowing the DM to start changing the game, why can't the players? There's no reason that the wizard could not have researched a spell negating his scent, thus negating your dragon's senses. On and on and on. As Manbearcat mentioned above, it's Calvinball.

For simplicity's sake, if nothing else, it helps to stick as close to RAW as possible when trying to discuss mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

So long as the result is an enjoyable game for all participants, I'm not too hung up over a perception of some power differential. The wizard is unquestionably more versatile, and I agree with the Pathfinder approach of beefing up the warrior types with more additions than the spellcasters got. I'd also like to see non-spellcasters get some class abilities that are directed to non-combat contributions, ideally choices of abilities which cannot be traded in for more damage/to hit bonuses, etc.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page12#ixzz2flKx2nFv

And therein lies the rub. Every time this sort of thing comes up, we have to spend endless pages just trying to show that for some of us, the result of the game is NOT enjoyable for all participants. That for some of us, watching the caster completely dominate the game is not fun.

So we get into endless tail chasing about whether this problem actually exists instead of simply assuming good faith that some of us actually have seen this issue enough times that we would like to change the rules so that the problem goes away.

Can I play endless arms race with the casters? Sure. I'm Dming, I win. But, that's not the point. While I'm trying to counter the wizard by adding in more magic/playing silly buggers with enemy reactions/designing adventures to screw the casters, the non-casters are getting curb stomped.

That, or I have to force play into a very specific playstyle where casters are all blasters, and caster players must only choose the weakest options every time and play with a handicap. Because that seems to be the answer that I get in every one of these threads. The problem isn't the system, it's the playstyle, so, I'm just doing it wrong. As a DM, I should be screwing over the casters every chance I get just to keep them in line.

No thank you. I'd rather play a system which assumes parity between classes and move on from there.

 

[N'raac]

And therein lies the rub. Every time this sort of thing comes up, we have to spend endless pages just trying to show that for some of us, the result of the game is NOT enjoyable for all participants. That for some of us, watching the caster completely dominate the game is not fun.

I dont see Dandu's or Manbearcat's examples reflecting the caster "completely dominating the game". Nor have I seen an example of how the caster would "completely dominate the game" which does not take some pretty significant liberties with the rules of the game. Dragons don't have scent. True. And divination spells don't provide you a map of the dragon's lair neatly annotated with all of the traps and obstacles you may face on your way in, or give you the ability to guarantee the dragon cannot possibly notice your approach. This seems to get assumed away quite a bit, rather than looking at the same rules that we must abide by in assessing the dragon's abilities. Planar Binding spell victims refuse unreasonable requests, by the rules? Oh, that can't be interpreted to limit what I can get in services from that spell. Teleport requires I actually have "some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination", with scrying explicitly noted as both “ 'Studied carefully' is a place you know well, either because you can currently see it, you’ve been there often, or you have used other means (such as scrying) to study the place for at least one hour." and “ 'Viewed once' is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic."? Well the actual terms of the scrying and teleport spells shouldnt be used to deny me the ability to go anywhere any time - those rules should instead be ignored.

Meanwhile, if fighters get abilities that might do something besides add combat effectiveness, we immediately get the cry for alternatives that will boost their damage output - how dare you suggest a rule that prevents me from making a pure, 100% combat brute (so I can then complain about how boring it is when we do anything other than combat because my character is USELESS outside combat).

So we get into endless tail chasing about whether this problem actually exists instead of simply assuming good faith that some of us actually have seen this issue enough times that we would like to change the rules so that the problem goes away.

So what new rules do you propose to better enable all classes to feel cool and powerful, each in their own unique way? What system provides the parity you are looking for? If the answer is simply that the system should force play into a very specific playstyle where casters are all blasters, and caster players are presented with only the weakest options, how has that improved play?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

“any” or “all”? And where are the resources they study coming from? A truly self-trained spellcaster seems a lot more like a sorcerer, not reliant on spellbooks at all.

Nope. Wizards are learned, Sorcerers are dragony.

Funny…I don’t recall seeing price lists for kingdoms, small or otherwise. If only what is in the rules exists, then this is not a rule we can discuss. That said, most things that have a value that high lack a reliable pricing structure – yet magic has one. That implies less scarcity than is suggested.

Check SBG

Our forebears got a lot of these things wrong, actually. And, if we know spells exist, it seems that they can be similarly investigated and catalogued.

Obviously they didn't, given how a basic arcane education teaches me all I need to know about magical creatures.

Without extensive research, I believe that there are more spells than any other element of the game (other than magic items, possibly, and they just use the spells anyway). It therefore stands to reason there are likely to be more broken spells than more broken “anything elses”.

...Really? You're going down this road?

The spell loads you cite seem to change with no actual preparation time. The whole party can fly, we leave no tracks, have no scent, are all invisible, etc. etc. etc.

Yep. Because I prepare good spells.

Show me the divinations that let a L10 – 11 character (6th level spells maximum) locate and map out the dragon’s cave. Name the spells. I don’t discount the value of divinations, but I don’t overestimate their value either.
@Dandu, I’d be interested in your wizard’s approach, as a 10th level wizard with what I assume are WBL resources, rather than a spellbook with every spell in the compendium and more besides.

Contact Other Plane. Use every single slot save for your "OH " buttons.

Cyclone_Joker, your behavior here is immature.

Cry more.

suffice it to say that IF you can play your favorite edition without needing to paint by the numbers, it can go a long way towards solving these sorts of problems, if your group is even having them.
It also happens to be a vital element of playing an RPG, regardless of edition. It's not a lame way out. To exclude house ruling, one might as well exclude dice, or, Gods forbid...pizza. It all goes together.

... Dammit, I really need a :rofl: smiley.

For simplicity's sake, if nothing else, it helps to stick as close to RAW as possible when trying to discuss mechanics.

Thank you. I didn't think the idea of "rules" was so complicated.

I dont see Dandu's or Manbearcat's examples reflecting the caster "completely dominating the game". Nor have I seen an example of how the caster would "completely dominate the game" which does not take some pretty significant liberties with the rules of the game. Dragons don't have scent. True. And divination spells don't provide you a map of the dragon's lair neatly annotated with all of the traps and obstacles you may face on your way in, or give you the ability to guarantee the dragon cannot possibly notice your approach.

Then you're not using enough of them.

This seems to get assumed away quite a bit, rather than looking at the same rules that we must abide by in assessing the dragon's abilities. Planar Binding spell victims refuse unreasonable requests, by the rules? Oh, that can't be interpreted to limit what I can get in services from that spell.

Because nothing was defined. Therefore, "unreasonable" is meaningless from a mechanical perspective.

Teleport requires I actually have "some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination", with scrying explicitly noted as both “ 'Studied carefully' is a place you know well, either because you can currently see it, you’ve been there often, or you have used other means (such as scrying) to study the place for at least one hour." and “ 'Viewed once' is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic."? Well the actual terms of the scrying and teleport spells shouldnt be used to deny me the ability to go anywhere any time - those rules should instead be ignored.

You're joking, right? "Clear idea" and "Study" are both trivially easy with divination.

Meanwhile, if fighters get abilities that might do something besides add combat effectiveness, we immediately get the cry for alternatives that will boost their damage output - how dare you suggest a rule that prevents me from making a pure, 100% combat brute (so I can then complain about how boring it is when we do anything other than combat because my character is USELESS outside combat).

...Are you trying to, like, pull a satire about rabid anti-optimizers? 'Cuz that's all I'm getting from your post.

Melee isn't hurting for damage. What melee needs is the ability to actually do something.

So what new rules do you propose to better enable all classes to feel cool and powerful, each in their own unique way? What system provides the parity you are looking for? If the answer is simply that the system should force play into a very specific playstyle where casters are all blasters, and caster players are presented with only the weakest options, how has that improved play?

Tome of Battle and replacing all the casters with list caster versions. Suddenly, the "Cleric" is now a miraculous healer, not a CoDZilla, necromancers are actually capable of having hordes of the dead rather than using outsiders, and "evokers" have a purpose. Oh, and Spirit Shaman is usable. When you add in Incarnum, Psionics, ToM, and so on, everything actually works out relatively well, and you mostly avoid the problems of immortal, world-ruling god kings until level fourteen or so.

 

[Hussar]

So what new rules do you propose to better enable all classes to feel cool and powerful, each in their own unique way? What system provides the parity you are looking for? If the answer is simply that the system should force play into a very specific playstyle where casters are all blasters, and caster players are presented with only the weakest options, how has that improved play?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page12#ixzz2flmhx224

Depends on the system. In 3.5e? I'd chuck the core casters and replace them with Favoured Soul and Sorcerers and various other variant casters. Tome of Magic classes would work nicely. Replace core fighter types with Tome of Battle fighter types and you're good to go.

That gets rid of most of the differences in the disparity between the caster and non-casters. Yes, you can still abuse some of the variant caster classes, but, it's generally not such a big deal and takes a more deliberate attempt to do so. Besides, the non-core fighter types generally have better skill packages, making them more useful outside of combat.

IOW, the problem is fixed, AFAIC, but, you have to avoid core.

 

[Wiseblood]

The charge of coddling still stands. When you automatically assume that any wizard that sees play is already 13th or greater in level, has hundreds of thousands to spend on magic items, is protected by DM fiat and plot device.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by N'raac
So what new rules do you propose to better enable all classes to feel cool and powerful, each in their own unique way? What system provides the parity you are looking for? If the answer is simply that the system should force play into a very specific playstyle where casters are all blasters, and caster players are presented with only the weakest options, how has that improved play?

@Hussar has a good answer for this that I mostly agree with. I think having the core casters in the game isn't just bad for disparity in scene (re-)framing and complex, non-combat conflict resolution with respect to (primarily) mundane classes. It also is just a huge problem GM-side in consistently running functional, climactic conflicts (without Calvinball vs Calvinball and uncomfortable conflict of interest). Primary core casters are just dysfunctional design for consistent play in a team game that is supposed to involve engaging the resolution mechanics.

However, if we're just talking about leveling the playing field and bringing the tier 4/5s up to tier 2/1, then I would look to other systems for inspiration. There needs to be some ability for players of mundane classes to impose their will upon the fiction in the same way that casters do. Unfortunately, most folks don't like these answers because they often involve tangling with the metagame mechanics of author and director stance. You can see these things in:

Dungeon World - Fighter consulting Heirloom Weapon as divination, deciding who lives and dies via Through Death's Eyes, Rangers being able to play 2 roles on perilous journeys, Connections/Escape Route/Disguise/Heist for Rogues.

13th Age - Free-descriptor Skill System, One Unique Thing, Icon relationships, Rogue just doing something awesome when invoking Swashbuckler or improving Icon relationship for the day with Smooth Talk.

Fate Starblazer LoA - All manner of mundane abilities here that are either outright fiat or provide means for resolution that are advantageous enough to fortune resolution to almost be; eg leveraging a complete network of contacts which is tantamount to a powerful divination spell.

5e - Background Traits are basically insurance (sort of like BW Instincts) for player narrative imposition. These things are just true about your character and you can invoke them with no risk of GM veto. You're a Knight? Well you get the perks and fictional positioning that comes with that trait, guaranteed.

4e - Lots here from expanding Rituals to everyone (assuming they have the relevant skills), Martial Practices that allow scene framing and scene transitioning through mundane abilities, and a conflict resolution framework that makes the skill system the primary entry point for non-combat, conflict resolution. Each skill carries a lot of heft (ensuring strong competency in many things with just 4 skills) and theme powers, skill powers, and feat powers are all decoupled from class, ensuring that means to resolve non-combat conflicts is available to everyone. Obviously lots of Author stance combat exploits and some Director.

 

[Hussar]

The charge of coddling still stands. When you automatically assume that any wizard that sees play is already 13th or greater in level, has hundreds of thousands to spend on magic items, is protected by DM fiat and plot device.

Umm what?

So, any group that starts the game at higher levels is automatically "coddling"? Anyone playing a Paizo adventure path all the way through is automatically "coddling" the wizard/cleric? Really?

See, this is precisely what I've been talking about. "Oh, no, there is no problem with the system, you're just doing it wrong" seems to be the standard refrain here.

In order for me not to have a problem, I have to eject the top third of the game (levels 12+), restrict access to spells and magic items for the casters (while making sure that the non-casters have full access), choose adventures that specifically screw over the casters while ensuring that the non-casters have unfettered choices and so on.

If all of that is true, doesn't that mean that there is a systemic problem here? If the problem wasn't systemic in nature, why do I have to jump through all these hoops to fix it?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

The charge of coddling still stands.

No it doesn't.

When you automatically assume that any wizard that sees play is already 13th or greater in level,

No we don't. I just expect knowledge of what spells are good, something that would be painfully obvious were you capable of getting anything from my posts other than "lololololhezamunchkin!"

has hundreds of thousands to spend on magic items,

Level 13 WBL is 110,000. In other words, at least make your blatantly false arguments internally consistent.

is protected by DM fiat and plot device.

...Uh, no. Did you even read a single post? Or are you here to post meaningless one-liners about how EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL knowledge of the rules is?