Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[MJS]

Why not just redesign your PC-build rules so that all PCs come out much the same in terms of mechanical and story effectiveness? It's not inherent to the concept of a fantasy RPG that there be these sorts of disparities across class design.

.

Story effectiveness is not mechanical, and the classes are well balanced in terms of role. Class vs. Class is a can of worms, since they are meant to work together, for the most part.

I think the underlying problem is more along the lines of overbearing players who happen to prefer spellcasters.

 

[Manbearcat]

Story effectiveness is not mechanical <snip>

- Martial character 1's primary form of conflict resolution is combat. The PC build mechanics say he has n offense, and n defense. He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict. His n (offense) and n (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 2 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat.

- Martial character 2's primary form of conflict resolution is combat. The PC build mechanics say he has n + 2 defense, and n + 2 offense. He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict. His n + 2 (offense) and n + 2 (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 0 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat.

- Spellcaster character 1's has no primary form of conflict resolution. In any one scenario it could be a myriad of approaches. The PC build mechanics say that during conflict resolution he can deploy 1 or more spells that circumvent the standard resolution mechanics that Martial characters 1 and 2 interface with. They are effectively strategic trump cards that either automatically win or are the equivalent of n + 10 resources that interface with non-standard resolution mechanics (eg Spell Resistance system). Like Martial character 2, he wins 10 out of 10 times in conflicts varying from social to overt combat to assymetrical warfare (of which he dictates the terms of engagement).

How is story effectiveness not mechanical? If the resolution mechanics are utterly circumvented and drowned out by GM fiat, then yes, the authenticity of a player's build mechanics and their strategic and tactical decisions are indeed rendered irrelevant. However, assuming that GM fiat is not the driver of outcomes, then how is story effectiveness not, at least in part (another part if the fog of fortune resolution and another part is acumen of tactical and strategic decision-making), driven mechanically?

 

[Dandu]

Story effectiveness is not mechanical, and the classes are well balanced in terms of role. Class vs. Class is a can of worms, since they are meant to work together, for the most part.

I think the underlying problem is more along the lines of overbearing players who happen to prefer spellcasters.

But what happens when one class can take over the role of another? A well built Cleric or Druid can fight as well as a Fighter, and do more besides.

And the fighter can hang out in the swamp waiting to spot a passing Lizard, but it should not be too tough to find the lizard village.

Hanging around waiting in a swamp on the off chance that a lizard will pass by seems painfully inefficient and could take days... which is the same complaint you had against CJ and his multiple day's worth of COPing, iirc.

Scouting the swamp with Prying Eyes is faster. I do not believe there is much room for debate here.

That’s the maximum level leader, actually, and should be a pretty even straight-up battle.

Well, I would hate to coddle the 10th level fighter by giving him a lower level opponent.

2, of L 3-6?

Sure.

I see Javelin in their stat block, not bows.

And we all know monsters possess nothing except what is in their entries.

Can I set things up so the fighter has no chance? Sure. I can set things up against the wizard too. It’s a swamp – how useful is his Invisibility?

I would argue that with COP, the wizard does not need to involve the lizardfolk at all, unlike the Fighter who has to. But you and I differ in our opinions of how COP work.

I am unclear what the usefulness of Invisibility in a swamp is. Can you please explain?

Now, you say that you can make things hard for the wizard as well. I would argue that the wizard would still have an easier time than fighting off a tribe full of lizardfolk. Whereas the Fighter has to use force to achieve his goals, I would say that the Wizard could scout out the Lizardfolk with Prying Eyes, then proceed to fly in under cover of Invisibility over the treetop and gain access to the village that way. Invisibly land, cast Magic Jar, possess someone, get them to go out of the village and gag themselves then tie themselves up, and then the wizard can haul the victim away.

This avoids having to fight a village full of lizardfolk.

Unquestionably, having the wizard makes it easier, but I have a tough time believing a party of L10 non-spellcasters (like there has ever been one) would be unable to locate the lizardfolk village and question them.

I never said that they would not, only that it would be harder for the Fighter to do so - and it seems from the tactic your Fighter is resorting to (either waiting around in the swamp hoping he gets lucky, or taking on a village full of lizardfolk) that he is going to have a rough, inefficient time of it. And as you yourself said earlier, time can often be of critical importance.

Is that knowledge limited to mechanical engineers, or shared by most of the general populace?

I just found it amusing that your example, simple as it was, contained a major flaw.

“In you go, fellow, just squeeze into this bag”? A bag with an opening a bear can crawl into? A different issue, though.

Let me simply say that the standard 4 man party, which we are apparently operating under for the purpose of this discussion, seems to have no animal companions or mounts.

I’d hope so, but the question comes down to the dragon’s approach. The other question is what the goal was, whether loot the dragon’s treasure or put an end to its predation on the surrounding lands. Again back to camaign style.

Looting is not incompatible with ending the dragon's threat. In the Art of War, it says to make the enemy fight on your terms, and not their own. It further suggests that capturing something the enemy holds dear will make him bend to your will so that you may dictate the terms of the engagement.

A move action it can use to hover unless its turn is over in which case it falls in its next turn unless it can then move or use a move action to hover.

Yes! And if its close to the ground strafing, it will then be in a position to be attacked/netted/whatever by the fighter.

Are we using Wall of Force or Solid Fog? The latter provides the dragon considerable bouyancy, I believe.

Only if you're on top or on the top half of it.

 

[N'raac]

But what happens when one class can take over the role of another? A well built Cleric or Druid can fight as well as a Fighter, and do more besides.

If there's a druid, there's an animal companion, so one more (maybe large) creature to teleport.

Hanging around waiting in a swamp on the off chance that a lizard will pass by seems painfully inefficient and could take days... which is the same complaint you had against CJ and his multiple day's worth of COPing, iirc.

The closest COP has gotten to locating the dragon is "is it in this square on the map?". If we've narrowed that down to any kind of reasonable area for that to work, I don't think we'll have to look too hard for the Lizardfolk. Prying Eyes would, I agree, be more efficient. We can do that in 5 weeks, after the wizard recovers from one failed INT roll on COPmania.

And we all know monsters possess nothing except what is in their entries.

Sorry - you're not the one playing semantics with spell verbiage

However, do you think semi-aquatic lizardfolk can carry bows and arrows efficiently? I think they use javelins because they survive submersion better.

I am unclear what the usefulness of Invisibility in a swamp is. Can you please explain?

The example given - I don't think it was yours - was the invisible wizard infiltrating the lizard village. Hence, invisibility. More later.

Now, you say that you can make things hard for the wizard as well. I would argue that the wizard would still have an easier time than fighting off a tribe full of lizardfolk. Whereas the Fighter has to use force to achieve his goals, I would say that the Wizard could scout out the Lizardfolk with Prying Eyes, then proceed to fly in under cover of Invisibility over the treetop and gain access to the village that way. Invisibly land, cast Magic Jar, possess someone, get them to go out of the village and gag themselves then tie themselves up, and then the wizard can haul the victim away.

Invisibly land in water or swamp, making footprints that are easy to detect and splashing about as he walks (or tugging his boots out of the muck and mire). Really, the best tactic for the lizardfolk is to get either Wizard or Warrior into the water.

The wizard can likely fly, but 1 minute per level isn't very long, and overland flight has Average maneuverability which, as you have pointed out for the dragon, requires constant movement.

As to the Magic Jar, where are you leaving your body? It has to be close enough to the lizard village to get a lizardfolk to pass within 10' per level of it. It has to be kept above water and mire so you can breath (although I'm not sure it breathes while you're gone). And how strong is your wizard, now hauling a lizardfolk through the swamp?

I just found it amusing that your example, simple as it was, contained a major flaw.

The fact is that we're familiar enough with operation of the car that most of us don't really think through "start car; press brake; shift to reverse; back out; shift to forward" etc. Note that I didn't think to say LOOK back first (an issue that does get missed sometiems).

Let me simply say that the standard 4 man party, which we are apparently operating under for the purpose of this discussion, seems to have no animal companions or mounts.

Unless it has a druid, or maybe a ranger, the former being perceived (not without reason) as much more optimal.

Only if you're on top or on the top half of it.

Oddly, it talks about slowing your fall if you fall through it, but not about what happens if the fall starts in the fog itself, so we get to a judgement call. I do not think, under any reasonable interpretation, the fog would keep the dragon afloat, so the only question is how fast he will land. If he's strafing with a breath weapon, why would he be close enough to the ground for the fighter to hit? If he's passing directly over the fighter, it may not be to the party's advantage for him to drop out of the sky either, so the fighter likely will need to move to close for melee.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Snip

You re- You know, screw it, this isn't worth my time. Rebut or concede. Now.

 

[Wiseblood]

No it doesn't.
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!"
Level 13 WBL is 110,000. In other words, at least make your blatantly false arguments internally consistent.
...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?

I have. Please don't put word's into my mouth. I will illustrate my point. Two characters are adventuring together. One is a fighter the other is a wizard. They encounter a hostile wizard that is higher level than they are. The NPC wizard could target either one, and hit their weak saves. If you were to ask yourself, which one of these characters is the most dangerous, I can assume the NPC would think it was the mage. The NPC could target the PC mage's weaknesses being quite familiar with them, HP and fortitude saves being the target most of the time. If the PC mage flunks a save or loses all of his hit points he could die. On the other hand, the fighter's limited tactical options render him less of a threat. He also has a weak will save. (probably, just as I have assumed the wizard has a weak fortitude save) If the fighter fails a will save he's probably out of the fight. (but not dead or dying) So the DM targets the "lesser threat" and spares the possibility of ending the game for the other player. I'm not talking about the rules. I'm not arguing that mages are weaker than fighters or that mages are munchkins. I am saying that the gulf is not a wide as it seems, when you include the meta. Adventuring is very different from a hypothetical duel and ongoing campaigns tend to have twists and turns that no one foresees. Now do you see why I say they are coddled?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Two characters are adventuring together. One is a fighter the other is a wizard. They encounter a hostile wizard that is higher level than they are.

That's called "Rocks fall," brah.

The NPC wizard could target either one, and hit their weak saves. If you were to ask yourself, which one of these characters is the most dangerous, I can assume the NPC would think it was the mage. The NPC could target the PC mage's weaknesses being quite familiar with them, HP and fortitude saves being the target most of the time. If the PC mage flunks a save or loses all of his hit points he could die.

Except no, because the wizard has immunities to crap like that, and the fact that the higher-level wizard has too high of an Int score to bother memorizing those crap spells.

On the other hand, the fighter's limited tactical options render him less of a threat. He also has a weak will save. (probably, just as I have assumed the wizard has a weak fortitude save) If the fighter fails a will save he's probably out of the fight. (but not dead or dying) So the DM targets the "lesser threat" and spares the possibility of ending the game for the other player. I'm not talking about the rules. I'm not arguing that mages are weaker than fighters or that mages are munchkins. I am saying that the gulf is not a wide as it seems,

So because fighters are so weak they are insignificant compared to mages, they're not weak? Wait, what?

when you include the meta.

The concepts of "wizard," "fighter," "saves," and "HP" ARE the meta.

Adventuring is very different from a hypothetical duel and ongoing campaigns tend to have twists and turns that no one foresees.

Then nobody is divining.

Now do you see why I say they are coddled?

Yes. You're simply not listening to reason, choosing rather to feel self-righteous because "Screw facts, y'all're coddled."

Either that or you think Rocks Fall encounters are good ideas. I'm not sure which of those is less unflattering, so I'll let you choose.

 

[Wiseblood]

That's called "Rocks fall," brah.
Except no, because the wizard has immunities to crap like that, and the fact that the higher-level wizard has too high of an Int score to bother memorizing those crap spells.
So because fighters are so weak they are insignificant compared to mages, they're not weak? Wait, what?
The concepts of "wizard," "fighter," "saves," and "HP" ARE the meta.
Then nobody is divining.
Yes. You're simply not listening to reason, choosing rather to feel self-righteous because "Screw facts, y'all're coddled."

Either that or you think Rocks Fall encounters are good ideas. I'm not sure which of those is less unflattering, so I'll let you choose.

I'm not listening to reason? Do all of your encounters, when you play as a wizard, find you pitted against lower level NPC's/monsters from which you have 100% resistance to everything? I think you're trolling now. You had me going for a minute. BTW I didn't say fighters were weak I said the NPC would assume the fighter was weak. (because wizards are coddled into believing they are invincible) I said the fighter has limited tactical options. Again putting words into my mouth. Now I know you can't argue well unless you ignore and pervert what has been said by the opposition.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You re- You know, screw it, this isn't worth my time. Rebut or concede. Now.

Really? You honestly think you're winning? Is this a duel or something?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

I'm not listening to reason?

Yep.

Do all of your encounters, when you play as a wizard, find you pitted against lower level NPC's/monsters from which you have 100% resistance to everything?

No. I just know that fighting anything with more than one spell level up on you is suicide, plain and simple.

Also, long-duration buffs and WBL are cheap. Try to keep up.

I think you're trolling now.

I've thought you're doing so for several hours.

BTW I didn't say fighters were weak I said the NPC would assume the fighter was weak. (because wizards are coddled into believing they are invincible) I said the fighter has limited tactical options.

Limited tactical options means weak.

And you still obviously have no idea what "coddled" means.

Again putting words into my mouth.

Nope, although you seem to love using phrase you appear to not understand.

Now I know you can't argue well unless you ignore and pervert what has been said by the opposition.

Now I know you can't argue at all. Funny how that works.

Really? You honestly think you're winning?

No. I'm attempting to determine if he is inherently unreasonable, or just very wrong.

Is this a duel or something?

No, although this would still be better than everything post-episode 62 of 5d's.