Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
Neonchameleon
Legend
Wizard wins at everything except a straight up brawl or a rock climbing contest - skill points.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't say who the money favours.
Let's give the fighter and the wizard starting equipment. This means the wizard has his spellbook and a spell component pouch and the fighter has scale armour and a sword. Easy win to the wizard - you have to leave the wizard naked and weaponless for there to be a problem.
Now let's give the fighter and the wizard 2500 GP each. That just buys the fighter a +1 sword or +1 armour and a +1 shield. Meanwhile the wizard can buy a first level wand and a couple of dozen utility scrolls to store in the back of his spellbook. (And before someone mentions scrolls get used up, swords get outleveled so you need to replace them). The wizard can even make a second level wand if they want to spam something. Just about the only cheap magic items the fighter can buy are either usable by the wizard or not usable by the fighter.
15,000 GP? The Wizard buys a Blessed Book. Which costs only 1700 GP more than the fighter's +2 sword. Our wizard now has a spare spellbook.
Wizards quite simply get better use out of money than fighters because fighter gear is expensive. The only case where there's a contest is if you make both of them naked and weaponless - a very edge case. Spellbook to starting equipment the wizard's advantage is crushing, and it remains proportionate from there.
(And before someone says Bracers of Defence, a +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt costs a little over 5000 GP for +5 to AC.)
I think we largely get back to Ahnehnois' common comment. The Wizard can have a bunch of scrolls for special situations, and the fighter uses that magic sword to his advantage in every combat. The drawbacks of consumables are also, I think, dismissed too lightly. The fighter can have the enchantment on his sword enhanced, so it gets more powerful and he does not repay that base cost. The wizard pays full price for new wands, scrolls, etc. Those items also get more expensive fast for level-dependent spells. A Wand of Magic Missiles may be pretty cheap to a 9th level Wizard, but doing a whopping 2-5 damage per round shows you get what you pay for.
A scroll is rolled, so it does not tuck neatly in the back of a spellbook, by the way. Not too big a deal if we stick to utility spells that we can take the time to sort out and identify from a big bundle. But that L1 wizard is still limited in getting through several combats a day (so we return to "if the PC's can strike once then hole up and rest, spellcasters gain relative power, and if not they are relatively depowered"). The acceptance of the 5 minute day seems the playstyle difference with the greatest potential to change the balance between limited resource casters and "carry on all day" fighters.
I can't speak to anyone else's experience in game, but I have never seen spellcasters dominate. I have seen a team with a variety of skills and abilities synergize effectively, with each contributing to the success of the team in their own way. But I have also never seen a game where the rules are interpreted to ignore all reasonable restrictions arising from spell descriptions and the casting rules either, nor have I ever played in a game where the players (and the characters through them) assumed they could blast off all their resources, then easily hole up and rest, rather than husbanding their resources to get through the day (or the location they were in).
A scroll is rolled, so it does not tuck neatly in the back of a spellbook, by the way. Not too big a deal if we stick to utility spells that we can take the time to sort out and identify from a big bundle. But that L1 wizard is still limited in getting through several combats a day (so we return to "if the PC's can strike once then hole up and rest, spellcasters gain relative power, and if not they are relatively depowered"). The acceptance of the 5 minute day seems the playstyle difference with the greatest potential to change the balance between limited resource casters and "carry on all day" fighters.
I can't speak to anyone else's experience in game, but I have never seen spellcasters dominate. I have seen a team with a variety of skills and abilities synergize effectively, with each contributing to the success of the team in their own way. But I have also never seen a game where the rules are interpreted to ignore all reasonable restrictions arising from spell descriptions and the casting rules either, nor have I ever played in a game where the players (and the characters through them) assumed they could blast off all their resources, then easily hole up and rest, rather than husbanding their resources to get through the day (or the location they were in).
I think the modules themselves do not provide a complete picture of the campaign envisioned by Gygax, Arneson et al. The point of those modules is that they were modular - they were intended to be inserted in the GM's much broader campaign, and be worked into the more complex overall campaign/world structure. They weren't adventure paths, but an encounter or area explored as a small part of the ongoing campaign. They generally did not presuppose any specific motives of the PC's (other than the most basic, that they would value treasure), or how the broader tapestry of the world outside the dungeon was woven by the players and their DM. They were intended as a component of the campaign, not the campaign as a whole.
The very earliest modules were commonly tournament modules, which did not anticipate any outside campaign, merely characters (pregenerated characters at that) played through the module, with no previous play and none expected afterwards - very different from an ongoing campaign. That evolved as time went on, but those early modules were plug & play dungeon environments, not the campaign world as a whole. The Tomb of Horrors was pretty much unique, more deathtrap than dungeon (and I know a lot of gamers, even in the early days of AD&D, who did not consider it much of an adventure, for precisely that reason), but all of those early modules relied on the GM's efforts to flesh them out, and tie them to larger campaign events, PC motivations, etc. Judges Guild tended to have a more "here is an area fleshed out in which you can place your adventures" approach in many cases.
White Plume Mountain was a popular one - I saw it used a lot. But I didn't see the PC's just stumble on it and decide to explore it for the sake of exploration. Typically, there were events outside the module which mandated a need for one or more of those special weapons, or our heroes were commissioned to retrieve one or more for their original owners, perhaps for monetary reward, but more often for some campaign-specific reward ("If you wish my daughter's hand"; "Before I will ally my forces, you must prove your worth"; "I will not craft such an item for crass gold, but if you could offer me the legendary Whelm in return...", etc.). Often very flimsy excuses ("stop the raids from..." or "prove you are the heroes you claim by..."), but linkages to a broader tapestry in the campaign world. In a game focused on the efforts of a small band of heroes to turn back a tide of evil, simply replacing the three weapons with items needed to advance their aims (perhaps the crown, scepter and orb of the long-splintered Kingdom the PC's seek to reunite in order to stand against the foe) makes the module a part of the living campaign, a challenge our heroes must overcome to achieve their goals.
Even in the early days, though, at least in my experience, the players brought the personalities of their characters to these modules, playing through their challenges. That is where the "experience" lay. That "shared experience" of playing through the same challenges was common ground for players widely separated geographically, in those pre-online days. Different approaches to the challenges, different characters undertaking them, and for different reasons in the campaign, but shared experiences within the early gaming community (funny how we say "gaming community" and mean "RPG players", or perhaps even "early D&D players" - isn't the local darts club and cribbage league "gaming"? The term derives from the wargaming community from which our hobby developed, I believe).
In any case, I hardly see Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain or the G-D-Q series fitting well in an indie style game either. Perhaps the fact that Tomb of Horrors was unique indicates how far off the "standard D&D adventure" as envisioned by the game's authors and its early participants it truly was.
Last edited:
ImperatorK
First Post
Both of which are made by the Wizard. And Wizard isn't dependent on having scrolls, but the Fighter does need a magic sword to keep up. So yeah. That common comment only helps our point.
I don't normally see the party wizard scribing his own scrolls (much more often, I see him purchase scrolls to supplement his own repertoire - he doesn't get a broad, versatile range of utility spells by selecting two spells per level - not with the intention of casting from the scroll). Once we assume the pressure's low enough that he can sort through his bag full of scrolls to pick out that desired utility spell, it's generally the case that we can wait long enough for him to access any spell in his own repertoire anyway.
I seldom, if ever, see the party wizard crafting magical arms or armor (or much of anything else, for that matter). I'm experimenting with that myself in a Pathfinder game, but I'm using a cleric (and it's early yet - she can only Craft Wondrous Objects, not Arms and Armour, at this level). My first 3rd Ed character did have armorsmithing and weaponsmithing, and crafted his own Masterwork items, so I've seen that more than magic item creation. But here again, the ability of the players/characters to choose how much down time they will have can have a significant influence over the value of these abilities. They would also be much more valuable (to everyone in the party) in a game lacking a "magical economy". In many games, item crafting simply trades feats and time for cost savings.
I suspect my experience is not uncommon, as Pathfinder made crafting a more desirable choice by both eliminating xp costs and allowing for limited crafting time while travelling/adventuring.
If the Wizard is sufficiently higher level, they win the brawl too. They get a BAB increase and more hit points too.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
The BAB and health increase on its own wouldn't necessarily mean the wizard could beat the fighter in a brawl, assuming no access to spells. A 5th level fighter might have slightly fewer hit points and equal BAB to a 10th level wizard, but he's very unlikely to have a similar strength score and thus won't be able to do as much damage. However, some tricks the wizard does have up his sleeves are the Spell Mastery and Eschew Materials feats. Pretty much regardless of what the fighter's feats are, the wizard is going to win thanks to Polymorph and knowledge checks to know about the statistics of various monsters to polymorph into.
And thus one of the paradigms is still showing its head: A prepared wizard is much more dangerous than a prepared fighter, while an unprepared wizard is a smaller threat than an unprepared fighter. The trick with wizards and similar is making them be prepared more often than not.
Of course you're not the only one who plays in a style that identifies player and character. My point is that it's not the only way of playing, and that there is no reason that D&D, even 3E, must be played that way.
No. As I said in my post to which you replied, and as [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] said, and as was implied in the Burning Wheel rules text, if there is no prior determination of the fiction, then a successful Weather Sense roll allows the player to dictate the weather (and, in the fiction, means that the character learns what it will be).
If some other character has used weather summoning magic, there is prior determination of the fiction. If the GM has already decided what the weather will be, then there is prior determination of the fiction. In that case, a successful Weather Sense roll means that the player, like the character, learns what the weather will be.
(For what its worth, here are the difficulties (in BW, Ob 1 is as easy as it gets and Ob 10 is virtually impossible): Useless, vague prediction (eg “rain soon”), Ob 1; Accurate weather at vague location and time, Ob 2; Approximate location or time, +1 base Ob (+2 base Ob for both);Accurate location or time, +2 base Ob (+3 base Ob for both).)
You could have a game in which characters have both Weather Sense and the ability to dictate the weather (eg a druid in many systems, including 3E).
You could also have a game in which all player resources that do not correlate to character abilities were put into a separate pool (eg HARP almost counts as this).
But D&D has, in my view never been such a game (eg hit points are a player resource with, at best, a highly ambiguous relationship to character abilities). And at least one good design reason in favour of not insisting on such a separation is that it permits "fail forward" narration of failed checks, which is fairly central to indie play. (And can be made a part of D&D: see 4e, see 13th Age, and there's no reason I'm aware of why 3E couldn't be played similarly.)
As I've said, there is no inherent reason why 3E must be played this way. And I'd be surprised if no one ever played 3E using Survival skill in more of an indie style. (Of all the 3E skills, it is the one most obviously able to be adjudicated this way.)
Gygax's game had nothing to do with "adventure paths". Look at the style of play described in his DMG: the GM is running the game basically every day (every real world day = 1 game world day), and those players who can turn up and choose a PC to play and do stuff.
Tomb of Horrors was adapted from Gygax's campaign. (He designed it to defeat one of his players - I think [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] knows the story.)
The characterisation of PCs appropriate to these modules might include having a favourite weapon or colour or catch-phrase, but (for instance) if a PC decides to try to ally with Kerpatis rather than steal the weapons back from him, the adventure as written is over. These aren't story elements within a dramatic campaign: they are challenges to be overcome.
And even if you swap the items in WPM, the idea that it is about the players having a "subjective experience" of being their PCs is risible! (And this is what @Ahehnois meant - he wasn't talking about the common experience of watching the same film or playing through the same module.) These modules are about beating the dungeon - about (for instance) working out how to break the glass to flood the ziggurat room, or working out how to remove dungeon doors to surf them over the super-tetanus pits. They're romps, not 2nd ed-style "storytelling" episodes.
Of course not. That's my point. The way that you and Ahnehnois play D&D (which is not itself the same across the two of you, as best I can tell, but is more similar than either is to me or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], as best I can tell) is not the only way it can be done, or historically has been done.
For those who are playing differently, caster/fighter issues are real. For instance, does anyone think a 9th level fighter is as valuable in ToH as a 9th level cleric or wizard?
On the one hand, you keep reiterating that 3e can be played in the style you favour. ON the other hand, you keep telling us that 3e is unbalanced between fighters and spellcasters for the style you play, while Ahnehnois and I do not find them unbalanced in our playstyle. Your game element examples to make 3e play better within your playstyle are drawn from numerous other game systems, not 3e, which presumably better match your playstyle.
I submit that, if the game is balanced and works well for some playstyles, and becomes unbalanced, requiring imports and rule changes from other systems to work, for other playstyles, this is an indication of the playstyle(s) that the system is intended for. That may be due to conscious choice around which the game is designed (Hero System 6e includes a discussion of the Hero System philosophy in its introduction, and your excerpts from Burning Wheel indicate a similar conscious design choice, explicitly stated), or an unconscious choice by the designers who design the game to play “their way” without considering the possibility of other playstyles.
So what if the Weather Sense roll is made first, after which the Druid casts his Control Weather spell? There is prior determination in the system as to what the weather will be - the Weather Sense skill has set that weather. Now, another character is using his resources to alter the fiction to be more to his liking. If the spell can override the skill, are we not back to the same complaint that spellcasters possess a greater ability to impact the fiction?
Again, that it is not a part of 3e D&D implies, to me, that the designers did not intend this to be the playstyle of 3e. That it is more prevalent in 4e indicates a shift in design objectives. A shift in design objectives would presumably alienate some players while attracting others. One would expect such a shift to lead to debates over the relative merits of the systems. The more radical shift, the more extreme those debates. Anyone else thinking of the term “Edition Wars”?
Gygax most definitely subscribed to the “living world” model. Action happens whether the PC’s are there or not, and they must go where the action is – it will not come to them (unless, of course, their activities draw that action to them).
Tomb of Horrors is not a standard. It is unique. As such, it is a poor example of the game in general, at that or any other time.
White Plume Mountain is a much better example of the flavour of modules at the time. What would happen if the players try to ally with Keraptis? That’s really left up to the GM – Keraptis is not described at all, so his goals, objectives and willingness to ally with the PC’s are left entirely to the GM to determine, or not, as he sees fit. IIRC, the last encounter in the module is two Efreet seeking to bring the PC’s down to Keraptis, in an extension of the dungeon which is not described in even the most vague terms.
This was also common in early modules – there were other areas left for the GM to design himself, linked to the dungeon. Keep on the Borderlands had the Cave of the Unknown, for example. The Giants series would often see the GM design the wilderness one had to travel through to reach the various locations, the D series had plenty of room for other encounters, scenarios or entire civilizations. Vault of the Drow, in particular, called out to the GM to flesh out the interplay between the noble families, which the PC’s could become involved in. Q1 had, IIRC, four separate PLANES for the GM to set further adventures in.
Again, the game seems balanced in our playstyle, and not in yours. Does that not reasonably lead to the conclusion it is designed more with our playstyle in mind than an Indie playstyle?
Again, ToH is a poor example. Much more common were modules where the PC’s had numerous combat encounters, which relied on the ability of the fighters to act as the backbone of the party’s combat resources, so the spellcasters could husband their resources, using them when they would make the greatest difference, and tricks & traps where the thief’s skills became valuable. Tomb of Horrors was one big trap, not a typical dungeon/adventure scenario, where combat was virtually nonexistent.
Similar Threads
