Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Neonchameleon]

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 @Neonchameleon knows the story.)

All correct Gygax's campaign was basically a sandbox with a rolling group of players and different numbers turning up each time. This is very different from an Adventure Path. Tomb of Horrors was designed to challenge Rob Kuntz (Sir Robilar's player) and Ernie Gygax when they were claiming Greyhawk was too easy - and the results of its first run were that Rob Kuntz and Ernie Gygax defeated the tomb, took all the loot and didn't lose a single henchman. Which is unsurprising as the Tomb isn't actually hard once you know the trick to it and years of playing with Gygax will have probably made the trick very obvious.

(My source for the story behind ToH is Mike Mornard/Old Geezer on RPG.net).

As for fighters vs spellcasters, Gygax spent a lot of time balancing fighters with casters for oD&D. He failed because the main fighter player was Rob Kunz - who amongst other things had a superb working memory and a lot of skill as a player. But most of the fighter balancing mechanisms were subtle and included rigging the loot table hard towards fighters by making it mostly swords (which clerics couldn't use), making swords do extra damage against large creatures, putting in a de facto level cap round 10th level, and giving fighters the best saves in the game. There was also a lot in the game to subtly weaken wizards - like save or suck and save or die spells being much easier to save against, spells known coming under the heading of loot that was assigned by the DM, a very limited number of spells per day, spellcasting disruption, powerful spells having drawbacks, and much more.

Every single one of these boosts to the fighter was either massively reduced or eliminated by 3.0. And every single one of the wizard restrictions was either removed or eliminated by 3.0. And they didn't go far enough - Gygax posted on these very boards that the reason for the seemingly overpowered fighter variants in Unearthed Arcana (like the Cavalier) was for balance, giving the non-casters a much needed boost.

But what really demonstrates the fighter/wizard balance problem is that we're talking about it. It should be an apples/oranges comparison. For balance purposes, the fighter should be compared to the spellcaster who can heal (therefore bringing far more endurance to the party than the fighter ever will) and bring down blessings for the rest of the party - but doesn't have many strong overt magical effects. The wizard should be compared to the lightly armoured utility guy who has a tendency to go squish in combat and hides in shadows pretty well. If the wizard is being compared to the fighter in terms of combat potential something somewhere has gone deeply wrong.

 

[pemerton]

So what if the Weather Sense roll is made first, after which the Druid casts his Control Weather spell?

Well it seems to me that, at that point, we know (i) what the base weather is for determining the difficulty and parameters of the druid's spell, and (ii) what the weather will revert to if the druid's spell is dispelled.

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?

That depends on a lot of other considerations: for instance, where does the druid have to be to cast his/her spell, and how long does it take, and how easy is it to dispel?

Gygax most definitely subscribed to the “living world” model.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

I think the basic idea of ToH - beat the dungeon - is a pretty good example of classic D&D, even if its balance of monsters to traps is atypical.

As for the players allying with Keraptis - I think that would be a pretty major breaking of the social contract of classic D&D play, "living world" or not.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Whereas I've never seen a 3e game where the wizard (and the cleric for that matter) wasn't crafting scrolls by 2nd level and wands as soon as possible. My very first 3e character was a wizard and I took full advantage of scrolls and wands. As did every single caster player I played with since.

That's the problem with dueling anecdotes. You're telling me that because you didn't see it, it never happens. I'm telling you that IME, it happened all the time, every time. You buy a scroll to add it to your spellbook so that you can then scribe your own.

Why on earth would you rely on other people to supply scrolls?

And, let's not forget that the wizard can use the cleric and scribe anything the cleric can cast. The cost is not terribly high. That was a pretty common tactic as well since so many cleric spells are much more specific in their utility.

Now, magic weapons and armor? Yup, rarely saw that because it wasn't really worth it. You didn't change over items often enough to justify the feat. OTOH, Craft Wonderous was a no brainer.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Whereas I've never seen a 3e game where the wizard (and the cleric for that matter) wasn't crafting scrolls by 2nd level and wands as soon as possible. My very first 3e character was a wizard and I took full advantage of scrolls and wands. As did every single caster player I played with since.

I've only had one player in my 3e/PF games that took advantage of scroll scribing, and she found it redundant at high levels. OTOH, I always felt that if I'd played a wizard (I almost always DM) I would have taken advantage from day 1 as well. So honestly, I think it comes down to the player.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I've only had one player in my 3e/PF games that took advantage of scroll scribing, and she found it redundant at high levels. OTOH, I always felt that if I'd played a wizard (I almost always DM) I would have taken advantage from day 1 as well. So honestly, I think it comes down to the player.

Indeed. It's a matter of valuations and opportunity costs. For my part, I find using Unearthed Arcana's Wizard Variant to trade Scribe Scroll for Improved Initiative to be a very good trade. Casting first wins combats! And I'm not alone in that opinion. It was also advocated in Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God.

As wizards gain nothing in terms of class abilities, there is an incentive to prestige out ASAP. This often requires my level 1 and level 3 feats to be used as prerequisites, leaving me with little flexibility. My 5th level wizard bonus feat is almost always better used as either the Domain Granted Power or Spontaneous Divination ACFs from Complete Champion. After that, my 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th feats are better used to meet further prerequisites, Spell Focus/Spell Penetration, improved familiar, or metamagic (or Obtain Familiar if I happen to be a conjurer who traded his familiar for the Immediate Magic ACF). Personally, I find that wizards lack the available to feats to justify spending one on Craft Wondrous Item or Scribe Scroll.

 

[Hussar]

But, Jacob Marley, Scribe Scroll is free. It costs nothing.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Not when it's traded out right from the start for something more worthwhile at the time it isn't.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not when it's traded out right from the start for something more worthwhile at the time it isn't.

No kidding. There are plenty of good tradeoff options, and it always stuck me as a necessary part of playing a wizard. Since your weaknesses are so many, you really need to take advantage of every ability you can grab, not work on being a better scribe.

 

[N'raac]

Well it seems to me that, at that point, we know (i) what the base weather is for determining the difficulty and parameters of the druid's spell, and (ii) what the weather will revert to if the druid's spell is dispelled.

That depends on a lot of other considerations: for instance, where does the druid have to be to cast his/her spell, and how long does it take, and how easy is it to dispel?

So we're just placing heavy handed restrictions on the druid's spellcasting abilities, then. I'm still not seeing this as superior to the accusations leveled against a balanced 3rd Ed D&D game.

I think the basic idea of ToH - beat the dungeon - is a pretty good example of classic D&D, even if its balance of monsters to traps is atypical.

As for the players allying with Keraptis - I think that would be a pretty major breaking of the social contract of classic D&D play, "living world" or not.

The lack of monsters in ToH devalues the fighter, whose main ability is bashing the monsters. And, while I agree with your social contract comment, I thought the whole issue here was varying that social contract for different playstyles. If we want more freedom and flexibility for player decisionmaking, seeking an alliance with Keraptis becomes a more valid approach. It does, however, require figuring out just who Keraptis is, beyond "a mad wizard creating a bizarre dungeon", a common trope of early modules.

Whereas I've never seen a 3e game where the wizard (and the cleric for that matter) wasn't crafting scrolls by 2nd level and wands as soon as possible. My very first 3e character was a wizard and I took full advantage of scrolls and wands. As did every single caster player I played with since.

That's the problem with dueling anecdotes. You're telling me that because you didn't see it, it never happens. I'm telling you that IME, it happened all the time, every time. You buy a scroll to add it to your spellbook so that you can then scribe your own.

Clearly, from the comments that follow, experiences vary. I agree that, once I have the spell, I'd typically scribe my own scrolls. Once we get over the psychological hurdle of spending xp. But do I want to spend my limited wealth on scrolls of utility spells, so I don't have to rest and change my spell load when one comes up, or do I want to spend it on something else? I really only benefit from the scrolls when backing off to change the spell load isn't an option. In such a game, going nova in one encounter, then backing off to rest, also likely isn't an option.

That said, especially before "alternate class features", the fact every wizard has Scribe Scroll implies an expectation it will be used.

And, let's not forget that the wizard can use the cleric and scribe anything the cleric can cast. The cost is not terribly high. That was a pretty common tactic as well since so many cleric spells are much more specific in their utility.

I'm confused by your phrasing. The cleric could take Scribe Scroll, and there are a lot of cleric spells with very situational combat utility, where waiting a day to switch spell loads is much less viable. But the Wizard cannot scribe the Cleric's scrolls. He can only scribe scrolls of spells he can cast. That is clear from the feat description. Unlike, say, Wondrous Objects, it is not possible to have a different caster provide the spell prerequisite. The same is true of potions and wands.

Now, magic weapons and armor? Yup, rarely saw that because it wasn't really worth it. You didn't change over items often enough to justify the feat. OTOH, Craft Wonderous was a no brainer.

A lot depends on the game. Arms and armor at half price seems like a nice bonus, and the ability to upgrade, rather that replace, is also nice. But then, if we have a readily available source of custom magic objects for sale, we can get the upgrades anyway.

A lot depends on how we view wizard utility spells. My group has always seen them largely as a team resource. The Wizard can use Knock when the rogue's lockpicks fail him, so the entire team gets the loot in the chest, or progresses past the secured entry point. The Wizard's teleport spell gets us all to the new location quickly, saving extended travel. Funny...the Cleric chafes under the burden of healing, or buffing, or curing the party as a whole, but the Wizard's use of spells for the party's benefit makes him overpowered.

 

[Jacob Marley]

But, Jacob Marley, Scribe Scroll is free. It costs nothing.

It was free pre-UA. Post-UA it comes with an opportunity cost - the fighter bonus feat list ACF.