Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[GMforPowergamers]

In my mind the mystic theurge is more of a support/utility character who offers a lot of out of combat functionality and buffing and healing but can't really do much to overcome direct challenges

wait you don't think 3 spells per round with acess to 99% of all spells in the game and the ability for some of those spells to be 10+ level spells you can't imagin them overcomeing direct challenges? Heck what about epic casting?

and isn't very durable. The fighter is probably glad to have him around, and the mystic theurge probably likes having a fighter around.

I bet the mystic theurg would be just as happy with any other spell caster... of best of all a Druid...

It is worth noting though, that if you actually play this character at lower levels, he is not only not superior but is actually pitiful for a large portion of career.

The first 6 levels are hard, the first 3 most of all... but starting at level 7 you are so far out there it isn't even funny.

Thus goes the weirdness of caster multiclassing in 3e.

Yes, that was not optimized... that would be wizard 8/Loremaster 10/Arc mage 2/ Epic lore master 17... or even better 37th level druid...

Even if the endpoint was clear superiority, I've yet to see a player take a chance on the mystic theurge route.

I've played 2 and then seen 3 more in play they are beasts...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Mystic theurge is a beast because when other casters are running low on spells you are still going strong. you are 1-2 levels of spells off the straight main casters, but what you lack in big hitting front line reality warping power you make up for in staying power...

Level 1 Cleric... you are as good at anything as you can hope to be at 1st level.
level 2 Cleric... I can't imagine anyone would claim a second level cleric isn't a very viable character
Level 3 Wizard... this is your first real hit in power, not gaining level 2 cleric spells hurts but you double your number of spells and gain access to whole new levels...
Level 4 Wizard... You are gaining the least amount of power you gain in the entire build...
Level 5 Cleric... you gain level 2 spells a few levels late but it's were things really start to cook... at this level a full caster is better then you, but nothing other then that can keep up.
Level 6 Wizard you now have both sets of level 2 spells and with it all the prereqs you need for the prestige class... from here things just keep going...
level 7 is Mystic Theurge... and still only 2nd level spells
level 8 is now 3rd level spells for both... at this point every level is a huge increase in power...

 

[Ahnehnois]

wait you don't think 3 spells per round with acess to 99% of all spells in the game and the ability for some of those spells to be 10+ level spells you can't imagin them overcomeing direct challenges? Heck what about epic casting?

The odds of any direct spell penetrating the saves/SR/other defenses of a legitimate epic threat are pretty miniscule, even for a character whose caster level isn't gimped. Epic spells tend not to be all that effective in combat, though they are pretty open-ended so it's largely up to what the DM will allow.

Which, to be fair, is exactly how it should be. Magic ought to be more like the epic spell system in general.

I've played 2 and then seen 3 more in play they are beasts...

Well, like I said I've never seen it, but I'm skeptical that a class that my players have judged not good enough to even play is that good.

I do know how druids, clerics, and wizards play deep into epic levels, and it's unimpressive. The way the epic level rules work in 3e (much criticized rules to be fair), there isn't much for spellcasters beyond trying to create an epic spell that is worthwhile and will pass muster.

The "sweet spot" for primary spellcasters is probably more around level 12-18, and even then, I've yet to see one really take over. Druids? Nope. Wizards? Nope. The cleric with the overpowered prestige class that lets him spontaneously cast the entire cleric spell list? ... Nope. Not even the sorcerer who became an actual deity with divine ranks was noticeably more powerful than his fighter companion. I've stress-tested this game pretty thoroughly.

So I'm skeptical that a character that comprises two crappy spellcasters and functions with a reduced caster level and has to split his casting stats is a game-changer. Maybe a good character, once he maxes out. Maybe.

Mystic theurge is a beast because when other casters are running low on spells you are still going strong.

Is running out of spell slots really an issue? I thought that was one of the flaws of 3e (only slightly more than earlier editions) is that casters have so many slots they rarely run out? And that was true before reserve feats.

And then there's the other cool caster prestige classes you're giving up for MT.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll reserve judgement on Thievery, as none of the players in my game is trained in it yet it does come up from time to time. But Heal I definitely agree with - I have a player trained in Heal but it really doesn't come up that often. Whereas social, knowledge and physical skills all get used a lot.

On Heal, I think its difficulty comes in due to the nature of HP. In Exploration challenges it is atypical for it to be in-situ, emergency medical treatment for PCs because the genre conceits of PC plot protection, and the mechanics that feed into that, says that its not necessary. So in my games its typically used for:

- in-situ treatment of 3rd parties whom the PCs are escorting or mounts (perhaps you remember the Druid deploying it for the lame horse in the Gorge chase?).

- as a forensic medical knowledge skill (identification of time/cause of death, etc).

- the stray triage situation for NPCs (such as in your transition scene).

- a secondary skill to augment a group Endurance check.

Those tropes are somewhat situational and very dependent upon playstyle to boot.

On Thievery, obviously the Rogue in my group will deploy it when he's dealing with locks and traps. However, unless its an infiltration or dungeon challenge, those tropes are limited. Another big corner case is legerdemain, but in my game its actually planting/disguising an object rather than pick-pocketing it.

Believe it or not, the broadest uses of Thievery in my game is as (i) the deployment of the steady hands/fine motor skill aspect of difficult engineering projects/applied science which require acute coordination, (ii) producing forgeries, and (iii) covert sabotage.

Certainly better than Heal (at least in my game), but more narrow utility and trope interaction when compared to most other skills.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The odds of any direct spell penetrating the saves/SR/other defenses of a legitimate epic threat are pretty miniscule, even for a character whose caster level isn't gimped. Epic spells tend not to be all that effective in combat, though they are pretty open-ended so it's largely up to what the DM will allow.

I've seen games where monsters make almost every save... and yes fighters hold up better in that scenario, but they still fall behind when you start targeting low saves and no saves...

Which, to be fair, is exactly how it should be. Magic ought to be more like the epic spell system in general.

As a fan of oWoD Mage I completely agree, over the years I have tried a few times to make casters run more like that from day 1. The closest I came ended up looking more like a mix of Psion and incarnum. (not a huge moment of pride in my homebrew career)

Well, like I said I've never seen it, but I'm skeptical that a class that my players have judged not good enough to even play is that good.

it depends on how big of power gamers they are. Like I said there is no way it is the most optimal but it totally fits..

I do know how druids, clerics, and wizards play deep into epic levels, and it's unimpressive.

we have vastly different experiences.

The way the epic level rules work in 3e (much criticized rules to be fair), there isn't much for spellcasters beyond trying to create an epic spell that is worthwhile and will pass muster.

lets pretend that we don't have epic spells of there own... the build I had multi spell and automatic quicken... he can cast magic missle or lesser orb of X both are no save extra damage and he can just throw them twice for no action cost... heck he can throw a fire ball and a dispel magic both as free actions before using his action... or if he needs it cure X wounds (up to 3rd level) now those are just free actions, not his main spells...

The "sweet spot" for primary spellcasters is probably more around level 12-18, and even then, I've yet to see one really take over. Druids? Nope. Wizards? Nope. The cleric with the overpowered prestige class that lets him spontaneously cast the entire cleric spell list? ... Nope. Not even the sorcerer who became an actual deity with divine ranks was noticeably more powerful than his fighter companion. I've stress-tested this game pretty thoroughly.

so what did the fighter do, that the spellcaster could not also do?

So I'm skeptical that a character that comprises two crappy spellcasters and functions with a reduced caster level and has to split his casting stats is a game-changer. Maybe a good character, once he maxes out. Maybe.

first of all, I just don't see how cleric is a crappy spell caster at all...

Is running out of spell slots really an issue? I thought that was one of the flaws of 3e (only slightly more than earlier editions) is that casters have so many slots they rarely run out? And that was true before reserve feats.

oh I agree, the only reason I bring it up is because the normal way I have heard it is "well when the spell caster runs out of spells the fighter keeps being a fighter" and yea, with reserve feats the game was better in my mind...

And then there's the other cool caster prestige classes you're giving up for MT.

believe it or not my characters are made not to be power gamers but to be story parts... I still wont play a straight fighter...

 

[Warbringer]

Thanks for the thoughtful, cogent post sheadunne. I can't xp (I feel like I've xped 5 million people and I still can't xp the people who I normally xp as soon as it pops). There is a lot of robust, focused stuff there to comment on.

Covered.

 

[Manbearcat]

Summary of PBP

Impressions

1) There appeared to be a mechanical and narrative balance between the wizard and fighter (example: Theren and the dogs and Quinn and the troll. Both rolled a single die to determine success and both influence in the narrative as a result).

Good to know. I'm confident further play would have borne that out even further for you.

2) 4e lent itself to the play style mostly through the use of rolls, which not all abilities in 3x have.

- Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.

- Scenes versus Open World

- Resolution of action by way of a zoom-out on intent and stakes versus a zoom-in on the facility/aptitude of target when attempting a specified task.

- Subjective DCs that focus on the outcome of inducing compelling conflict for the PC/group (while expecting the GM to scale the conflict toward the genre tropes that should challenge the PCs of n level) versus Objective DCs that focus on modelling physical aspects of the game world.

- Evolution of fiction and ultimate outcomes of conflicts derived by the conflict resolution framework's parameters (especially win/loss conditions) versus evolution of fiction and win/loss condition prescribed by GM/adventure path, forced by GM, or inherited/earned by strategic PC play (or by a combination of any of those 3).

Very, very different play experiences.

3) 4e has very little support for narrative mechanics but more than 3x. It is difficult to divorce 4e combat mechanics from the powers to make them entirely narrative in function. (example: Theren and the guards in the transition scene. This worked because of the play style not because of the 4e power itself. The intent was to push back the guards, not to injure them, which wasn't really possible using this particular 4e power nor maybe any. Is there a way to focus only on the effect and not on the damage?)

I'll try to address your example (perhaps not satisfactorily, but I'll try). Consider your use of it for the dogs as an Intimidate augment to your Nature check. You ended up cowing/wrangling the beasts with an aspect of territorial domination until their masters gained control. No damage.

I can't recall exactly how it was resolved in your Transition Scene but I beleive you were successful and therefor your intent should be realized. If you just want push a foe, cow a foe, intimidate a foe, challenge a foe, and the keywords and mutable ficton of the power (and the fictional positioning external to you) allow for it, you've earned the realization of your intent.

If we're breaking out the combat resolution mechanics and you want to knock someone out or don't want the NPC damage to be meat, you are free to stipulate that. They'll still take "HP damage" as a metagame resource to adjudicate the resolution of the conflict. However, you've earned the right to stipulate what that HP damage means.

4) This play style does not appear to be a default for 4e and I felt primarily only worked because of a) single dice rolling mechanic and b) @Manbearcat 's practiced technique and ability.

I truly with the DMG2 was the initial DMG released for 4e (and that Neverwinter Campaign Setting found its way into canon early on).

I said in another thread that when I initially read 4e's rule texts, it reminded me of a d20 effort at Dogs in the Vineyard with crunchy tactical combat (and I wondered why Skill Challenges didn't provide XP only for failures in conflict; eg Conflict Fallout in DitV). Because of this, when I began to play it, I put those those techniques and principles to use rather than the Gamist (pawn stance) techniques I honed and principles I learned when GMing 1e dungeon crawls and the GM force techniques/principles I learned from 2e and the process sim I learned from Classic Traveller and 3.x.

When I tried to use it for my 1e dungeon crawl games, those guys balked (as did I). I could make it work and it was ok, but it wasn't even close to right. I could, however, play a nice game of Appalachian/Oregon Trail attrition with 4e and heavy-handed use of the condition track (that would deny Extended Rests), considerable pressure on Healing Surges, and extremely difficult Exploration Skill Challenges. Playing it as process-sim was functional but certainly not great. And why would I want to use GM force when there are these unique buttons, levers, and widgets in the system that protagonizes the PCs, empowers the players and makes it easy for me to compose thematic challenges and let the mechanics and fictional positioning adjudicate the results?

So I defaulted to techniques and principles that I felt matched the system, that I felt matched what I thought the designers were trying to convey (either sloppily or in a "speak-easy" fashion for fear of grognard backlash if certain buzzwords were used) and then confirmed it with DMG2.

By my way of looking at it, Skill Challenges are just a conflict resolution system whereby the GM dicepool is a passive, mean roll (to keep challenges tension-inducing and climactic) and the player dice pool is the d20 version with augments by way of perishable powers/healing surges (rather than perishable extra dice).

I may never be able to convince you that my way is the designers intention (even if you read DMG2 and NCS start to finish), but I think I could convince you that its an awesome way to play that is so functional with respect to the RAW ruleset that the apple couldn't have fallen too far from the tree

5) 3x is even less than ideal for the play style (Multiple rolling mechanics or none at all. Very little in the way of narrative influence in feats and abilities).

I agree. It would be horribly disfunctional for 3.x style of play. I GMed 2 long campaigns in 3.x, from its embryonic stages in playtest through late 2006. I played these while I was learning and honing indie techniques with Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard (after having played Over the Edge prior).

Truth be told, I don't feel at all that the 2 playstyles advocated for by the designers in the 3.x DMG are in any way the right approach for the ruleset; the 1st being "kick in the door/back to the dungeon (step on up) nor heavy GM force play. 3.x runs extremely well from level 3 to level 10 as a process-sim sandbox. The ECL system is very functional, the objective task DCs and the math of the system are in-line, iterative attacks aren't demanding non-stop deployment of a FAR (full attack routine) thus turning combat into "stand there and hit the HP tofu to death", novas aren't out of control for all parties, BBEG can still kinda be martial characters, Spell DCs versus Saves math isn't borked, the game hasn't turned into 50 % acounting and 50 % play (and 100 % agony as I try to predict spellcaster rocks and scissors and paper to my paper conflicts), and PC spellcasters aren't utterly dominating play (topical!).

If you can have a gentlemen's agreement to keep WoCLW out of the game, then level 3 - 10 play is a delight to run as sandbox, process-sim.

6) There seemed to be a lack of downtime to reflect. It is difficult to tell if this was a result of the play style, the nature of the PBP, 4e itself, or that the scene might have only taken an hour or two at the table. Personally I'm not sure I would be able to maintain that pace at the table. It is difficult to tell though based on the single scenario.

This is very insightful commentary and I'm glad you brought this up.

Its a decent bit of GMing principles and how I run 4e; "escalate, escalate, escalate" and "every moment, drive play toward conflict." I find that the best 2 gears of 4e are Die Hard and Indiana Jones.

That being said, a decent chunk of your sense of this was also the PBP platform that we had to work with. My home games certainly have trasition scenes with regrouping and reflecting, specifically after a notable campaign win or loss.

7) I enjoyed focusing on player intent which I feel often gets lost in my own 3x/PF games, but I worry that story gets lost as a result (Example: The focus on Lucann and the Dryad rather than the city and dragon). This might be because we ended the scene rather than continued, but it didn't look like the other players were focused on the big goals (Quinn was willing to fall off the cliff, Lucann seemed focused on saving the Dryad, and Thurgon seemed focused on saving his companions). I worry that the play style focuses too much on character and too little on story. This might be because it was a forced scene rather than organically developed over the course of 12 levels of play. Keep in mind that this is simply in regard to my own preferences and not a default issue with 4e or the play style. @Manbearcat certainly kept the scene shining toward the bigger goals (although if the dragon's appearance had happened before Thurgon and Theren had jumped down to the garden, would they have jumped?)

I'm also glad that you brought this up. Part of this, I think, is (i) dispirate thematic content embedded into the PCs such that premise to be addressed was "up for grabs" and interest and (ii) lack of formal Minor and Major Quests. Players and GM composing those tier-spanning stakes and objectives together make for clearer, tighter forcus.

Further, we were as close to "no myth" setting as possible. Almost everything was "up for grabs" here and I was working off of specific background cues and in-play cues to compose conflict and adversarial situations that I thought would "push play toward conflict" that people wanted to engage with.

Ultimately we needed an antagonist because it didn't appear that we had the commitment to see the conflict through to the dragon. That antagonist needed to have meaning. Where did I find meaning? I found it in Thurgon's backstory on the shadow passing over the Iron Tower and the nebulous circumstances of the immediately preceeding Lord Commander. I found it in Lucann's extremist, xenophobic backstory and the loved ones he left behind to master that side of himself once he confronted that he felt his current ideological leanings were wrong.

There is your adversary for our short play.

You I wanted to find out if Thurgon was a man you could believe in and follow and we'd only find that out in play. Quinn I wanted to find out if he could be inspired to believe and tempted to hope or if he would succumb to his dark, nihilistic leanings and become a villain (I secretly hoped the rushing waters of the hazard would throw him over the edge...and he would "die"...and I could use him as a primary antagonist later, resurrected in the same dark form as the dryad!). We would also only find that out in play.

8) I certainly felt there were techniques available to the play style that lend itself to a good RPG experience for someone with my particular tastes. I don't think encounter based design of 4e gets me there. I'm not entirely sure 24-hour based design (3x) does either for that matter.

You may want to give 13 Age a spin. I would suggest Dungeon World but I'm not sure it has enough crunch for you (given you are drawn to 3.x). Having GMed it a fair bit at this point, in play, it is considerably different than 4e; "fail forward" but no noncombat conflict resolution mechanics and combat is considerably less dynamic. Thematic hooks comes from Icons, One Unique Thing, and Backgrounds (all which deliver some measure of authorial control to players) rather than Backgrounds, Themes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies and Quests.

It may be your thing.

9) I think I would be willing to give it another go, but not as a PBP experience. I feel that without a good Table Top experience it would be difficult to know if my issues are really issues and not just poor reflection.

I'm sure your reflection isn't poor. But I do agree with you. It just lacks full resolution as this was a one-off and tainted by certain PBP (sometimes frustrating) nuance. That notwithstanding, I think your observations are keen and fair.

I wish I had a solution to that. I don't know what your local prospects are for a functional 4e game. I would certainly run a live game for you if I could. As I said above, I would suggest checking with your players and see if they're interested in a 13th Age game. I think there may be a decent bit there for you.

10) Anyway, those are some initial thoughts. I'm sure I didn't cover everything, but it's a start. Also when I talk about story, I suppose I'm talking about the bigger plot. The story of the game over the story of the character. I don't want people to think that I don't view Lucann's scene with the Dryad as non-story. It was a lovely story, but not as important to me (another player at the table) as the game story (saving the city and defeating the dragon). It felt like it should have been shuffled off to a transition scene rather than a focus of play.

This is also something else I wanted to address. I don't know precisely how play would have turned out if we had continued. Quinn may have evolved into an antagonstic figure and become either an anti-hero or @LostSoul may have groomed him to be a climactic villain and given him to me later (while he composed a new PC for play). Perhaps Lucann would have been able to rally the Eladrin to aid the humans. Perhaps not. Would the PCs have been able to save the large number of refugees from the flooding Undercity? Don't know. I doubt that you guys would have been able to save a large percentage of the refugees while simultaneously beating back the dragon in the Royal Tower. However, I'm quite sure that if Thurgon and Theron would have been able to fight back the dragon in the towar and rescue the King (again), the city's defenses would have been renewed. I'm quite sure Thurgon would have driven play toward a reckoning to be played out in the following days whereby the PCs (likely with the King) rushed into the breach, beat back the sieging forces and confronted the dragon in a final showdown in an outlying watchtower with crumbling battlements (or something like that) as it refused to give up the battle it should have rightly won by then. Beating back the siege would have likely been a hard Complexity 5 Skill Challenge with nested challenges if you split up for whatever reason (eg Quinn and Campbell on stealth missions to destroy enemy artillery/siege engines or slay generals). And the Dragon BBEG fight would have been difficult and dynamic in the extreme (probably with recharging harpoon ballista to ground the dragon (save ends) or something). It would have been cool.

How the city, their armed forces, their relationship with the Eladrin of the Feywild, and their king faired after all of that, I know not.

 

[Hussar]

It is worth noting though, that if you actually play this character at lower levels, he is not only not superior but is actually pitiful for a large portion of career. Thus goes the weirdness of caster multiclassing in 3e. Even if the endpoint was clear superiority, I've yet to see a player take a chance on the mystic theurge route.

And this is why you get told you've never really seen a competently played caster in your games.

You're about the first person I've ever seen who would consider MT to be a weak choice.

 

[Hussar]

Ahn. A question. These same players you claim are quite able to spot powerful or weak classes and combinations. Would these not also be the same players that not long ago you were saying are casual players with little or no interest in game mechanics?

 

[LostSoul]

Quinn may have evolved into an antagonstic figure and become either an anti-hero or LostSoul may have groomed him to be a climactic villain and given him to me later (while he composed a new PC for play).

I think Quinn changed through play, which probably would have revealed itself if we had carried on. Seeing reunion of the dryad with Lucann & Sehanine after her dark, corrupting influence was taken away gave Quinn a sense that life could have meaning - which is one of the reasons he was okay with dying if that meant pulling the "dark master" into the Shadowfell (or wherever) with him. His "Life is just an illusion, anyway" line at the end there was Quinn trying to comfort himself because he knew what hells he would endure: Quinn knows too much about the arcane secrets of the universe to believe that death is the end. But when Thurgon saved him, now he'd have a powerful meaning in his life: to conquer or destroy that "dark master" that ruined so many other lives.