Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

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.

That was my sense of things as well. Another reason for the dryad as a worthwhile antagonist in this scenario. If things would have gone the opposite direction (failure in the redemption/Turn Vader Away from the Dark Side Skill Challenge), it would have propelled Quinn further down the opposite path.

One thing I forgot to mention above is how I was curious as to what would have happened after the conflict was resolved and the King learned of the Dryad's actions. She would have to be executed. If Lucann would have protested and things escalated, it would have been interesting if the King would have said something like (assuming his Skill Challenge to invoke the Eladrin worked leading to me giving [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] an Eladrin Swarm of feyknights, archers, mages, etc to use in the coming battle):

"Despite their brave and noble efforts to win the day, the elves have no jurisdiction here. By the Lord of Battle, I will see justice done through cold steel in my hand. She will pay her penance tomorrow morning. However, despite my inclinations, as King I must observe all of our laws. Though I stand firmly against it here and do not recommend such a foolish course, by right, the Lord Commander of the Iron Tower may conscript the condemned to serve the Knights of the Iron Tower therein in an indentured capacity until death frees them from this debt. Should she fail to meet the terms of this conscription in any way, the terms would be forfeit."

I wonder what Thurgon would have done and what Theron, Quinn and Lucann would have thought of Thurgon's choice?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

We had a couple of people try MT. It never turned out to be as powerful as single classing a character so it fell out of favor rather quickly.

Our philosophy was that if we had a level 20 cleric and a level 20 wizard that was much better than having a level 20 MT. That same philosophy traveled downwards so that at any particular level, the single class character was just better enough to make MT kind of useless.

After all, you can only cast one spell a round(or 2 in some circumstances). There were often 3-4 rounds of combat in a day. Having more than 8 spells prepared were overkill. It was much better to cast ONE 9th level spell than have 4 8th level spells.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

Sheesh, that's an ad hominem attack that isn't even against me. My current players are much more laid back than my larger group and its varied members were back in those days when we were hewing closer to the core rules and doing a lot of high level and epic play. In any case, when someone is a casual player after having played a system for ten years, it indicates a comfort level to the point where they don't have to think about rules because the rules have been effectively learned, not a lack of aptitude.

And I've never used it as a DM because I didn't feel it worthwhile. Pretty sure I'm an expert.

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

I guess you've never seen whatever designer wrote the numerous MT-style prestige classes for later supplements that had significant additional class abilities. Clearly someone thought the original was weak.

 

[Bluenose]

We had a couple of people try MT. It never turned out to be as powerful as single classing a character so it fell out of favor rather quickly.

Our philosophy was that if we had a level 20 cleric and a level 20 wizard that was much better than having a level 20 MT. That same philosophy traveled downwards so that at any particular level, the single class character was just better enough to make MT kind of useless.

After all, you can only cast one spell a round(or 2 in some circumstances). There were often 3-4 rounds of combat in a day. Having more than 8 spells prepared were overkill. It was much better to cast ONE 9th level spell than have 4 8th level spells.

Also, it made the caster class MAD, and slowing down acquisition of higher level spells was generally a bad idea. You're two levels slower than a Sorcerer in getting 9th level spells. If you don't use some of the cheesier ways to get into the class, it's actually a downgrade in power for the caster in question, if a slight increase in scope.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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...

My observation in these scenarios is that attack rolls are so treasured by the d20 system that they are one of the few reliably effective avenues for doing anything at high levels.

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)

I like the Psychic's Handbook skill-based approach to psionics.

we have vastly different experiences.

Yes.

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 odds of those spells having any effect whatsoever on an enemy with epic level defenses is pretty slim. Never mind the kind of contingent and quickened healing one could see as a response if dealing actual damage.

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

Hit.

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

He is if he's sacrificed several caster levels. Multiclassing casters is not ideal. Even if you take Practiced Spellcaster twice (a large drain given your paucity of feats), you're still not caught up on spell access. A wizard 3/cleric 3 is a suboptimal character, which is what you've set yourself up to be if you want MT. I suppose the idea is that with enough MT levels, you make up the difference, but that's quite an ask if you're actually playing this character from level 1.

I liked playing cleric/mages in 2e from level 1, and to me, MT and other awkward patches never really worked to get that experience back.

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...

Speaking broadly, I find that direct offensive spells are situationally effective, but are so often resisted that they are not comparable to a solid attack routine. Indirect offensive spells are harder to categorize, but often completely worthless. You might get lucky. Self-buffing sounds cool but is impractical. Given the presence of a true martial character, and a primary spellcaster, the most effective action for the caster is usually to support or enhance the martial character in some way. Clearly, this is something that a party of all fighters could not do, but I see no problem with synergy of classes.

Even in the unusual case where high level straight up martial characters with minimal casting ability go one-on-one with straight up spellcasters, I still have not observed any advantage for the magical side, even though I would myself expect to see one.

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...

I wouldn't either. I've always been surprised at the willingness of players to do it, given the lack of rewards for high level fighter advancement in 3e. However, I would play a ranger, or a prestige-classed fighter with something from CW, or a 2e fighter, or a PF fighter, all single-classed.

 

[pemerton]

I think Quinn changed through play

I wonder what Thurgon would have done and what Theron, Quinn and Lucann would have thought of Thurgon's choice?

I think Thurgon's choices would have depended on learning more about what happened with the dryad and his tower. Plus the "accords" that Lucann was talking about.

Not to mention other developments with the king and the defence of the city, which in some ways I think would be dearer to Thurgon's heart, if he had to choose between them and the tower.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Mystic Theurge is a weak choice unless you use shenanigans to qualify or you start at high level. Sure, it's great at level 16. But look at it at level 7 using the default entrance of Wizard 3, Cleric 3. Your friendly wizard and cleric have just hit fourth level spells - and assuming that they've a prime stat of 18, they each have 3 4th level spells, 4 3rd level spells, 5 2nd level spells, and 6 1st level spells for 18 non-cantrips total. You, meanwhile, have eight second level spells and 10 first level spells, for 18 non-cantrips total - but none higher than second level. Your BAB is equal to the wizard, you have only a few hit points more, and you have multiple attribute dependency. Oh, and you've the same armour problems as the wizard. Mystic Theurges only start to be able to pull their weight at about level 12 or if they've sneaked their way in (there are a few ways).

 

[sheadunne]

Very, very different play experiences.

Part of the issue here, for me at least, is that the 4e games I have witnessed and the players I know who enjoy it, aren't playing that way. Which is probably why I'm interested in your viewpoint and play style. I haven't come across it in my circle (which started in Maine and now is in Maryland).

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 believe 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 fiction 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.

While I agree with you based on play style, I didn't see anything of the sort with the way the powers and abilities are displayed. It seems to me that there might be a conflict here. One of my issues in D&D in general (any edition) is that not much thought has been put into developing abilities, powers, spells, etc, that both work within the combat framework and the non-combat framework. It's an issue I've brought up before in other threads. What are the inherent functions of say sneak attack, that also carry over into a non-combat situation? Is it simply an ability to perceive weakness in others and exploit it? If so, how can "sneak attack" be used to facilitate that experience outside of rolling an attack roll. 4e powers were an amazing opportunity to explore that further and they didn't. What is it about CaGI that can also carry over into the non-combat arena? And how do you go about presenting that in a way that doesn't require DM interpretation and altering the power itself during play (which seems more like a band-aid for the issue, instead of a cure). I guess this goes further into materializing intent through abilities. When I use the ability in combat or out, my intent is clear. I didn't feel that was necessarily the case when caring over combat powers into skill challenges.

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

I don't disagree with you that the tools are available, only that if it were the intention, more thought would have gone into the system to make it explicit in the presentation of powers, rather than in either DMG advice or overall structure components (encounter powers and healing surges). I would guess that it was more luck as a result of trying to find individual component ways of (such handling issues in design as not relying on healing magic and balancing abilities between classes).

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.

I agree.

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.

I'd have to play it over a series to really determine whether that level of play is something I would be interested in long term. It's certainly how I run one-shot scenarios.

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 focus.

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.

This is simply a preference issue, probably more so that a play style issue. I much more interested in keeping character outside of play, especially when I'm a fellow player. When I run games I'm a little different. I enjoy the shared experience of achieve group goals, but have no interest in listen to other players explore their characters during play. Pass. Outside of play (or through transitions scenes) develop away.

I think back to a game that I played in years ago. My character, a cleric, was interested in setting up his own temple and contributing to the welfare of the city. I did it all outside of play. I bought a temple, even paid the entire cities taxes one year. Zero amount of time was spent on it during play. It wasn't related or relevant to the story as a whole, only my small piece of it. When I play, I like to play that way. I don't want the game to get bogged down with individual objectives when we're playing a group game. If it doesn't concern the group, move on. In the case of Lucann and the Druid, I felt that way. Move on. Which is probably why I avoided the entire thing. If Theren had been over there he probably would have stuck his spear into the dryad and moved on (more because of my player preferences than a character reaction).

When I DM I'm probably more interested in exploring character, but it's still a fine line between a game played by 4 individuals and a game played by a group. As I said though, it's a preference thing and not a play style or game system thing.

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.

Dungeon World is a bit too binary for me (It reminds me of Zork). I do need to pick up a copy of 13 Age but I'm hesitant because I'm not sure if the fluff can be removed from the mechanics without replacing the fluff with the same thing (I'm thinking of Icons). But I haven't checked it out yet, so I don't really know. But if it was generic enough it might be interesting.

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.

All good stuff, with the exception of the "anti-hero" possibility. Not something I'm personally interested in. It goes back to "team game" versus "individual characters." That's just where I am now. Who knows if my tastes will change as they have before. I'm just not interested in exploring character conflict during my limited game time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dungeon World is a bit too binary for me (It reminds me of Zork). I do need to pick up a copy of 13 Age but I'm hesitant because I'm not sure if the fluff can be removed from the mechanics without replacing the fluff with the same thing (I'm thinking of Icons). But I haven't checked it out yet, so I don't really know. But if it was generic enough it might be interesting.

Icons are a subsystem that can entirely be removed without trouble. About the only place elsewhere in the mechanics they touch is a couple of optional talents, and people can just avoid taking those.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] What you saw manifest in play is probably 3 (maybe even 4) different playstyle agendas going on between the players. I'm pretty malleable as a GM (pacing, genre conceits and creative agenda) but my preferences is are something of collage of Die Hard meets Indiana Jones meets Spaghetti Western. The latter part may seem to make the whole disfunctional but I find that its a gear and mood that I can hit relatively seemlessly even if play is primarily about the big damn hero stuff. I'm a big fan of the 4e Minor and Major quest system because it truly helps to calibrate playstyle expectations and content that you will be mutually engaging with as a group. This certainly helps alleviate some of what you speak to. However, sometimes players just want different things and that is that.