Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

My understanding is that the class which gets the ability to craft magical items can use it to extend its the working day to the point where both the Fighter and the Wizard can go on long enough for it to not matter, unless they're fighting at Thermopylae.

CLW wands are pretty inexpensive. Scrolls of very high level spells, not so much. The wand gets used out of combat, while combat spell scrolls get used in combat, when it's harder to use them without attracting unwanted attention (such as attacks of opportunity).

If the Fighter is doing his job, the BBEG should be kept at a safe distance

So we DO need the fighter, right?

As I have noted previously with my example of the CEO and the janitor, just because everyone's part of the game does not mean that everyone is equally valuable or powerful.

I think we're now getting back into campaign assumptions. If both L12 fighters and L12 wizards are common, neither is harder to hire. If we make L12 wizards commonplace (most keep training and gain levels) and L12 fighters rare (most stay in the watch/army and almost never get past L2 or 3), then the L12 fighter becomes the valuable commodity. But in PC groups, we miraculously have the skill sets in more or less equal proportion.

While I would not be enthusiastic about trying to slay a dragon on my own, I do feel it important to point out that a wizard has various options to contribute to the mission in terms of finding the dragon, getting to his lair, bypassing defenses, and actually slaying the beast. The Fighter only really contributes to the fighting part. This establishes that the Fighter's focus is much narrower. Whether he performs his role well or not is up for debate. I personally don't think they're very good at fighting, which makes me think they're weak.

This tends to be because fighters focus all of their resources on fighting - low noncombat stats, low or no noncombat skills and no noncombat feats. Part of this is that the wizard can change his spells daily and the fighter lacks the ability to reallocate his resources. Some, however, is the insistence that every resource the fighter gain be directed to damage dealing. Of course, if we get ambushed by the minions of that dragon while we're in town, and our wizard loaded down with investigative spells, the fighter's "nothing but fighting" skills start to seem much more valuable.

its obviously not old and tired to everyone, and participation is optional, so...

i think the bottom line is, the underlying design of the 3 or 4 basic classes means any one of them is vulnerable alone. There really is no one, dominant class, its all in how you play them.

Agreed.

Dragons don't get Scent.

No. They get Blindsense.

Blindsense (Ex)Dragons can pinpoint creatures within a distance of 60 feet. Opponents the dragon can’t actually see still have total concealment against the dragon.

Rope Trick.

First, I'd love to know why finding a resting place would matter if you said Rope Trick doesn't help.

My general assumption is that wizards are not hideously rare. If they were, where would all those magic spells and items regularly available for the PC's to acquire come from. Given they aren't all that rare, these spells are not unknown by any stretch. Feel free to hide in your Rope Trick, but don't assume that the typical opponent has never heard of a common spell like Rope Trick. And don't assume any creature will take no action in the period the marauders don't seem to be in the area, even if they do not consider the possibility these marauders are using a Rope Trick spell.

Also, a fighter isn't going to be surviving well without the wizard.

Good - that means he also needs to use some teamwork and not go it alone. An RPG is, after all, a group activity.

It traps the big bad and the fighter, and keeps then 10 feet from each other. Fortunately, the fighter listened to the much more intelligent mage, and bought some Anklets of Translocation.

Yet, for some reason, the opposition cannot make similar investments? It seems unlikely that we are the only little group to ever work out such basic tactics.

 

[Dandu]

CLW wands are pretty inexpensive. Scrolls of very high level spells, not so much. The wand gets used out of combat, while combat spell scrolls get used in combat, when it's harder to use them without attracting unwanted attention (such as attacks of opportunity).

However, the Fighter will need many, many charges to recharge his HP. Assuming an average of 4 encounters per day, I don't think either is going to run out of resources.

So we DO need the fighter, right?

Well, we also need janitors...

 

[Wiseblood]

these wizzing contests make me laugh

DM's should ask themselves When was the last time I hit the wizard with targeted spells like I do the fighter?Why do you target fighters. Hit the wizard with ray of enfeeblement or disintegrate or slay living. Because they are just as fragile if not moreso. Mages aren't powerful they're coddled.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

So we DO need the fighter, right?

Planar Binding or Summon X say "No, not really."

This tends to be because fighters focus all of their resources on fighting - low noncombat stats, low or no noncombat skills and no noncombat feats. Part of this is that the wizard can change his spells daily and the fighter lacks the ability to reallocate his resources. Some, however, is the insistence that every resource the fighter gain be directed to damage dealing. Of course, if we get ambushed by the minions of that dragon while we're in town, and our wizard loaded down with investigative spells, the fighter's "nothing but fighting" skills start to seem much more valuable.

Only if the wizard is both too stupid to divine, to take Uncanny Forethough, and to be prepared in case of an attack.

Agreed.

Nope. A well-made CoDZilla is never vulnerable is played well, much less a wizard.

No. They get Blindsense.

First off, "Blindsense" isn't "smell," but, more importantly, spectral hand>blindsense.

My general assumption is that wizards are not hideously rare. If they were, where would all those magic spells and items regularly available for the PC's to acquire come from.

Artificers, Warlocks, and NPC magewrights or adepts make it simple.

Feel free to hide in your Rope Trick, but don't assume that the typical opponent has never heard of a common spell like Rope Trick.

Cool. And do these opponents have Detect Invisibility always up?

And don't assume any creature will take no action in the period the marauders don't seem to be in the area, even if they do not consider the possibility these marauders are using a Rope Trick spell.

If the marauders are level eight wizards, what the hell are they doing as marauders? They could make much more money as... almost anything, really.

Any mage who is not a murderhobo or a professional mage is stupid. And, regardless, I'd love to know how these marauders could afford the scroll of permanency. And why they'd use it rather than, you know, sell it and all other loot that was in the stash they found it in and retire.

Good - that means he also needs to use some teamwork and not go it alone. An RPG is, after all, a group activity.

It means the fighter needs teamwork. Not the wizard.

Yet, for some reason, the opposition cannot make similar investments? It seems unlikely that we are the only little group to ever work out such basic tactics.

NPC WBL is significantly less than PC WBL. Plus, the fighter still gets a full attack in him for free.
EDIT:

DM's should ask themselves When was the last time I hit the wizard with targeted spells like I do the fighter?

Never, because the mage have protections against such things and probably won't allow itself to be hit anyways.

Why do you target fighters.

Because they're easy to hit.

Hit the wizard with ray of enfeeblement or disintegrate or slay living.

You bounce off my touch AC, blinking, mirror image, or other miss chance. Or you run into my immunity through one of many spells or an item I bought. Or I use my Diamond Mind item to automatically pass the save.

Because they are just as fragile if not moreso. Mages aren't powerful they're coddled.

No, you're coddled, as you've never seen a mage try before.

 

[Dandu]

DM's should ask themselves When was the last time I hit the wizard with targeted spells like I do the fighter?Why do you target fighters. Hit the wizard with ray of enfeeblement or disintegrate or slay living. Because they are just as fragile if not moreso. Mages aren't powerful they're coddled.

Wizards don't care about Ray of Enfeeblement, can protect themselves from Disintegrate with defensive spells such as Mirror Image, and at the level where Slay Living comes into play, simply stay out of reach of the melee touch attack.

Wizards don't need to be coddled.

 

[Ranes]

Dragons don't get Scent.

Says who? It's easy to create such a thing within the rules. It's also absurd for players to assume they know all the etymologies of any creature their DM might bring to introduce. Or should players be entitled to know exactly what kinds of dragon they're likely to meet ahead of time?

 

[Manbearcat]

My general assumption is that wizards are not hideously rare. If they were, where would all those magic spells and items regularly available for the PC's to acquire come from. Given they aren't all that rare, these spells are not unknown by any stretch. Feel free to hide in your Rope Trick, but don't assume that the typical opponent has never heard of a common spell like Rope Trick. And don't assume any creature will take no action in the period the marauders don't seem to be in the area, even if they do not consider the possibility these marauders are using a Rope Trick spell.

Hey N'raac. I've seen you invoke this before as your reasoning for it to be reasonable for the world to have a tour de force of understanding and security measures against Spellcasters; Magic items are pervasive, therefore (presumably) wizards, as a percentage of the population, is not some outrageously remote number. However, it really fails to consider a primary vector, that being time. Consider the FR timeline alone. You're talking 300000 + years of spellcasting and magic item creation, empires rising and falling to ruin, some being erased from the annals of history. Time could (probably should) be the primary reason for an influx of magic items into the world economy. At any point in history there could be an extremely remote number of spellcasters as a percentage of the populace and still there would be an easy explanation for the number of magic items. Adventurers unearthing ancient ruins and pillaging tombs has always been my explanation for any magic item prevalence. There doesn't need to be an assumption of a spellcasting as a widely practiced art.

The only reason I could see the need for spellcasting as a widely practiced art in setting, and therefore commonly understood by wayfolk (who may be subjected to a Charm Person spell and then be suspicious), or therefore have all of these prolific security measures and contingencies specifically against spellcasters is to justify gross metagame strategic prep against spellcasters and ad-hoc, antagonistic GMing toward spellcasters specifically...and that being a 2nd order function of needing to rein in their outrageous power disparity with respect to mundane characters. How any GM manages this for any length of time without illiciting constant facepalms, eyerolls, SMHs from spellcaster players when any number of layfolks, steadings, keeps, BBEG lairs routinely have a "How to Nerf Spellcasters and Use Setting as Justifica ERRRRRR How to Properly Secure Your Mind and Your Home Against Spellcasters" is beyond me. In my experience, any percentage of tavern-members approaching double digits that understands Charm Person, any percentage of lairs that are loaded to the teeth with anti-wizard contingencies (nondetection, alarm, anti-magic zones, anti-teleportation stuff) yields dissatisfication evolving into distrust evolving into disdain from spellcaster players (and fairly so I'd say).

Every time I see these threads in action it just reconfirms what an issue powerful, unbalanced spellcasters are (which I have an absurd amount of empirical evidence to support as I've GMed a ridiculous number of hours with them in my games). The answer is inevitably "play strategic rock/paper/scissors with spellcasters when you prep your game (excruciating and not how I want to spend my time) and then adjust on the fly for the areas that you've missed during actual play". The mere fact that this is the answer to spellcasters (and the answer never works to address the horrible conflict-of-interest internally for the GM and the gross distrust, and passive-aggressiveness this inevitably sows at the table) but for no one else should reveal that Something Is Rotten in Denmark. Disturbing levels of unbounded, asymmetrical warfare resources (siloed into one group specifically) that circumvents some or all action resolution mechanics is problematic at the table (to say the least).

And we can do any number of these scenarios. Of course if we impose more and more specifics, more and more contingencies, things go pear-shaped...thats basically tautological. The point of the exercise is always to convey the potency and breadth of the "answer to all problems" inherent in the spellcasting system. The answer of (i) setting justification for everyone having a hefty understanding of spellcasting and contingencies/securities against, (ii) rock/paper/scissors prep, prep, prep, more prep and fudge ERRR adjust on the fly, (iii) give martial characters a ridiculous number of magic items (ginormously outside of WBL numbers) in order to break the saving throw system (which means nothing against no-save spells of which are everywhere) are answers that some folks aren't particularly enamored with.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Says who?

Says the rules. No dragon in any book I can think of has Scent.

It's easy to create such a thing within the rules.

No, it really isn't. Dragons don't get scent, nor does any decent template give it to them.

It's also absurd for players to assume they know all the etymologies of any creature their DM might bring to introduce.

Wand of GotA+Wieldskill+Max ranks in Know(Arcana)+high intelligence=no, no it really isn't.

Or should players be entitled to know exactly what kinds of dragon they're likely to meet ahead of time?

Divination and Gather Information say it's not unreasonable in the slightest, and even if it was, no dragon has Scent. Dragons cannot "smell you coming."

 

[MJS]

Says the rules. No dragon in any book I can think of has Scent.No, it really isn't. Dragons don't get scent, nor does any decent template give it to them.Wand of GotA+Wieldskill+Max ranks in Know(Arcana)+high intelligence=no, no it really isn't. Divination and Gather Information say it's not unreasonable in the slightest, and even if it was, no dragon has Scent. Dragons cannot "smell you coming."

What DM worth their salt would use a dragon writeup straight from a book is beyond me.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

What DM worth their salt would use a dragon writeup straight from a book is beyond me.

What GM with a poor sense of balance would flat-out make up creatures? Why someone would use creatures not in any books as counterexample in an online discussion is beyond me.

Also, why a GM that would let an ability do something it is completely and explicitly incapable of doing(Such as Scent working more than 60' away) is beyond me.