Flying Fighters and Other Stories of Dependence, Independence and Interdependence

[Herremann the Wise]

...Well, there are a thousand different ways for a wizard to deal damage and still be able to cast long term travel spells.

At lower levels, sure, the wizard needs the barbarian. But, isn't that the basic point behind the way casters were "balanced"? Weak at low levels, super strong at high levels? Well, if you are super strong, that means you're no longer in need of anyone else.

How then do you make the high level wizard dependent upon the high level barbarian? How do you promote a more interdependent relationship at higher levels?

I think the most fundamental way is to maintain the situation where having a successful barbarian makes the wizard's capacity to cast spells easier. If the barbarian isn't there or isn't being successful (a place where other allies can aid the barbarian and thus the wizard), then the wizard's capacity to cast spells is reduced and hampered.

There are a couple of things at higher levels (I'm thinking 3.x here by the way) that erode this fundamental way:
* Summoning monsters to replace the Barbarian
* Spells treading on primary combat/social/exploration-based features of other members of the group.
* Over-effective defensive capabilities at high level that replace the need for the Barbarian's protection.

I think the other big factor here is how easy it is for a Wizard to cast their spells. It should be easier for other combatants to apply pressure to the wizard's ability to cast spells. Playing a wizard should mean focusing on what your allies are doing so as to be more effective in casting spells. If a wizard relies on their allies to provide good spellcasting opportunities, you have both a fundamental lever to challenge caster dominance as well as a built in requirement for the wizard to care about what his allies are doing - a primary factor as I see it in maintaining interdependence at higher levels.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Tony Vargas]

If a wizard relies on their allies to provide good spellcasting opportunities, you have both a fundamental lever to challenge caster dominance as well as a built in requirement for the wizard to care about what his allies are doing - a primary factor as I see it in maintaining interdependence at higher levels.

I've been in parties like that. It's a workable strategy, but it's not an interdependence of equals. There is the wizard, who ultimately does everything, and his assistants/protectors/cannon-fodder who try to keep him from being unduly inconvenienced in the process.

 

[TwinBahamut]

How then do you make the high level wizard dependent upon the high level barbarian? How do you promote a more interdependent relationship at higher levels?

I think the best way to do this is to simply create gaps in the abilities of any one class, while allowing other classes to excel to an unmatched degree in that same area.

For example, some classes should be extremely capable at moving around and reaching hard-to-reach areas, while other classes should have trouble. For example, if an enemy is shooting arrows at the party from the top of a castle's wall, some character should be able to help allies reach that enemy, while others should need help reaching that enemy, while others are just fine making ranged attacks and shouldn't need any help (not every situation should require interdependence for everyone, after all). In that example, a melee-focused Barbarian with no ranged combat ability may need the help, while a Rogue can climb up and lower a rope, a Paladin with a flying mount may be able to carry the Barbarian up there, and the Wizard and the Ranger might not be able to get up but are fine launching ranged attacks. At higher levels this situation might play out the same, though "standing on a castle wall" might be replaced with "hovering in the center of a tornado" and the exact methods of reaching the enemy may differ.

The problem that threatens this is when a class that should be the best at something is instead forced to rely on a class that should need help. This is exemplified by the Rogue's skill at climbing or sneaking being obsoleted by a Wizard's ability to cast Fly and Invisibility. The Wizard isn't supposed to be the mobile, sneaky character, yet is instead more mobile and more sneaky than the specialist in being mobile and sneaky. If a wizard's ability to move or sneak around ever matches that of the Rogue, even with a significant expenditure of resources, then the interdependence of the team is completely lost. Similarly, if the Fighter is supposed to be the "breaking stuff" character, then no other class should be able to break anything as well as the Fighter (so spells that dig through rock and dispel force walls step on the Fighter's toes).

Basically, you need to focus entire classes rather strongly on particular abilities, and protect that niche very, very rigidly as the stakes raise at higher level. Flight is simply a higher-level form of climbing and jumping, so characters who climb and jump well are the ones who should progress to flying. Smashing force walls is a higher-level form of smashing wooden doors, so the guy who smashes doors should move on to smashing force walls. The problem before was that non-spellcasters never progressed to higher levels of their own specialization, while spellcasters went from having no ability to having every high-level ability. As long as that is avoided, interdependence should function more effectively.

Of course, you can go a step past this by forcing interdependence. For example, you can give the Fighter an attack that will deal double the normal amount of damage if it hits a foe who is currently frozen in ice. If the Fighter doesn't have the ability to freeze enemies in ice on his own, then he has no choice but to depend on an ally who can do so in order to make the best use of that attack. In this case, a Fighter who is good at smashing ice and a Wizard who is skilled at freezing enemies would be much more effective as a team then apart (so long as the fighter doesn't learn how to freeze and the Wizard doesn't learn how to smash ice).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If a wizard relies on their allies to provide good spellcasting opportunities, you have both a fundamental lever to challenge caster dominance as well as a built in requirement for the wizard to care about what his allies are doing - a primary factor as I see it in maintaining interdependence at higher levels.

I've been in parties like that. It's a workable strategy, but it's not an interdependence of equals. There is the wizard, who ultimately does everything, and his assistants/protectors/cannon-fodder who try to keep him from being unduly inconvenienced in the process.

You make a good point and highlight the solution to this at the same time. If the wizard's allies are merely assistants/protectors/cannon-fodder, then the relationship is one way, with the wizard still being the ultimate arbiter for the success of a particular encounter. Thus, you need to deal with this in two ways:
* You need to ensure that the relationship goes both ways.
* You need to ensure that the wizard cannot "solve" all encounters.

Ensuring a both-ways relationship is fundamentally linked with the wizard not being able to provide the answer for every encounter. If the wizard cannot win the encounter for the party, then the wizard is placed in the position of supporting the combatants who can. This is a role reversal of what you describe: the wizard now being the lackey to the dominant fighter. At higher levels though (again re-iterating that I'm focusing on 3.x here), the wizard gains more and more ways to solve encounters. If you can thin this out so that a high level wizard has fewer and more-restricted "I-win" buttons (and ones that may rely upon the fighter and others doing their job first), and more "I-help-the-fighter-win" buttons then I think you endow a more even interdependence.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[RangerWickett]

How is the wizard, in the OP dependent on the barbarian? After all, the only thing the barbarian brings to the table is the ability to deal damage.

And block the dragon from eating the wizard.

Well, there are a thousand different ways for a wizard to deal damage and still be able to cast long term travel spells.

At lower levels, sure, the wizard needs the barbarian. But, isn't that the basic point behind the way casters were "balanced"? Weak at low levels, super strong at high levels? Well, if you are super strong, that means you're no longer in need of anyone else.

I'd love it if they made wizards get access to powerful spells, but still be squishy. I mean, Batman is just a man, and with the right planning and gear he can overcome anything, but if not for authorial plot immunity, he'd sometimes be caught without what he needed. Even if he pulled out the Bat-Power-Armor to be resistant to bullets, he wouldn't be able to sneak.

Maybe just make it so that, a) casting a spell takes a full round, so if you're hit, no more spell; and b) you can only have 1 or 2 spells active at once. So if you're flying and invisible, you can't have fire resistance, for instance.

 

[Minigiant]

One way I think interdependency of casters can be achieved is by firmly defining the base of the caster classes.

Perhaps the wizard is known for their easy learning of 1st-3rd spells. The higher magic, 5th level spell and learn are difficult to learn and regulated to specialists and metamages. So the wizard who can teleport straight to the dragon cave lacks the defensive spells to survive the offensive focus of the dragon. And the wizard who has the defensive spells lacks the long ranged teleportation. And the enchanter who can wrack the dragon's mind cannot create the elaborate illusions of an illusionist. The wizard who focuses on maximizing spells lacks many high level spells at all and instead places weak spells in higher slots.

This way, even the strongest casters have something missing until they end adventuring and hold up in a tower for decades of research to bypass the difficultly of learning multiple fields at and expert level.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am all for giving fighters more goodies and bringing down some of the wizard abilities.

My biggest issue with 3E is how easy it is to get magic items that extend a wizard ability to cast spells , the sheer amount of spells a wizards knows at higher levels and how easy it is to max out skills that make it hard to disrupt a spell.

But when I read some of these posts I have to wonder who you are playing with.

I have been made to feel like a lackey and it wasn't because I was playing a mundane character it was because the the DM never made any encounter where I got to shine or bothered to give my character any interesting things to do outside of combat the plot was always about someone else.

I have also played with a few selfish players who did not mind ruining everyone else fun and stepping on toes in a big way.

But usually I play with gifted DMs who know how to run a game that gives everyone regardless of class a chance to be the hero.

Some of these examples like because the wizard can cast fly and invisibility he is stepping all over the rogue toes. Why would the wizard cast those spells on himself to fly up and take out the people on top of the cliff unless he is the best one to do it.

The rogue can do it with those same spells and do a lot of damage because he can add his sneak attack.

I play a lot of magic users and let me tell you I am always casting these type of spells on the rogue because it benefits the entire party. Sure I could cast those two spells on myself then fly up and use more spells to take them out.

So how many spells have I now used? Is this really the best way to use my resources?

A lot of people act like a wizard can do everything on his own but he can't if you throw sheer numbers at him made up of monks , rogues and enemy spellcasters he is going to be hard pressed to live through that. I know someone is going to say he is going to cast time stop yeah if he gets it off first and even if he does that does not mean he is going to be able to kill everyone standing then after the time stop ends it is there turn gee wouldn't it be nice to have a fighter or a barbarian around to help take down some of these enemies.

Good encounters are designed to challenge the whole party not just one person of the party.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of people act like a wizard can do everything on his own but he can't if you throw sheer numbers at him made up of monks , rogues and enemy spellcasters he is going to be hard pressed to live through that. I know someone is going to say he is going to cast time stop yeah if he gets it off first and even if he does that does not mean he is going to be able to kill everyone standing then after the time stop ends it is there turn gee wouldn't it be nice to have a fighter or a barbarian around to help take down some of these enemies.

Good encounters are designed to challenge the whole party not just one person of the party.

But, your two statements kinda run smack into each other. Good encounters need to challenge the whole party, but the only way to challenge the wizard is to use nothing but monks and rogues? That's the mechanics dictating way too much of adventure design for my taste. I shouldn't have to do anything extreme to challenge any character. After all, challenging the non-magical characters is pretty easy - you can do it a million different ways. But challenging the casters requires me to tailor encounters to specifically counter the caster?

I'd rather not have to do that.

Honestly, I really believe that the fix to casters is found in later 3e supplements. Either go with sorcerers and skip the standard wizard entirely, or Shadow Casters, which allows you to be either broad or deep, but not both. You can specialize, or you can do a bunch of relatively minor effects.

The problem with the caster is two-fold. One, as you pointed out, the sheer number of options available. But, and this is just as important, the fact that in 24 hours, I can entirely re-write my character to tailor it to whatever challenge we're facing.

I think everyone wants groups to work as teams. In order to do that, you have to draw some fairly strong borders around niche protection, disallow some flexibility, and REWARD teamwork.

 

[Elf Witch]

But, your two statements kinda run smack into each other. Good encounters need to challenge the whole party, but the only way to challenge the wizard is to use nothing but monks and rogues? That's the mechanics dictating way too much of adventure design for my taste. I shouldn't have to do anything extreme to challenge any character. After all, challenging the non-magical characters is pretty easy - you can do it a million different ways. But challenging the casters requires me to tailor encounters to specifically counter the caster?

I'd rather not have to do that.

Honestly, I really believe that the fix to casters is found in later 3e supplements. Either go with sorcerers and skip the standard wizard entirely, or Shadow Casters, which allows you to be either broad or deep, but not both. You can specialize, or you can do a bunch of relatively minor effects.

The problem with the caster is two-fold. One, as you pointed out, the sheer number of options available. But, and this is just as important, the fact that in 24 hours, I can entirely re-write my character to tailor it to whatever challenge we're facing.

I think everyone wants groups to work as teams. In order to do that, you have to draw some fairly strong borders around niche protection, disallow some flexibility, and REWARD teamwork.

No it is not what I am saying I am saying it is one example of how to challenge a party with a wizard. Also a DM needs to tailor his encounters to his party people keep acting like omg I have a wizard in the party I need to design an encounter to take this is consideration. You need to do that no matter what the mix is.

A group of all mundanes are going to have trouble dealing with certain encounters a group with no clerics may find it next to impossible to deal with a huge number of undead.

A group made up of newbies will need a different challenge then one made up of tactically minded game veterans.

This is a major part of your job as DM and if you don't want to do it then why are you DMing in the first place even if you run modules you may still have to tweak it to make it work with your party because no matter how perfectly balanced the rules are they can't write rules that fit every combo of group and play level.

That is one way to fix it not one that I will use. But if that is the play style that would best suit you and your players then use it but why can't there also be support for my play style which does not need this and does not want it.

I think that DnD can be built to support more than one play style with options and advice on how to accomplish it.

I have been playing forever it seems and for the most part we work well as a team we never need rules to make that happen a lot of us like the ability of the wizard to be able to be versatile with his spells and it allows the team to over come different challenges.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, Elf Witch, I don't think I was quite clear in what I meant.

Sure, you have to tailor your game to the group. Of course. But, my point is, the degree of tailoring changes significantly when dealing with casters or non-casters.

If I want to challenge a group that has no casters in it, I can easily do so with any number of environmental, combat, non-combat, exploration, or whatever scenarios. After all, the PC's only have a very limited range of capablities to deal with whatever they are facing.

For example, you example of lots of undead doesn't really matter to the non-caster party. They deal with masses of undead the same way they deal with any mass of baddies. Unless, of course, the undead are all flying and incorporeal, but, then, cleric or no cleric, they're likely boned either way.

To a mundane party, how does a mass of zombies differ from a mass of orcs or anything else?

The problem is, with casters, several scenarios that would be normally challenging become trivial. Crossing the mountains is an interesting scenario with a mundane party, but, takes a day or two with teleport. As an example, in the Savage Tide Adventure Path, the group takes about six months to travel from their home base to the Isle of Dread. It's a major undertaking with all sorts of fun stuff on the way.

Three levels later, it's two teleport spells to get home.

This is where the problem of dependence becomes dominance. What's the point of having our tricked out ship, spending all those ranks on sailing the ship, etc, when the wizard makes our ship obsolete?

Now, you can continue to contrive scenarios where the group needs the ship (which is what the STAP does), but, again, we're running into a situation where it's not tailoring the game to the group, but tailoring the game to one or two characters within the group.

In order to truly challenge the casters, you have to narrow down so much on what you can do as a DM. Every adventure has to be written to specifically counter the capabilities of the casters or the casters run amok.

I don't want the wizard to "allow the team" to do anything. I want the wizard to help and be helped by the team.