Giving fighters something to do.

[Plane Sailing]

I think that spellcasters get enough non-combat powers that in combat they shouldn't be able to outpace the warriors.

What I'm seeing in my current campaign at present (11th level) is that the wizards are not even able to keep up with the warriors in combat, who can regularly do 50+ points of damage on a full attack. The wizard is lucky to get as much as 30-40 points damage against an enemy with his spells.

 

[RangerWickett]

I don't mind lots of damage coming from the spellcaster. I mind instant-kill effects. The numbers I was tossing out were not playtested or anything. They were non-min-maxed, flat damage rates.

Sure, an 11th level fighter with 26 Str, a +3 weapon, and weapon specialization, can close to melee range, power attack for 11, and make a single attack for 2d6+39 damage with an attack bonus of like +12. A wizard who goes into melee combat ought to do just as much, if not more. But from long range, compare it more to bows. An archer might miss his attack roll, and a creature might succeed its save against a spell.

 

[Azzy42xy]

I have often had the misfortune of having my beautifully crafted villian of Terror taken down in less then two rounds. To combat such irritations I not only banned the insta kill spells. I also prevented my players from choosing arcane spellcasters. This might seems harsh but the Divine spellcaster has more assisting than damage orientated. Thus it balances out situations nicely!

 

[MerricB]

There is a reason that BBEG keep pet wizards around, you know...

It is to counterspell those Instant Kill spells.

I'm quite sure that most people are stuck in the "no-magic" frame of mind when designing challenges. D&D has a strong magic component and it needs to be kept in mind.

(Seriously, it's just like getting a Critical or Sneak Attack against the BBEG which takes him down.)

The other consideration is on what the party has to fight before reaching the BBEG. If they haven't had to lose most of their top spells to get to the BBEG, then what does the BBEG expect? If a group of PCs can just walk into the final lair, fresh and undamaged...

Cheers!

 

[Breakstone]

What if wizards and other spellcasters had to spend time focusing before they could unleash their most powerful instakill spells? This would mean that there will be at least a few rounds of melee back and forth before the wizard could unleash phantasmal killer or baleful polymorph.

I was thinking basically the same thing.

You were talking about building up the combat until a final climax (boy howdy, that doesn't sound like innuendo). Perhaps Spellcasters have to cast lower-level spells in order to build up enough magical energies for higher level ones?

For example... a 9th Level Spell might require Three 3rd Level Spells before it can be cast, or a 4th level Spell, Two 2nd level Spells, and a 1st Level Spell...

Or, you know, something like that. You could then counter-act that disadvantage with granting them bonus lower-level spells or something.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't mind lots of damage coming from the spellcaster. I mind instant-kill effects. The numbers I was tossing out were not playtested or anything. They were non-min-maxed, flat damage rates.

Sure, an 11th level fighter with 26 Str, a +3 weapon, and weapon specialization, can close to melee range, power attack for 11, and make a single attack for 2d6+39 damage with an attack bonus of like +12.

I think what you're missing is that that 11th level fighter isn't really min-maxed. An ordinary 11th level fighter will have something like a 21 strength and a +1 wounding or +2 flaming or +1 holy weapon, will probably close to melee range, power attack for 11, and do 2d6+32+(1 con or 2d6 holy or 1d6 fire) at a charging attack bonus of +10.

Sure, it's possible to create a min-maxed fighter who's better than the normal fighter. However, it's also very easy (and common) to create a concept fighter who couldn't handle two rounds in the ring with a basic iconic fighter and can't fill the same role. If you look at that kind of fighter for long enough, even an iconic fighter will start to look min-maxed but that's not the case.

A wizard who goes into melee combat ought to do just as much, if not more. But from long range, compare it more to bows. An archer might miss his attack roll, and a creature might succeed its save against a spell.

If you think that archery is generally less effective than melee, I wonder about the archers you've seen.

By 11th level, a pretty standard human archer fighter who started with a 15 dex and a 14 strength will probably have attacks at: +17/+17/+12/+7 for 1d8+6+2d6 at long range (and will have a range increment that beats the max range of all but the longest range spells) with just a +2 strength item (ioun stone?), +4 dex item, and a +3 equivalent bow (+1 holy, +1 flaming shock, etc). Given non-core feats like Improved Rapid Shot, a race with a dex bonus, better than average stats, or buffing from the party (bardsong, Flame Arrow, Greater Magic Weapon, Prayer, etc), such a character will easily average 25 points of damage per hit. (that, of course, assumes +2 bardsong, +3.5 from flame arrow, +2 Greater Magic Weapon, and Prayer). Without that, he still averages 17.5 damage/hit. (And most of his attacks will hit.) Again, that's not a min-maxed archer. That's a normal iconic archer. It's possible to do much worse. But it's also possible to do much better.

And 11th level is not really a favorable comparison point for fighters (since it's right before Greater Weapon Specialization).

 

[coyote6]

RW, I think maybe you need an entirely different magic system. Have you looked at, say, Arcana Unearthed's magic system & spells?

(Though I'm not sure that'll be to your taste; I suspect what you might want is a game that isn't D&D [at least, not quite].)

 

[Victim]

I don't mind lots of damage coming from the spellcaster. I mind instant-kill effects. The numbers I was tossing out were not playtested or anything. They were non-min-maxed, flat damage rates.

Sure, an 11th level fighter with 26 Str, a +3 weapon, and weapon specialization, can close to melee range, power attack for 11, and make a single attack for 2d6+39 damage with an attack bonus of like +12. A wizard who goes into melee combat ought to do just as much, if not more. But from long range, compare it more to bows. An archer might miss his attack roll, and a creature might succeed its save against a spell.

Yeah, ranged attackers really suck. A ranged character doesn't need to move as often, so he takes more full attacks. He gets Rapid Shot for more attacks on a full attack action. If he wants to move to keep his distance, Manyshot gives some of the benefit of multiple attacks. While he doesn't get full STR bonus, he can probably take miscellaneous bonuses make up most of the difference, especially with his greater number of attacks. For example, Bracers of Archery don't have a melee equivalent. Also, they get like 5 or 10 arrows of different types cheaply, so they always have something against DR. The biggest downside of archery is having your bow sundered. In my experience, archers haven't been weak. "Attack roll?" Singular? Jeez.

An instant kill effect can be thought of as dealing lots and lots of damage on a failed save. Finding ways to deal lots of damage conventionally deals lots of damage with no save. In many cases, a wizard's HP and defenses are such that average damage from a full attack is death with no save. Granted, the caster probably has options for avoiding the full attack, but there are options for avoiding save or die attacks (have super saves, death ward, spell turning, reroll powers, etc).

Every character has something to do in combat. Rogues aren't 2nd Ed thieves, able to deal maybe one nasty shot but then are essentially bystanders. They can drop 30+d6 in sneak attacks on a lucky round at high levels, use wands reliably, completely avoid many spells, deal ability damage, and still have the best skills. Even crappy bards are loaded with incapcitating spells. In other words, it's pretty boring to be able to see a far away place, go there, and then not be able to do anything else, especially when doing those two things might take 2 minutes, while the ensueing combat might take an hour or two. Animating the dead as warriors usually means that you just wasted 50 gp on the spell as a PC. Lighting up an idea with magic is only marginally better than doing so with a torch or sunrod.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, I would suggest that the way to give your combats rising action doesn't require any rules changes: simply don't put all your bad guys on the table (metaphorically speaking if you don't use minis) on round 1. If the PCs can see all of their enemies, they will focus their resources towards the most efficient means of eliminating them.

On the other hand, if the PCs have to fight their way through the guards at the gate of the villain's throne room, then reinforcements pour in as the villain's soldiers tumble out of their barracks and finally, the PCs fight their way into the throne room to find the villain fully buffed and ready to go (on round 4 or 5 of the same combat), there is some rising action and the appearance of the villain is the climax. If it's resolved through ludicrous luck like getting a fighter to fail both saves against Phantasmal Killer or by quickly applying the beat stick, that works as the wizard shepherded his powerful magics saving his energy for the final blow. If, as is more likely, it is resolved in two or three rounds as the PCs hit the bad guys with Greater Dispellings and cast silence on the fighter who moves up to engage him and the bad guy moves back, only to, finally, be unable to escape the net cast for him, then those three climactic rounds serve as the keystone for an exciting encounter.

The possibility of an expanding battle would have a salient effect upon the tendency to "use the biggest guns first." If a battle could expand, then PCs will be more reluctant to expend their resources on the biggest visible target and will make more of an attempt to measure their expenditure of resources to the threat presented. However, if all of the pieces are laid on the board from the outset, then PCs can plan their strategies with more freedom.

(That said, every battle doesn't have to be like that. Like death spells, Reciprocal Gyre, and Dispel Magic, that it is even possible makes a difference whether or not it is present in any given case. My fighter/wizard, for instance, keeps a dispel magic or greater dispelling in his ring of counterspells, not because it shows up every module, but because it has devastating potential if it does show up. A wizard invading the temple of elemental evil is likely to hold back from fireballing the bad guys if it doesn't look necessary, because reinforcements could show up at any time, not because he knows they necessarily will.)

 

[Cedric]

If you follow D&D from 1st edition to 3.5...then no single edition of the game has gone by without reducing the effectiveness of Arcane Spellcasting. You can argue that if you want, but I would really love to see your logic.

At what point is enough, just plain of enough?

Now in 3.5 there are almost no instant kill spells that do not allow a saving throw or some other easy alternative to get out of the spell. Even Power Word Kill doesn't function if you have more than 101 hps currently, which in 3.5 a high level pure caster could have. There are ample means to improve your saving throws or even gain immunity or near immunity to specific attacks.

I see many people in this thread arguing that magic is too strong still..while on the other hand, I argue that it's mostly had it's teeth pulled and become a watered down shadow of it's former self.

There will be no more Mordenkainen's, Drawmij's or the like...they simply aren't impressive any longer.

Cedric