Irony on fighters vs. spellcasters

[GreyLord]

The old thread on Fighters vs. spellcasters has some irony to it.

One thing in history was that the Fighter USED to be seen as overpowered, as well as somewhat also the Ranger as far as Multiclassing went. Many builds that people did required a Dip in Fighter or a dip in Ranger. It was almost like a plague with how many called for it. Unless one went Pure Spellcaster many saw them as broken for multiclassing.

So it's ironic how times change. People vote more for a straight spellcaster, or comment on the power of spellcasters now for the dip and rate Fighters as something not to touch. I just find it irony on how times change...or maybe it's more those who are doing the CharOps and arguing the builds (it many times doesn't seem to be the most effective ones...but the loudest ones getting their points).

Perhaps it was just how CharOps used to be, where we are discussing straight builds overall (which I truly like the differences of Fighters starting strong at first, then Spellcasters taking the power reins later, at least how I see it and I think many others see Spellcasters so strong as to be unbalanced), whilst they were discussing massive multiclassing.

I don't really like massive multiclassing (that entire, I'm a good guy monster that is a half Githyanki/Orc Werewolf Vampire Cleric/Barbarian/Hulking Brute/Divine Morgant/Superior Bulldozer type builds) in the way many did it, and if I DM restrict it from having those builds available.

BUT...I know there are some that do this, and enjoy it (not my cup of tea, actually, now days I don't know anyone who actually plays characters like that who haven't been banned from the groups I play with...and that's me as a player, much less as a DM...so maybe they did all vanish in actual play...naw, they still show up at CONS). I have to admit I haven't seen tons of the CharOps discussions that I used to, but those I do see don't seem to go with the same slant they used to. Even after the 3.5 Nerf it seemed people still thought a dip in Fighter was a good choice (though not necessarily as much with the Ranger anymore).

If I recall many of the nerfs to the Warriors came due to this CharOp approach...and I think some of it carried over to Pathfinder as well in their nerfs. Spellcasters were actually seen as suboptimal for builds...

Does anyone see the irony in that in relation to the current discussion of Spellcasters vs. Fighters?

Or maybe I'm just remembering wrong...I am getting up there in years these days.

 

[Greenfield]

I think that part of it has been the constant stream of new spells coming from WOTC, over the years. And while "new" 3.5 stuff is pretty much done with, the field is pretty well flooded at this point.

Every setting book had spells, every specialty book had spells, every new Prestige class had spells. They just kept coming, and most spell casters could take advantage of the added range and power almost as soon as the ink hit the paper.

On the counterbalance, while they can add new feats and PRCs for fighter types, any given character is limited in what they can take. They only have so many feats to choose from in their career, while a Wiz, Cleric, or Druid can gain access to new spells just about as soon as the books become available. Heck, even Rangers and Paladins can grab new spells as soon as they're approved, though for them it's like taking an hors d'ovres plate to a banquet. It's only Bards, Sorcerers and the like who have fixed "spells known" lists that can't take advantage of the bounty.

And, of course, the actual fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. They're stuck at "Swing sword".

 

[xigbar]

Well, even just with Core, Wizards have much more versatility. I think it's more that previous editions had melee classes as being more powerful. I head people talking about the Paladin of older editions being powerful, which was the cause of it's nerfing in 3.5, for example.

 

[Empirate]

I don't see a difference between having only one class, or a lot of classes mixed up in whatever way. The character isn't "a Human Fighter 12", nor is he "a Warforged Fighter (dungeoncrasher variant) 1-6/Warhulk 1-2/Warblade 1/Psychic Warrior 1-2/Warblade 2".

The character is "Bobby One-Eye, the grizzled veteran of Bloody Hill, a sympathetic listener and sweet-talker unless his blood is up" or "EZ612, last of his production line, a paranoid schizophrenic Warforged who is searching for his creator so he can take the constant pain and hallucinations away".
Both are warriors, both are characters, and what classes it says they have on their character sheet doesn't touch this at all. Except one is probably more competent than the other.

Lots of people like competent characters - and it can also be part of what makes the character interesting, after all. Maybe EZ612 has a certain reputation after killing the two Gorgons who were wrecking the Yndermour Lightning Rail Station, and now people come hounding him to ask for his help all the time, and he's just not able to deal with all that responsibility, and anyway those requests for help might be a trap!

 

[NEXxREX]

iv only been playing for about 8 months now and i love it, went to gencon in indianapoilis and iv been playing 3.5 which i love so much more then 4.0. but someone in my group said something when i made my first character "pick one thing you want to be good at and stick to it, because the more things you do then more mediocre you are at them"

my first character was a messup cleric/favored soul and i screwd him up so bad i coulnt believe it.

but by the time i made my second character i had a ranger 2/fighter 8 and he kicked ass with a bow i maxed out a few skills and what he did (HE DID) rarely ever missed a roll and what the party needed done i got done

but like empirate said (or this is what i got from his post) its not exactly your classes that makes a character its how you play them and the quirks you give them etc.

but the other side to that coin is which classes are picked, cause if you spend your whole time in the game swinging a weapon and all of a sudden you want to use spells where did that class come from??? i like to play a character on what my next class is gonna be so when i level up that class and the personality that goes with it is present in my character


and greylord i think that fighters are more of a beginner class to play cause anyone can swing a sword but casting a spell makes ya think a little, plus people like being the "Hero" type running in killing everything and being the "Leader", when you first start spell casting can be quite confusing and taking a PrC can be annoying due to that fact that you want to continue your spellcating progression and maybe have some class abilities that complement their casting schools/style.....but with a fighter as long as they continue their BaB then their good.


but my third character (when i can bring him in) is gonna be a dread necro and playing in a good party i think is gonna be quite fun. but after reading up and learning about spellcasting i think ill have a better handle on it then just going into it, cause anyone can swing a sword but casting a spell makes ya think a little

 

[Arrowhawk]

I think that part of it has been the constant stream of new spells coming from WOTC, over the years. And while "new" 3.5 stuff is pretty much done with, the field is pretty well flooded at this point.

Every setting book had spells, every specialty book had spells, every new Prestige class had spells. They just kept coming, and most spell casters could take advantage of the added range and power almost as soon as the ink hit the paper.

On the counterbalance, while they can add new feats and PRCs for fighter types, any given character is limited in what they can take. They only have so many feats to choose from in their career, while a Wiz, Cleric, or Druid can gain access to new spells just about as soon as the books become available. Heck, even Rangers and Paladins can grab new spells as soon as they're approved, though for them it's like taking an hors d'ovres plate to a banquet. It's only Bards, Sorcerers and the like who have fixed "spells known" lists that can't take advantage of the bounty.

And, of course, the actual fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. They're stuck at "Swing sword".

I think this is a lot of it...but I also think it's quite a bit more complex/nuanced.

First, Monte Cook has an article where he talks about what their intent in 3e was with regards to spell casters. Monte identifies the problem was that mages did very little early on and then became really powerful later. Monte's goal was to make spell casters more even in their power progression and certainly more useful earlier on. The gist of the article is that Monte pats himself on the back for opening up spell casters in 3e. He never acknowledges that their is a problem at higher level.

Second, and this is a more complex perspective, we as people and DM's don't really understand what a world with spell casting would be like. D&D...all additions...are basically our historical settings with "magic" thrown on top. Our world..our reality, doesn't have magic. We have no real way to know what the world would really be like with magic. We don't know how it would permeate everyday lives. The authors of source books attempt to address this to some extent, but they can only imagine so much.

To give you an analogy, consider electricity. Around 1870, the first light bulb was invented. Now look at our society. In less than 150 years, electicity has transformed out society in ways Benjamin Franklin would never have imagined. You would not be reading this very passage I am writing without harnessing the power of electricity. Electricity is limited by physics....imagine what we would be doing if we had "magic" at our disposal? So you see the fundamental problem is that the world of D&D as imagined by us as players and authors of source material is undoubtedly incongruous with what society would really be like if "magic" really existed.

To put a finer point on it, D&D only considers one side of magic, that from the point of view of the adventurer. This view is myopic and leaves DM's with very little tools that would naturally have evolved to contend with spell casting individuals. Consider the 1st level Wizard spell Mage Armor or Shield. It would be so easy for Fighters to obtain simple armor enchanted with those spells if every 1st level Wizard could cast them. Same with True Strike and Enlarge person. Laborers around town would constantly be using Enlarge person to lift heavy objects.

Another point, if Deities really existed, and they got their power from the numbers of worshipers...they would be playing a much much much bigger role in controlling the proliferation and power attainable by spell casters who might contend with them. Go read the Odyssey. There are number of times when Greek Gods actually take an active part in the story. Read the Illiad, the gods are specifically affecting the outcomes of battles. In short, the world would be much different than D&D source books paint it out. Remember, the "magic" that exists in D&D is a fabrication. It doesn't represent any real world example of how "magic" would really work, because there is no such thing as magic.

So "magic" is really just a game mechanic that has to serve two masters: 1) the notion of what "magic" is in a fantasy game; and 2) a mechanic that is supposed to facilitate spell casting classes. Should we really be surprised "magic" doesn't lead to fair or equitable outcomes at all stages of the game?

Finally, and I've said this before and it is underscored by NEXxREX, DM's generally don't have as much experience with high magic as they do with combat. I'll wager that most campaigns that start out at level 1, don't make it past level 10. So while many DM's experience and contend with lots of fighting, they deal with a very small level of inventive and complex magic use. As such, I would imagine DM's are unprepared for the magical consequences of a campaign that starts at level 10.

But yeah, if you stop and think about it, it's pretty easy for authors to introduce any number of new spells that probably have little testing to determine their impact on the game.

 

[kitcik]

Our world..our reality, doesn't have magic. We have no real way to know what the world would really be like with magic. We don't know how it would permeate everyday lives.

Remember, the "magic" that exists in D&D is a fabrication[/B]. It doesn't represent any real world example of how "magic" would really work, because there is no such thing as magic.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Should we really be surprised "magic" doesn't lead to fair or equitable outcomes at all stages of the game?

If you think D&D was created by magic, DO NOT READ.

[sblock]In my world, games are created without the use of magic and their mechanics are established at the discretion of humans, and they are not subject to the whimsical, uncontrollable and unpredictable tenets of magic. Therefore, the ability to balance classes, among other things, is subject solely to the creativity and reason of the game designers.[/sblock]

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

When am I going to be allowed to grant [MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION] some XP again?

 

[Empirate]

When am I going to be allowed to grant @kitcik some XP again?

I know, brother. Me too.

 

[LostSoul]

Second, and this is a more complex perspective, we as people and DM's don't really understand what a world with spell casting would be like. D&D...all additions...are basically our historical settings with "magic" thrown on top. Our world..our reality, doesn't have magic. We have no real way to know what the world would really be like with magic. We don't know how it would permeate everyday lives. The authors of source books attempt to address this to some extent, but they can only imagine so much.

I don't know - I think that AD&D 1E was a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Look at the wilderness encounter charts. Or read this: http://hillcantons.blogspot.ca/2012/08/ad-apocalypse-and-hereafter.html