monboesen said:
If you follow D&D logic any melee fighter should be enlarged in almost any fight from level 1+ and polymorphed into a troll/stone giant/other large high str monster from level 7+. Its just that much af an advantage. .
That may not be available in all situations; in my experience it is not really necessary unless there is a specific situation that calls for it. A giant is another large monster like any other.
monboesen said:
At level 16 the barbarian should expect a ton of buffs from his party (among those the aforementioned polymorph) in order to do hos job (keeping the giants away from softer targets).
Not all the time – depends on the situation. The problem here seems to be the party looks to the Barbarian as the only melee character – he is all alone down there – not a good situation for anybody. Buffs are great and should be expected (especially form clerics!) but time and the situation may not allow this.
monboesen said:
That said giants are never fun for melee fighters. A giant hits well, does a ton of damage and have many hp. The best tactic is to let casters target their low will save with spells that will stun/daze/confuse/hold the giant and then let the meleers power attack the helpless giants to death.
True.
Aeric said:
I agree with everything that has been said here so far.
My own two cents:
I play a fighter/paladin in a party of mostly casters (two cleric/wizards, a psion, an artificer, and a bard), and up until our last session, I was feeling a bit like the cleanup crew. My Dex was low, my movement rate was low, so I went last and took forever to reach the enemy. Even when I went first, the other PCs asked me to hold my action so they could blast the enemy with fireballs and scorching rays to soften them up. Usually, by the time I actually reach the enemy, they only had a couple of hit points left; a real waste for a powerhouse melee combatant.
This last session, however, something was introduced which had not been used in the campaign before - spell resistance. We were facing a single bone devil whose SR was higher than normal due to the area we were fighting in. Suddenly, all thoughts turned to buffing the fighter/paladin as he charged in.
And it looks like your DM FINALLY gave out some proper encounters – if you continually face enemies without SR or solid saves then the casters will always have their way with them. SR is one of the balances that forces Casters to do more than sit back and lounge and cast fireballs about. And SR at higher levels should be the norm for the more powerful opponents. Many highly magical creatures tend to have the SR’s but fewer HP’s.
Aeric said:
So spell resistance, counterspells, silence, antimagic zones, archers holding their actions to disrupt spellcasting, all of these things can make a difference in combat.
And should be used; on BOTH sides. Your enemies don’t want to have lightening bolts smashing into their bodies anymore than you do – the best offense for a caster (IMO) is to render your opponent useless on the battlefield; then you can do what you will. Too many players depend on just dishing out damage round in and round out and not thinking tactically.
Saeviomagy said:
It sounds like the barbarian is a one-trick pony. He can only do one thing (hit stuff with his axe). It also sounds like he's not even good at doing that (his tactics are awful, and given what you said about outsiders, he doesn't have a range of axes for different situations).
I'd suggest allowing him a rebuild so he can get some flexibility in.
But that is really what a Barbarian is in regards to combat – a damage machine -end of story (per se’). A fighter is the versatile tactically oriented melee combatant. That does not mean you can’t build a tactically sound Barbarian but he will still always be a damage machine as he does not have the class features to customize the way a fighter does.
Kunimatyu said:
Um, why? At the level where an Animated Shield is affordable(not the minimum level it can be acquired, because any competant melee type will invest in weapons first) the ability to 2-handed power attack while wielding a shield is *completely insignificant* next to the crazy spells your cleric, wizard, and druid will be tossing around. In fact, animated shields are almost a necessary item to keep the power-attacking fighters on the same power level as the casters once you get into the higher levels.
I agree with SBMC here – for example: it is not in the hands of a fighter where it is unbalanced but in the hands of say a caster; that can now wield a weapon in one hand, get the benefits of a shield AND cast!!! At the very least this thing should be far more expensive.
Victim said:
Animated Shields are broken in that they make a conventional sword and board style obsolete. Why use a longsword and shield when you can use a Greatsword for more base damage, STR damage, and Power Attack damage AND have the handy shield bonus to AC as well? Animated isn't that much extra.
Read above – these things are way out of whack for some classes.
Victim said:
On the other hand, in terms of over all effectiveness, Animated shields aren't a major concern. Adding some good shield use feats would keep sword and board characters more valuable since two hander or two weapon characters couldn't poach all the benefits of their style with a fairly cheap item.
That is if you wish to specialize in shield use (feats from CW and HOB). If not then you are still at a disadvantage.
Victim said:
Our group is up to 15th level, and our melee characters tear stuff up, even with fewer than "normal" encounters per day. We get alot of buffs, especially since the buff spells seem to do more damage overall than most damaging spells. Mobility (not the feat) is important; most fighter types do far less damage at range than in melee, so they need to get close quickly. Tumble is good; you avoid damage closing and, perhaps more importantly, get more leeway in picking targets since you can bypass enemy defenders.
All very well said!
Dark Jezter said:
Strange. We've never had problems with melee classes being useless at high levels in any of the 3e campaigns I've participated in. I've observed that at high levels, the fighters and barbarians end up dealing the most damage over the course of a fight to powerful enemies, while wizards and sorcerers tend to be the best at quickly taking out groups of weaker enemies. This seems to be due to the fact that at high levels, Spell Resistance (which a lot of high-level creatures have) and saving throws will limit the power of casters. But high level melee characters tend to have such high BABs that few enemies have ACs high enough to avoid their hits.
In 2e, though, it was completely true that mages owned everybody else at high levels.
Very well said – A voice of reason!
Raloc said:
I find things that really make fighters feel useless are mind altering spells. In the campaign in which I play a fighter, he has been the target of every possible Will-save-or-be-screwed spell so far in the campaign…
That is why there is the Iron Will feat, and the choices one makes when choosing attribute scores. You would have to call a wizard and sorcerer
useless against fortitude saves and reflex saves as well. Choose your poison and pleasure.
A higher Wisdom score never hurt anyone (and think about some of the important combat skills that are associated with it). Of course there is the trade off; but that is the deal. Having the casters keep spells to counter this (and/or buff spells) could solve the problem to a great extent. At higher levels, in my experience, those magical monsters tend towards mind control against the most powerful enemies they see.
